I'm out

[BOHNTR]

You know, I've read the pages of several P&Y / B&C record books over the years.......I can't remember a time I looked at the hunter's name in the book when I did........I was merely admiring the respective measurements and areas where these impressive creatures were taken. I would venture to say most people do the same.......so how can it be about ego if I don't even know who arrowed it? Do some hunters enter animals for ego......sure they do. But I don't feel it's the norm. JMO

[JACK]

When do you quit judging?...if it wasn't use of RADIOS then would probably be something else...seems like when a great buck or bull is taken there is some kind of conspiracy theory...its ridiculous! Bottom line this guys kills great animals year in and year out...Why? because he CAN!

[Snapshot]

First and foremost, Randy Ulmer is an exceptional archer and bowhunter. The whole two way radio deal is something that has been escalated by some of the guides and outfitters. Look at some of these outfitters that have 20 guys with two way radios blanketing the countryside in search of record book animals, as soon as one is found they home in on it like an elite army unit with a high tech communication center and Bam!, the lucky hunter gets his trophy.

This method of hunting, boys and girls, is not representative to the true spirit of hunting and being an outdoorsman. Some of these high dollar clients couldn't find there way around a Walmart parking lot let alone find their own "book" animal. But thats what guides and outfitters are paid to do.

As far as Ulmer is concerned, is it about ego? Who Knows. I have heard he is an exceptionally nice person. If I shot a record book animal would I enter it into the books? heck yes! But I don't hunt to get my name in the books. We each hunt for our own reasons and to each his own. Some guys get so caught up in "antler score" that they have to get something bigger and better each year in order to satisfy themselves, and that is fine as long as they don't forget to see the tree's through the forest, and not turn down the wrong path like Kirt Darner or some of the other obsessive knuckleheads that have ruined there fame by too much ego.

 

[bobbyo]

I think this has been a great discussion and probably the most interesting thing all summer. Redbeard you did a great job presenting your argument and I think it is very healthy for us as a hunting community to have a friendly debate on fair chase and ethics. Just because we all are not going to agree does not mean the Anti's are going to get the upper hand. Ethics is the way we police ourselves.

 

I will admit that I use radio's and I must say they have probably cost me more trophy's then I could count on both hands and feet. Let me explain i hunt with my life long friend and as what happens in these situations we often end up like a bickering married couple on the radio. Our arguments probably break many FCC rules. Not only am I unethical by using a radio I am also committing a federal offense. Anyway this stupid radio and my stupid friend have caused blown stalks in every conceivable way from Earbud being pulled out by brush at critical distances to just making me rush on the stalk because I know I have an audience. Now when i draw the short straw and get to go on the stalk there seems to be a radio malfunction a couple hundred yards from my glassing knob .

 

I must say that a radio probably saved me from breaking major ethics and game laws. On a rifle hunt. We glassed a nice buck a thousand yards away. I was able to get to 500 yards(probably not ethical either right Redbeard? We had this discussion a few years ago.) for a shot. I shot and by the time I got the scope back on the animal a deer was standing very close to where I shot along with a herd of pigs and coyotes running around. I probablly would of shot that deer thinking I missed. If my best friend was not screaming at the top of his lungs how I smoked the original deer on the radio. Now I am pretty sure that in Redbeards book I committed two hunting sins, long range shooting and radio, but i feel since I had a radio spotter i was able to absolve myself from any indiscretion. So am I a slob hunter, a sportsman or in some sad gray area?

 

Bob

[Snapshot]

Radios are a great tool for communicating with a hunting buddy or spotter so to speak, and can be very valuable in emergency situations. I just think the high profile hunts get out of hand with too much "electronic aid"

[4Falls]

I agree with bobbyo, this is the most entertaining post of the whole summer. Hey Mr. Redbeard Id really like to go hunting with you sometime.

[CouesWhitetail]

This is an interesting thread. Thanks for all who are presenting good arguments (and humor) on both sides. Personally, I use radios on some hunts and not on others. If I think I want to enter an animal in the book, then I don't use the radios. But I find them very useful while hunting. In fact I used them for awhile (rather unsuccessfully) before I even knew it was against fair chase rules. Before radios, it was all hand signals. I am sure you all have been out there trying to interpret hand signals and know how that can get very confusing and frustrating.....even after you spend a bunch of time agreeing on what each signal means before you go!

