Outdoor Writer

I see nothing wrong with it. It's no different than hunting any other NATURAL habitats where deer frequent but often do so on a RANDOM basis, just as bears do when the prickly pear crop is ripe. The key is patterning and locating the game in that NATURAL habitat and not attracting the game to UNNATURAL tasty morsels. Comes down to skill, patience and perhaps some luck to be in the right place at the right time. Some folks call it hunting. Lastly, it sounds as if you're using your camera in a quite ethical manner. -TONY

Dandy buck. It might not be the biggest on the block but it's certainly unusual. -TONY

Super buck. Nice work. -TONY

Let me see if I can help clear it up -- at least as far as what **I** mean. First, there is nothing inherently wrong with using a camera to take photos. I do it all the time, in fact. And there is nothing inherently wrong with placing a salt lick, a corn feeder or whatever else might attract game to that camera for the purpose of taking photos. I doubt anyone using cams just randomly hangs them on tree in the woods. The problem comes when hunting enters the photo-taking picture. Sometimes my wife tells me I'm dumber than a posthole, but I'm not naive. Even I know that hunters who are baiting a particular spot and attracting game to that particular spot are somewhat likely to hunt that particular spot. And the chances they will remove all traces of the bait before they do that are about nil -- as in nada, zilch, zero. Why should they if it's legal, i.e. "ethical?" Now, if some hunters who use cams at bait sites do NOT follow the scenario above, kudos to them. I suspect there are at least one or two of them. -TONY

Lots of these examples around. Mention taking an 850-yd. shot with a 22-250 or 100-yd. shot with a bow, and many of the same folks who claim "if it's legal, it's ethical" will say those shots are unethical. -TONY

No, don't think so. That has already been addressed, thus someone had already decided that taking game from a vehicle is indeed unethical. Thus, it is already illegal. It doesn't matter whether it is a bow or a gun. It's apparent quite a few here are not up to snuff on the current regulations. See below. -TONY A.R.S. 17-301 Times when wildlife may be taken; exceptions; methods of taking A. A person may take wildlife, except aquatic wildlife, only during daylight hours unless otherwise prescribed by the commission. A person shall not take any species of wildlife by the aid or with the use of a jacklight, other artificial light, or illegal device, except as provided by the commission. B. A person shall not take wildlife, except aquatic wildlife, or discharge a firearm or shoot any other device from a motor vehicle, including an automobile, aircraft, train or powerboat, or from a sailboat, boat under sail, or a floating object towed by powerboat or sailboat except as expressly permitted by the commission. No person may knowingly discharge any firearm or shoot any other device upon, from, across or into a road or railway. What's this Tony??? I am very aware of what the rules and regulations are. Its very apparent that you didn't understand the sarcasim in that statement. I am getting tired of hearing the stories of irresponsible bow hunters and gun hunters. Lets just keep on digging are own graves and we won't have to worry about the anti's! Troy Yeah, I noted the sarcasm in YOUR message and only used it as springboard of sorts. But I wonder just how many guys that witness this stuff in the field are getting plate #s and reporting the yahoos. I bet most of those slinging arrows from the back of a truck don't have a clue that it's illegal to do so? Bet most of them think using a FIREARM in that way is the only thing illegal. -TONY

No, don't think so. That has already been addressed, thus someone had already decided that taking game from a vehicle is indeed unethical. Thus, it is already illegal. It doesn't matter whether it is a bow or a gun. It's apparent quite a few here are not up to snuff on the current regulations. See below. -TONY A.R.S. 17-301 Times when wildlife may be taken; exceptions; methods of taking A. A person may take wildlife, except aquatic wildlife, only during daylight hours unless otherwise prescribed by the commission. A person shall not take any species of wildlife by the aid or with the use of a jacklight, other artificial light, or illegal device, except as provided by the commission. B. A person shall not take wildlife, except aquatic wildlife, or discharge a firearm or shoot any other device from a motor vehicle, including an automobile, aircraft, train or powerboat, or from a sailboat, boat under sail, or a floating object towed by powerboat or sailboat except as expressly permitted by the commission. No person may knowingly discharge any firearm or shoot any other device upon, from, across or into a road or railway.

And no measuring tape necessary to confirm their existence! -TONY

It stops when the MAJORITY tips the balance beam and decides any particular practice or equipment has become a detriment. When that happens legal=ethical changes to unethical=illegal -- a process that has been ongoing ever since the first hunting regulations began taking shape early in the last century. Sometimes that process is self-regulatory -- i.e. those involved voluntarily decide to police themselves. At other times, the process takes place when the general populace decides to put a stop to a legal but questionable practice or equipment item. No doubt members here can readily make an extensive list of such changes that have occurred under both methods. And they can likely make a list of others where the balance beam has begun to lean from ethical to unethical. -TONY

That over-simplification of "genetic diversity" has NO basis in reality because it makes too many assumptions that do NOT occur in a WILD population of whitetail deer. What the deer farmers in Texas do is equivalent to producing test tube babies or sheep clones under controlled laboratory conditions. Re: hunt structure Nope, a guy gets a permit and one chance to fill his tag. No second chances. No do-overs. You make your choice and sleep with it -- successful or unsuccessful. Re: point restrictions See Largo's last reply in the Random Units Closing in AZ? thread on MM. He sure saved me a lot of typing. -TONY

