How Does the Fair Chase Ethic Effect Hunters?

By Denny L. Vasquez

Ever since I was a kid, I have read hunting stories in magazines like Outdoor Life, Sports Afield and Peterson’s Hunting. These stories have woven tales of hunting exciting animals in far off places; at least they were exciting animals and far off places to my young and impressionable mind. For example, there was the tale of hunting man eating lions in the shadows of the deepest African bush and what about the one that told of slipping on the ice fields of the high northern mountains while trying to move into position for a shot at a snowy white mountain goat? All of these tales brought vivid scenes of much sought after excitement to my mind’s eye. But one thing that I always perceived as a common thread to each of these stories was the concept of fair chase hunting.

My edition of Webster’s Dictionary describes Hunting as, to chase or search for the purpose of catching or killing wild animals. But for those of us involved in this time-honored sport, this brief explanation doesn’t quite cover the vast range of ingredients necessary to create a true hunting experience.

The sights, sounds and smells are just a small part of the overall experience, as are the effects of heat and cold, which the environment has on our bodies as we take to the hunting fields year after year. It is our reaction to these “effects” that are the basis for the fond memories that our hunting experiences reward us with as we continue to grow in our hunting career. On a personal note, I think that it is the “sounds” that have had the most profound effect on me personally.

It is the experiences that are associated with sounds that bring back the most vivid memories of all. When we are in the remote locations of this earth, it is more often the ears that capture the emotion invoking sounds of the surrounding countryside while the sights that are encountered by our eyes are limited by the range of vision that is available to us. For example, I have heard many more shrill bugles of bull elk in the Colorado high country than the number of bulls that my eyes have actually seen. I have often heard the scampering of some small woodland creature in the dry leaves that litter the forest floor, but have been unable to locate the source of the disturbance with my eyes. And I cannot begin to count the number of times that I have heard the distant music of a coyote howling, well beyond range of my sight. It is these wild sounds that are such a bonus to any hunting experience, because they add the texture and flavoring needed to make such moments so special and memorable.

Unfortunately, as I have sat around the tables and campfires at hunting camps over the last thirty-five years, I have come to believe that many of my fellow hunters have lost sight of the real reasons that we hunt. They are no longer satisfied to simply enjoy the hunt for the experiences it has to offer us, for the camaraderie of our fellow hunters or for the bounty that we are allowed to harvest. Rather, it seems that they have been overtaken by the all-consuming desire to put an animal in the record books, no matter what the cost. It seems that the lines dividing the concepts of what constitutes fair chase hunting have dimmed somewhat over time.

Some camps had become so wrapped up in the pursuit of the “perfect” trophy specimen of the species that we were hunting, that they had forgotten how important it was to stop and experience the hunt itself. Other camps had become possessed with arguing over just how much technology should be employed in our pursuit of game animals. Still other camps spent too much time worrying whether one method of hunting was more appropriate then another and upon how we viewed the hunting techniques used in other parts of the world versus those with which we were familiar. And of course, the perception of fair chase hunting differed between those who had the means and ability to pursue game in the far flung remote regions of the globe and those who utilized “game farms or hunting preserves” in quest of their chosen game animals. I believe that in reality the truth is somewhere in between these various camps.

Over the last 10 or 15 years there has been an increase in the perceived significance of having your trophy entered into one of the record books that has been established to track the size of the game animals being harvested by hunters. This has resulted in a plethora of new record keeping and scoring systems that can be used when judging the potential trophy quality of the game animal harvested. A small sampling of those available is the Boone & Crocket, Pope & Young, Safari Club International, Trophy Game Records of the World, the Longhunter Society, the Records of Exotics, Buckmaster’s Full Credit Scoring System, the Rowland Ward System for African game and the Douglas system of New Zealand. Today’s hunter can shop these systems to find the one that his particular trophy will rank the highest in before submitting it for inclusion in that record book. But is this really what hunting is all about?