 

Amanda

 

 

 

[CouesWhitetail]

A Loin Cloth????? thats a bit much...

 

 

 

My favorite line in this thread so far!!!

[Snapshot]

Thats funny I admit I am a little "old school" at times, I think a loin cloth and a spear would take me back to my roots.

[Kaffer62]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe not!

[Gr8 White Jr]

Gr8,

 

I think the concept of "judging" people has been corrupted by liberal politics. The power of discriminating thought, the concept of right and wrong, and knowing the difference is what makes us humans different from other animals and each other. It is what leads us to do the "right" thing even when it is difficult to do. It is what leads to laws and morals. Liberals (or anybody) do not want to have to be made uncomfortable for their sometimes less than moral behavior by having to live up to some standard. So they say, "Who are you to judge me?" If it feels good do it, right? Christians often say that judgment is God's business but that doesn't mean you cannot make your own judgment based on your beliefs.

 

If you poach a deer with a rifle during archery season I will openly judge you as a poacher and somebody I would never hunt with. I hope you would do the same if I did it. Is there something wrong with that? I judge people who molest children as worthy of a bullet in the head. Maybe some other molester would admire them. I know these are very extreme examples but I use them to illustrate the point that judging somebody actions based on your own values is normal and nothing to be ashamed of. If the person is happy with their actions then they shouldn't be ashamed to admit their values either. I think may guys here have done just that. I don't expect you to hunt the way I do and I'm sure there are plenty of guys who think I'm a fool for not using radios and I'm OK with that.

 

Our country is going down the liberal toilet because part of the liberal philosophy is that nobody is right or wrong and nobody can judge somebody else's actions as right or wrong. That's BS and it leads to the inevitable decline in our societies values. I have news for you. In America we are supposed to have majority rule. If the majority of people vote for a certain referendum or politician then that's what we get and the people who disagree are stuck with it.

 

The same thing can be said of hunting values. If the majority of people believe that hunting with radios, bait, dogs, should be banned then it will.

The rules of fair chase are sort of like the Ten Commandments for hunting. We can't all live up to all the real Commandments over our lives but it gives us something to strive for and a reference for what is right and wrong. The game laws draw the line for the minimum acceptable behavior but fair chase is an ideal that we should strive for.

 

 

Wow! Maybe you forgot what you said in one of your earlier posts: "People often justify their actions by trying to cast all actions in the same light. Equating radios with binos for example." Comparing this to poaching or child molesting is very extreme and way off base. We are talking about judging a very well known and respected man for using a tactic that is very much with in the law and does not infringe on anybody elses rights. In one of your posts earlier on this topic you mention that the use of radios "allows the hunter to evade the deer's innate surrvival tools", how so? If that is your main concern then is the use of scentlock, no scent sprays, no scent laundry detergent and all other scent eliminating products considered to be unethical or "unfair chase" to your standards? By the way, what "fair chase" standards are you refering to? Something else you said earlier has me a little bit confused as well: " As far as the advantage of using radios...I have tried it and it is a huge advantage which is why it is not considered fair chase. Just think of this. If it didn't offer a significant advantage why would people use them?" Shortly after this you stated: "Some guys think using hounds is cheating or not fair chase. I'd argue otherwise." You don't think using hounds to tree a lion or a bear is a huge advantage? If it wasn't then why would people use them? Some thing else you said earlier was "Congrats (seriously) on another great buck Randy but when are you going to take the next step and try to do it fair chase? How many do you need to kill before you need another challenge? So why are'nt you going after all the guys who use hounds to take record book lions and bears. Why aren't you asking them when they are going to "take the next step" and try to do it without hounds? How come your not asking them how many bears or lions do they need to kill before they need another challenge? Using hounds or not, killing a lion or bear is a huge challenge just the same as taking a record book mule deer, radios or not, is a huge challenge. What's next? Camoflauge also "allows the hunter to evade the deer's innate survival tools"? We could go all day on this!

