BCJ_SUMMER18 Digital Edition

OWN THE ASCENT
STAND AT THE TOP WITH THIS LIGHT-WEIGHT KIMBER RIFLE.
made in america
18 | BACKCOUNTRY JOURNAL SUMMER 2018
kimber mountain ascent
starting at 4 pounds 13 ounces | 22-26 inch barrel
available in 7mm-08 rem, .308 win, 6.5 creedmoor, .270 win, .280 ack imp,
.30-06 sprg, 300 wsm, 270 wsm, .300 win mag, 7mm rem mag
what all guns should be
SUB
MOA
a c c u r a c y
s t a n d a r d
(888) 243-4522
kimberamerica.com
photo: jay beyer ©2017, kimber mfg., inc. all rights reserved. information and specifications are for reference only and subject to change without notice.
Barry and Cathy Beck photo
BY JAN DIZARD
ON AN OCTOBER MORNING a decade or so ago, I was hunting
woodcock in an abandoned orchard. A flight had come in
and, in less than an hour, I collected my three-bird limit. That
evening I got a call from an acquaintance, a deer hunter, who
hunts the same orchard. He asked how I did and if I’d seen evidence
of deer. How, I asked, had he known I had been hunting
there that morning? He said he saw me on the trail camera he’d
placed in cover. I was amused.
It’s now common to see cameras in the woods I hunt, and it’s
interesting to hear from friends who share the pictures of animals
their cameras record. I’m primarily a bird hunter so field cameras
are of no use, though I have thought it would be neat to position
a camera near a grouse drumming log to get some pictures of
the showoff. It’s clear that a deer hunter can make good use of a
game camera or two. It’s also clear that the technology is a useful
tool for wildlife researchers. More broadly, I know public school
and college teachers who have their students use remote cameras
to record animal activities in their backyards and neighborhoods.
Anything that gets young people outdoors and engaged in appreciating
wildlife is a good thing.
But there is a downside that hunters in particular must face,
and it’s gotten more acute with the development of so-called “live
action game cameras,” units that record and transmit images in
real time to a smart phone or other hand-held device. Does this
technology tilt the playing field too far in favor of the hunter? Are
you really hunting if your phone notifies you when a buck has
stepped into the food plot?
This is not a new problem. Philosophers in ancient Greece worried
about our ability to take unfair advantage over animals. Jose
Ortega y Gassett praised hunters who deliberately handicapped
themselves to make the contest between hunter and hunted a
challenge. Aldo Leopold worried that “gadgets” would corrupt
hunting: Even if the gadgets didn’t improve hunters’ chances of
making a kill, they placed too much emphasis on the kill at the
expense of the challenge of the chase. Theodore Roosevelt was
characteristically blunt on the same subject: “The rich people,
who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by
their own exertions – these are the men who are the real enemies
of game.”
BEYOND FAIR CHASE
LIVE ACTION
GAME CAMERAS
TR was familiar with both riches and exertion, but today, technology
does not require inherited wealth. We have to ask ourselves
if we want to make hunting easier, and perhaps more importantly,
do we want to make success, defined as a kill, more certain? In any
given year, no more than 20 percent of all deer and elk hunters
harvest their animals. That they keep hunting, year in and year
out, suggests that they are hunting for complex reasons that go far
beyond the desire to kill: Failing to do so in any given year only
heightens the expectations for next year.
Available technology now makes it possible for hunters to reduce
the time they otherwise would have to invest in preseason
scouting, even time afield during the season. Game cameras have
become inexpensive, enabling hunters to check the movement
of game in areas they intend to hunt without investing precious
hours with boots on the ground. It’s easy to see how substituting
technology for the laborious process of acquiring intimate knowledge
of game is tempting, especially given the fact that for most
hunters, there are many claims on “free” time.
At this writing (February 2018) only three states have banned
live action cameras in season (Montana requires that all cameras
be removed during the hunting season.) A few more are considering
regulations. This is an issue that will become more pressing
as cameras get more sophisticated. And then there are camera-equipped
drones that raise even knottier ethical questions.
Sixteen states have banned drones in season, thanks in part to
advocacy by BHA.
We are facing the wicked problem of the “slippery slope”:
Where do we draw the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable?
Is the line purely a personal preference or ought there
to be regulations that say cameras are OK for preseason scouting
but not during the hunting season? Ought we draw a line between
conventional and live-action cameras? And drones?
At bottom, the question is one of fair chase. Do live-action
cameras unacceptably tilt the playing field? There’s room for debate,
but one thing is certain: The price of technology will go
down and the ethical costs associated with accepting increasingly
sophisticated electronic mediation between hunter and hunted
will go up.
Jan is a board member of Orion and BHA life member. A retired
professor, he splits his time between Massachusetts and California.
This department is brought to you by Orion - The Hunter’s Institute,
a nonprofit and BHA partner dedicated to advancing hunting
ethics and wildlife conservation. To discuss this article and others,
go to backcountryhunters.org/fair_chase.
SUMMER 2018 BACKCOUNTRY JOURNAL | 19