Too much common sense applied. -TONY

Not quite. Ethics also exist as a code of conduct for specific professions, sports, etc. etc. For example, most hunters seem to agree that killing an animal as quickly and humanely as possible is the ethical thing to do, and they would severely chastise one of their peers who INTENTIONALLY goes against that ethical standard, even though it isn't illegal, per se. Also, there is quite a difference between doing or not doing something on an ethical basis compared to making a personal choice because of likes, limitations of ability, etc. For example, one guy doesn't have the ability to confidently shoot beyond 200 yards, so he limits himself to that ability. It has nothing to do with "personal" ethics. I don't "like" hunting from a treestand for hours on end. That choice has nothing to do with "personal" ethics. In contrast, MANY states have already determined an ethical conduct when it comes to baiting animals, just as the USFWS has done such in regards to migratory birds. Thus, baiting deer, bears, etc. is already illegal in those states, and the baiting of birds is already illegal in the entire country. And just like baiting bears is now illegal here in AZ, the ban on the baiting of deer will be coming to theater near you shortly. When that happens, from all appearances of many of the pix posted here, trail cams will be somewhat useless. -TONY

Jim, I think that's the first buck of any species I've seen where the eye guards are higher than any part of the antlers. -TONY

Biology 101: Genes are genes. They aren't like steak and get better with age. Put a few drops of sperm from a 1-yr. old buck in a test tube and a few from the buck when he's 4, freeze them and you won't see a difference in the offspring's genes if you impregnate the same doe over two years with sperm from each tube. My opinion on the archery deal and deer permits in general is quite simple: Each person should get ONE permit annually for ONE season with ONE weapon in ONE unit and be allowed ONE deer -- the same as it is for elk. See, told you it was simple. -TONY

Why? If someone pays for their own hunting license/permit and wants to fill their tag with a spike, what concern is that for anyone else? They are entitled to kill one LEGAL deer, and what they kill is their own business. Geez, all the "what did it score" folks should be tickled; that means the spike-killing dude left all the big ones alone. -TONY

Man, more common sense. Now you know why I ground sluice quail and shoot all my doves when they are bunched up in a mesquite tree. Them dang things are just too hard to hit when they're flying, and shotgun ammo is way to expensive now! Same with those goofy ducks. What's so neat about shooting them on the water is you get a really, really good idea of where the shot is going so you can compensate on the next bunch. I mean who cares how I kill 'em? As long as I don't kill more than my limit, it's my personal choice. Bring 'em on. I sure hope those bad dudes at G&F never make this stuff illegal. -TONY

Well good luck hunting. As long as you have your jerky along, you should be A-OK! -TONY

Geez, someone FINALLY makes a sensible suggestion. That's right on the mark, Mark! ban cameras and baiting=lower success=more permits (opportunities) for the masses And not only that, but it will be hunters cleaning up their act rather than the antis doing it for them as they did with the trapping issue here, lion hunt in CA and spring bear hunt in Colo. Way to go. -TONY

But...but...but...if you ain't got no trail camera or deer drugs, how the heck can you ever find a deer to shoot? Do you just wander around willy-nilly and hope some buck takes pity on you and runs within range? And no camo? Man, you're really roughing it, huh? I supposed you don't even use no steenkin' scent control stuff either, huh? -TONY

Hmmm. So how do you manage to hunt under such a severe handicap? -TONY

Well I'll be darned. So that's what someone meant when they mentioned the "immigrant food caches." Here I thought it was tortillas or maybe some cold bean burritos. I really should bone up on all these new hunting techniques. Thanks for the infomation. -TONY

This is probably your best option. I'll have my cousin Guido from Joisey call you; he has some good friends who enjoy a bit of throwing out and taking over. That whole election thing could get kinda messy since you might actually get what you wish for but not like it after you get it. -TONY

I've never used a trailcam, but from viewing many of the photos here, I can see they sure make the deer act funny. I've never seen deer dig big holes and then lick the dirt like that before. Is that a reaction to the flash or are they merely hamming it up for the camera? -TONY