My father taught me that the “trophy potential” of any game animal was in the eyes of the hunter himself, not in those of some remote and impersonal scoring system. Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that, for those who want to compare such things, there needs to be a way to establish the criteria for judging the trophy quality of a game animal, and I am not here to support one method over another. However, I also believe that if we are to enjoy our hunting experiences, we only need to use our own personal criteria for judging the trophy potential of the game that we harvest. For example, the 6 inch, one shot, spike that my son harvested, as his first deer and while we were still hunting through a rocky creek bottom, is a bigger trophy to us then the 187 inch, by Boone & Crocket scoring, 16 point, 29 inch wide buck I took the next day. It is the experiences that we shared in preparing him for the hunt and in the actual hunt itself that are the trophy value of the spike. My buck was harvested by “accident” as we were walking out from our stand on our way back to camp for lunch.

This “I only hunt trophies!” craze has resulted in cases like the one in Texas that can be held forth as a perfect example of how far some of us have removed ourselves from the true nature of hunting. It came to light earlier this year that one particular gentlemen, B. W. Marrow, was so intent on having the highest scoring head entered into the state’s big game awards a few years ago, that he went out of state and purchased a set of truly exceptional whitetail antlers. Then he went through the effort of falsifying field photos and reports that claimed he took the animal during the legal hunting season in Texas. All of this for a contest that only provided the winner with bragging rights and a plaque, there wasn’t even a jacket, cash prize or auto included. Now he is being criminally prosecuted and his reputation is destroyed.

An example of how hunters have turned upon each other can be illustrated by the recent tempest that is still brewing in the world of blackpowder hunting. Colorado has now banned the use of inline muzzleloading rifles because of the protest by a very small, self-serving special interest group. This group claimed that, just because these firearms were different from the more traditional flintlock and side hammer firearms that they preferred to use, they gave their owner an unfair advantage over the other blackpowder hunters. The reality is that this group of shooters just does not like the newer firearms. It has nothing to do with technological advantages.

Having been a muzzleloading hunter, shooter and writer for over 20 years, who prefers hunting with a customized Hawken rifle replica, that shoots patched round balls, I can honestly tell you that in the hands of the average blackpowder hunter, these inline rifles do not offer any additional benefits to the hunter. They still must be loaded from the muzzle and are limited in application to reasonable blackpowder hunting ranges. The argument against the inline rifles was the distance at which they could harvest game. But as far as long distance shooting capabilities go, doesn’t anyone remember the Purdy rifles of the last century and the 1,000-yard matches that were held in Europe? Or has everyone forgotten the 300-yard shots with patched round ball shooting flintlock rifles taken by Andy Jackson and his riflemen in the battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812?

I mentioned the average blackpowder hunter earlier. Like cartridge gun shooters, the average blackpowder shooter will only do enough pre-season shooting to insure themselves that their rifle is shooting within their self-proscribed target area. More often then not they will only shoot a minimum number of shots before heading to the hunting fields. Therefore, the practical application of an inline muzzleloading rifle offers no advantage over more traditional methods of ignition.

Conversely, it stands to reason that those of us who invest the time and effort to learn how our particular firearm handles and what it’s maximum potential is, should be able to make longer shots while properly judging the down range performance of our firearm. The method of ignition means little to the hunter who knows the performance capabilities of his firearm and hunting load.

We haven’t even addressed the issues of re-curve bow versus compound bow versus cross bow. As with other portions of the hunter’s ethics code, we must each make our own decision as to what is ethical in a given situation.

Many of the criticisms that we as hunters have for the methods used in other areas of the country are based upon the wrong logic. After all, can we really criticize someone for taking full advantage of the hunting methods that are legal in their local area? For example, many of those who hunt the northern states laugh about the way that we use tower blinds and feeders in Texas when hunting whitetails. But is that really any different from the Michigan hunter who goes out in the deep snows, after all of the lower vegetation has been eaten, cuts down a tree and then shoots the first deer that comes to feed on the succulent upper limbs? Maybe that is why we call the chain saw a “Michigan deer call” in the south.

Different circumstances dictate different hunting methods. We shouldn’t criticize other hunters for using methods that are different then those with which we are familiar. However, while local custom and practice should be respected, it is also important that we are honest with ourselves when reaping the benefits of these practices. If there is even a slim doubt about them, then the advantage must be given to the animal being hunted.

