Belvoir Bow Hunters

In an article written for the Belvoir Bowhunters Newsletter in 2001 (“Fair Chase in the 21st Century), I addressed the issue of technology and its effect on ethical bowhunting.  I wrote that we must each decide if a new technological innovation – or the combination of many – creates an unfair advantage in our pursuit of game.  And I argued that the increasing pace of technological development made this decision about what’s right and what’s wrong more difficult.   

“Each of us has a little voice that tells us when we’re about to step over the line of right or wrong, fair or foul.  We may not all draw the line in precisely the same place, but we know when we’re about to cross it.  The danger inherent in rapid advances of technology is that they can blur the line for us or make it more difficult to realize that we’re coming close to it.  We all need to stop and consider how the innovations we personally employ affect our positions relative to the line.”

In the Fall 2007 issue of the VBA Flight newsletter, Hunting Vice President Dave Burpee asked us to consider whether the use of trail cameras, particularly those with signaling capabilities designed to vector a hunter to an animal he does not see, is ethical.  Like other technologies, trail cameras have rapidly advanced from their first generation, rudimentary film cameras using a motion detector or infrared sensor to activate them.  Today, trail cameras increasing are digital, some capable of capturing video instead of a simple snapshot.  They can be set up in series and can transmit a signal alerting the owner to an activation. Some even can be remotely downloaded.

Do trail cameras cross the line?  Does the use of a trail camera with a signaling capability afford its user an unfair advantage?  Each of us may answer this question differently, but we all need to think about the issue.

A number of prestigious hunting and conservation organizations have guidelines on fair chase.  The Boone and Crockett Club defines fair chase as “the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.”  The Pope & Young Club similarly defines fair chase 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.”

Several of these national organizations further define conditions under which the taking of game is not considered fair chase.  The Pope & Young Club’s definition of fair chase does not include taking game “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.”

The Professional Bowhunters Society has stated that “technological innovation can also blur the distinction between what has traditionally been the concept of ‘fair chase’ and unethical hunting.”  Its code of ethics specifically addresses the use of electronic technology in the pursuit of big game:  “Possession of communication devices such as two-way radios, cellular and satellite telephones, and global positioning devices is not prohibited so long as these devices are not utilized in the direct pursuit of big game.”

Similarly, the Compton Traditional Bowhunters will not accept for registry in its Traditional Bowhunting Archives of North America any animal taken “by the use of any electronics, including but not limited to, two-way radios, wireless walkie-talkie or cell phone to locate or direct any hunter to an animal.”

The distinction that emerges from these pronouncements on technology and fair chase seems to be that the use of devices which permit a hunter to locate a game animal he could not otherwise have seen is unethical, whereas the use of technological innovations for uses not directly employed in pursuit of game is permissible.  It’s ethical, for example,  to contact your hunting partner by radio to coordinate where to meet for lunch, but not to alert him to a game animal moving toward him.

This distinction may answer the question about the questionable ethics of employing a trail camera that alerts a hunter to the presence of a game animal.  But it doesn’t really allow a definitive answer about whether using a trail camera to pattern deer is ethical.  Some could argue that because it permits a hunter to know where deer he did not see have been, using a trail camera gives him an unfair advantage.  Others could argue that a trail camera simply improves upon a hunter’s capability to pattern deer by observing signs they left behind, in this case their image captured by a camera.  On the other hand, the camera’s time-and-date stamp on the image might be seen as a technological substitute for good woodsmanship providing unfair advantage.

How will you answer the question?  Right or wrong?  Do you view trail cameras as simply a benign augmentation of a hunter’s natural ability, or do you think patterning deer with trail cameras violates the limits of fair chase?  What about trail cameras that alert a hunter to the presence of game?  Think about these questions, and let’s discuss the issue at a future club meeting.  Your VBA representative is going to be asked what the members of the Belvoir Bowhunters think.  We owe her and ourselves a thoughtful answer.