This is really old news, but it's someone else's perspective. -TONY ***** By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer Sun Sep 2, 4:53 PM ET Hunters remain a powerful force in American society, as evidenced by the presidential candidates who routinely pay them homage, but their ranks are shrinking dramatically and wildlife agencies worry increasingly about the loss of sorely needed license-fee revenue. New figures from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service show that the number of hunters 16 and older declined by 10 percent between 1996 and 2006 — from 14 million to about 12.5 million. The drop was most acute in New England, the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific states, which lost 400,000 hunters in that span. The primary reasons, experts say, are the loss of hunting land to urbanization plus a perception by many families that they can't afford the time or costs that hunting entails. "To recruit new hunters, it takes hunting families," said Gregg Patterson of Ducks Unlimited. "I was introduced to it by my father, he was introduced to it by his father. When you have boys and girls without a hunter in the household, it's tough to give them the experience." Some animal-welfare activists welcome the trend, noting that it coincides with a 13 percent increase in wildlife watching since 1996. But hunters and state wildlife agencies, as they prepare for the fall hunting season, say the drop is worrisome. "It's hunters who are the most willing to give their own dollar for wildlife conservation," Patterson said. Compounding the problem, the number of Americans who fish also has dropped sharply — down 15 percent, from 35.2 million in 1996 to 30 million in 2006, according to the latest version of a national survey that the Fish and Wildlife Service conducts every five years. Of the 50 state wildlife agencies, most rely on hunting and fishing license fees for the bulk of their revenue, and only a handful receive significant infusions from their state's general fund. "They're trying to take care of all wildlife and all habitats on a shoestring budget," said Rachel Brittin of the Washington-based Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. In New Hampshire, only multiple fee increases — which produced numerous complaints — have enabled the Fish and Game Department to keep revenues robust. Its ranks of registered hunters has dropped from 83,292 in 1996 to 61,076 last year, according to department spokeswoman Judy Stokes. "We hear concerns about land access," Stokes said. "People grew up hunting — you went out with your family, your uncle. And now you go back, and there's a shopping plaza or a housing development. Some of your favorite places just aren't available anymore." National hunting expert Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Virginia-based research firm Responsive Management, says America's increasingly urban and suburban culture makes it less friendly toward the pastime. "You don't just get up and go hunting one day — your father or father-type figure has to have hunted," Duda said. "In a rural environment, where your friends and family hunt, you feel comfortable with guns, you feel comfortable with killing an animal." Indeed, hunting remains vibrant in many rural states — 19 percent of residents 16 and older hunted last year in Montana and 17 percent in North Dakota, compared with 1 percent in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Jersey. Nationally, 5 percent of the 16-and-over population hunted in 2006, down from 7 percent in 1996. As their ranks dwindle, hunters are far from unified. The often big-spending, wide-traveling trophy hunters of Safari Club International, for example, have different priorities from duck hunters frequenting close-to-home wetlands. One rift involves hunters disenchanted with the National Rifle Association, which runs major hunting programs and lobbies vigorously against gun control. A Maryland hunter, Ray Schoenke, has formed a new group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, primarily as a home for hunters who would support some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales. "The NRA's extreme positions have hurt the hunting movement," Schoenke said. "Soccer moms now believe hunters have made things more dangerous." Political support for hunting remains strong, though, with several states recently enshrining the right to hunt and fish in their constitutions. Last month, President Bush ordered all federal agencies that manage public lands to look for more room for hunting. In the 2004 presidential campaign, both Bush and Democratic rival John Kerry courted hunters' and gun owners' votes. A camouflage-jacketed Kerry even toted a shotgun during a goose hunt. Among the 2008 candidates, Democrat Bill Richardson aired a TV ad showing him hunting, while Republican Mitt Romney was derided for calling himself a lifelong hunter even though he never had state hunting licenses. Public support for hunting also is high, in part because huge deer populations have become a nuisance in many areas. Duda's surveys indicate less than 25 percent of Americans oppose hunting, although groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals denounce it as cruel. Most major animal-welfare and conservation groups don't campaign to end hunting, but some lobby against specific practices such as bear hunting or "canned" hunts in which game is confined in fenced areas and shot by hunters who pay large sums for the opportunity. "As a matter of principle, we should not condone the killing of any animal in the interest of sport," said Andrew Page of the Humane Society of the United States. "But as a matter of pragmatism, we target those practices that even hunters would agree are egregious." The Humane Society welcomed the new federal data showing a surging number of birdwatchers, wildlife photographers and other wildlife watchers. They increased from 62.8 million in 1996 to 71.1 million in 2006, spending $45 billion on their activities compared to $75 billion spent by hunters and anglers. "The American attitude regarding wildlife is changing," Page said. "I suspect the day will come when a presidential candidate goes to a local humane society to adopt a homeless animal, rather than go the field and pose as hunter with a gun." However, hunting groups and state wildlife agencies are striving to reverse the decline by recruiting new hunters. Vermont's Game and Wildlife Department, for example, sponsors thrice-annual youth hunting weekends, offers low-cost youth licenses and teaches firearms safety and outdoor skills each summer at youth conservation camps. Another initiative is Families Afield, sponsored by three national hunting groups; it aims to ease state restrictions on youth hunting. At least 12 states have obliged, enabling thousands of youths to sample hunting before taking required hunter education courses. Other programs seek to attract more women, though few promote racial diversity. More than 90 percent of U.S. hunters are male; roughly 96 percent are white. Rob Sexton, a vice president of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, said one upside of the shrinking numbers is that hunting groups are more motivated to seek remedies, such as access to more land and less burdensome regulations. "There are still a lot of us," he said. "Hunting is a great passion for our people."

I suppose the perspective is different if one considers ASHA whose board has anti-gun connections. http://www.nraila.org/Hunting/Read/Hunting...les.aspx?ID=200 Yeah, several months ago the ASHA attempted to join a writer's group I belong to and many members raised heck because they knew who backs the ASHA. -TONY