In the context of America’s hunting heritage, fair chase can be defined as the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner, which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal. I believe that it also extends beyond the hunt itself because it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of natural resources.

According to both the Pope & Young and Boone & Crocket Clubs, the term fair chase does not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:

While it is helpless in a trap, deep snow, water or on ice.

By spotlighting or other artificial lighting means at night.

By the use of tranquilizers or poisons.

Hunting game confined by artificial barriers, including escape-proof fenced enclosures, or hunting game transplanted solely for the purpose of commercial shooting;

By the use of any power vehicles or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.

By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating, or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached.

Taking of game in a manner not in full compliance with the game laws or regulations of the federal government or of any state, province, territory, or tribal council or reservations on tribal lands;

The principle of fair chase is an essential part of the concept of ethical hunting, which pertains to the balance or equalization of abilities between the hunter and the hunted. This balance of abilities must be of such a nature that hunters will only occasionally succeed in their efforts while the animals usually prevail in eluding them.

In light of this principle, shooting preserves, where birds are put or planted in the field, and game ranches, where animals are specifically raised for hunting, can present some very difficult choices pertaining to the hunter’s ethics. For those who take advantage of the opportunities that these places offer, ethical judgment is something that has to be tempered by the circumstances of their situation. Often times, hunting preserves serve to protect portions of the local habitat that would otherwise be destroyed or developed and thus lost forever. While serving the needs of the animals that are to be hunted, they also provide habitat for other wildlife species. They provide the opportunity for the hunter to utilize them while training their hunting dogs or while acquiring other new skills that will then be used in the field. These preserves are also a good place to introduce novice hunters to the sport in a safe and controlled environment. And veteran hunters can use them to help maintain their shooting and hunting skills.

The one major negative aspect of hunting preserves is that an unscrupulous owner can readily abuse the concept. Hunting preserves need to be large enough and designed to take full advantage of the local terrain in order to allow the animal being pursued, ample opportunity to elude the hunter. Over the years I have hunted on preserves of various sizes and found that for the most part, the local topography is more important than size of the property in question. One place in particular is only 650 acres in size, but the terrain is extremely rough with jagged faced hills that climb to 3500 feet and canyons that drop off 250 feet from their rims. And only the area around the house and barn bears any resemblance to flat ground. The vegetation on this ranch is very, very thick and makes tracking or still hunting the exotic game that inhabit the land, very difficult and exciting at best. I once hunted there for 6 days before finally taking a trophy blackbuck antelope on what had been scheduled as a 2-day hunt.

On the other hand there are several large pieces of property, several thousand acres in size, that are table top flat, have little or no brush coverage over 8 inches tall and the only watering sources are the tanks that are fed by the constantly puffing windmills. On these ranches the hunter can spot the game animals at well over ¾ of a mile and take advantage of the zebra stripped hunting vehicles to close within comfortable shooting range, without having to ever leave the comfort of the passenger seat. Is one of these situations more ethical then the other? That is a decision that each of has to make on an individual basis.

Does fair chase apply evenly to each of us? I think not. What would be fair chase to an able bodied hunter may be impractical to someone confined to a wheelchair for example. Those of us who are dependent upon a wheelchair for locomotion are incapable of covering large portions of terrain in pursuit of our game. As I mentioned earlier, many of those living outside of the south do not make use of tower stands or ground blinds that look like 4×4 ft. houses. More often then not, in the handicapped and youth hunts that I host each year this is the only practical method that we can employ for these hunters. One ranch in particular provides ground blinds that are built for two and in which the entire back wall opens up and allows a wheelchair bound hunter access via a ramp. Then a game feeder is used to entice the animals within shooting range of the stand.

In conclusion, I think that it is up to each of us to develop our own definition of what the term fair chase means. Whether it is the experiences associated with the hunt, such as the effort involved in learning new skills and mastering the new techniques needed to aid us in attaining our trophy, or simply the size of an animal’s headgear. Then, after we apply our own set of hunting ethics to each situation that we come across, we can sleep peacefully at night knowing that we have done our best to adhere to the principles of fair chase hunting, as we perceive them.