By Mike Roche
The use of technology in our lives seems to advance with each passing day. Our cars park themselves and brake automatically, our phones know more about us than we are comfortable with, artificial intelligence is everywhere and great advances in medicine and science take place every day.
Hunting and fishing practices are right in the middle of all that tech development and certainly trail cameras have been part of the hunting world – particularly deer hunting – for a long time. When those cameras became “smart” and could communicate with your cell phone, some asked questions about fair chase.
Fair chase can be defined in many ways. One definition, as provided by the Boone and Crockett Club (an organization which advocates for fair chase hunting in support of habitat conservation) is “the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter and improper or unfair advantage over the game animals.” That broad brush is certainly open to interpretation and some question whether getting a “real time” image of a deer passing your camera in the woods is fair.
Some states have begun to address this matter, and New Hampshire has prohibited hunting an animal the same day that an image of that animal is remotely viewed on a game camera. The Granite State has also passed a number of regulations on game cameras, requiring that they be labeled with the name and address of the owner and cameras may not be placed on private property without permission of the landowner. Property owners may post a sign allowing the use of cameras, but state land is exempted.
At the last meeting of the Massachusetts Fisheries and Wildlife Board, the use of infrared technology was addressed. A hearing on the use of thermal imaging will be scheduled, where the issue will be discussed and proposed regulations aired. Another related issue is the use of drones. As drones become more and more sophisticated, their use raises more and more concerns. Using a drone to locate game is something most would find unethical. This writer remembers when the use of airplanes, particularly in Alaska, was a big story in the outdoor magazines and it became illegal in Alaska to hunt the same day you flew. Ethics are different from laws and sometimes things may not be a violation of the law but are, to some, unethical.
My personal ethics, like those of all hunters and fishermen, have evolved during my lifetime and are a product of shared experiences and contact with people and organizations involved in the same sporting pursuits that have been part of my sporting life. On my trips to Kansas, baiting sites are frequently encountered, and they are legal and part of the hunting tradition. Automatic feeders dispense corn using a timer and hunters wait near baits. Most baiting is not allowed in Massachusetts (predator hunting is an exception) but baiting black bear is allowed in New Hampshire and Maine and is a common practice. My one and only black bear was taken with a bow in New Brunswick nearly 40 years ago over bait.
All these matters are looked at differently in the states and what is legal may not agree with someone else’s personal ethics, but that is human nature. My personal standard in the upland hunting that is my favorite pursuit is to never shoot a bird on the ground. It is not illegal but “on the wing” is my standard. There is an old joke about ruffed grouse which has its links in Maine. The question is “What is the difference between a ruffed grouse and a partridge?” The answer is that if you shoot it in the air it is a grouse, and if you shoot it on the ground it is a partridge.
Partridge hunting to most Mainers is driving down a logging road until you see a bird out getting gravel in the road and shooting it. It is not right or wrong, just a personal choice. My standard, taught me by my mentor Gig Darey, was never shoot a bird that wild flushes and is not handled by the dog or is flushed by your pointing dog. Over the years, that has translated in a lot of birds not shot, but that suits me fine.
Fishing is also not without tech controversy. New developments in sonar have resulted in products which can scan a long distance ahead and locate fish suspended in the water. The detail is so advanced that you can actually watch your lure falling in the water and the fish approaching it. Some feel that this is over the line in sporting ethics, and it is being hotly debated as well. It is not my intent to pass judgment, as ethics are a personal matter. However, as you read this, hopefully my new L. L. Bean BOA enclosure boots will be walking into a solid grouse point by one of the French Brittanys in Maine and the Ruger 28 gauge will do the job. If not, there will another chance, as it is the game and not the number that makes it so rewarding for me.
Mike Roche is a retired teacher who has been involved in conservation and wildlife issues his entire life. He has written the Sportsman’s Corner since 1984 and has served as advisor to the Mahar Fish’N Game Club, counselor and director of the Massachusetts Conservation Camp, former Connecticut Valley District representative on the Massachusetts Fisheries and Wildlife Board, a Massachusetts Hunter Education Instructor and is a licensed New York hunting guide. He can be reached at mikeroche3@msn.com.