 

-Tracy

[jnobleinaz]

My thoughts on the books comment is that you have a choice to enter into or not. But if you do decide to enter into the "books" you should not use radios on that animal. No one says you have to enter animals into the book, but if it was taken fair chase I think it should be. they drive our industry. There are thousands of animals that have never been entered though. And they were taken fair chase. I like looking at records and seeing where they come from. It is a part of hunting. And also drives our sport with money that all of us spend trying to get a new bow or rifle etc to help in the field. There is no law saying hunters cant use radios. And I hope there never is, because it would be one more tool that would be taken away from us. This is almost two separate topics. Record books and radios. If someone has taken an animal with the use of a radio and entered it into the books they are a dirtbag, and are not respecting that clubs rules and guidelines. If they shoot an animal with the use of a radio, I feel that is legal and nothing wrong with it. I would never want any of us to sway in a direction that would take another tool away from us. We have a very fortunate sport we can enjoy and not one of us wants to lose that. I think of it as a fragile cup that can be grabbed from us any moment. With that thought we need to remember civilizations from the past that were thought to be indestructible fell, some of them in a matter of days. We all need to stick together and try to stay away from these types of conversations over message boards. You never know who is listening, we don't want to feed the enemy with any fuel. Good luck to everyone and I hope we all shoot a booner!

[Guest 300ultramag.]

I want to buy mule so me can get back farther than u so me shoot big antler deer. Me winner!

 

Dont know Mr Ulmer or redbeard,

 

I know Mr ulmer has probably killed bigger bucks than redbeard. but everyone has a certain level of happiness and when u kill a huge buck its exciting for a while... than u slip back down to your normal happiness level.... With that being said do i think Mr. Ulmer is happier in his life because he kills big bucks. Or is Redbeard happier in his life by doing It "fair chase"

 

I think both gentlemen are pursuing something or a certain feelings and its hard not to try to top yourself, its just Mr. Ulmer has killed decent animals and needs to do so to maintain his happiness levels or duplicate those "peak" feelings of accomplishment.

 

You need to learn to just be.. and then YOU will feel happiness and fulfillness. Im gonna shoot a spike with eyeguards and guess what..... Its gonna be flippin awesome ! Will it go on my wall. NO. My plate YES. But if any of u know me ill shoot anything.. I like big bucks as well but it doesnt consume me and MOUNTS are expensive and they take FOREVER! wink

 

 

Have a muzzy moment!!

[TAM]

Redbeard, I think there is a fine line. Let me try to explain my position. I don't feel like I have to judge people for doing things that I'm against. I'm now 35 years old and have set up my own standards in life. Sort of like a set of boundaries on how I choose to live. Just because someone chooses to do something that falls outside my personal boundaries doesn't mean that I'm judging that person, it simply means that I choose to do things a little differently.

 

For example. I don't smoke cigaretts. Never have, never will. That's just something I choose not to do. It has nothing to do with judging anyone else that chooses to smoke cigaretts. It's legal, it's there decision, and I respect there right to choose.

 

Your example about judging someone for being a child molester is apples to oranges. That is illegal and using radios is perfectly legal in Arizona. By the way there are some states that using radios is illegal, and therefore using radios in those states would be unethical.

 

Also, just because B&C has decided to come up with there own defination of "fair chase" doesn't mean that everyone will agree with it. Just like someone posted earlier that they don't think baiting for animals is ethical and B&C thinks it's ok. It's the same thing with politics. Just because I'm a republican doesn't mean I agree with 100% of there ideals.

 

We don't have to be judgmental of others to live by our own set of boundaries.

[bowhuntinmaniac]

Redbeard, what is the exact wording that makes animals taken using radios ineligible?

If I remember correctly, (and it has been about 10 years) it states that no electronic device can be used in aiding of taking of an animal.

If that is true, then electronic callers, feeders, rangefinders, any type of vehicle, ie; ultralights, trailcams, nightvision, etc. would fall into this category. Basically, if it takes batteries, the animal would not qualify.

Also, I was told a few years back, that the P&Y ruling stated that no electronic devices could be attached to the bow. So, any that were not attached were ok.

You stated that if people didnt talk about using radios during their hunt, they knew it was unethical. Look at all of the publicity that baiting has gotten on the this and other forums in the past couple of years and, guess what G&F is trying to make illegal now? Simply because we made them aware of how popular it is.

I feel if someone comes onto an open forum and, lays it all out for people to read, then they are cutting theirs and their fellow hunters throats.

Rip me a new one, I'm waiting........