You think drones will replace dog tracking?

[HaunSolo]

I don't think that drones will replace dogs anytime soon, and here's why:

I contacted a tracker through united blood trackers last year to track a buck. He was super helpful, willing to come out very quickly, and works solely based on tips. There principle is pay what you can - if you can't afford anything they do it for free, if you can afford it, tip generously.

The drone deer recovery rates I have seen cost anywhere from $300 - $600 and you have to pay up front. Most hunters I know can't afford this and will just grid search or contact a dog. The requirements for owning and operating a drone just make it cost prohibitive for most people, except those who are in it for a profit.

 

[kyler1945]

Controlling for lying, underreporting, bad memories, incentive misalignment, and the fact that most people really just hunt to make people like them.....

Over half the deer that people shoot at with archery equipment are not recovered. This encompasses misses, non fatal woundings, and fatal woundings.


I believe it is a crucial prior to take on board, to give proper context to conversations about wounding rates, recovery rates, etc.


Expandables, wheelie bows, heavy arrows, pods, dogs, drones, strings that connect your arrow to your bow, lighted nocks, phones with aerial photographs and gps tracking technology... It's turtles all the way down. It's easy to take an arbitrary entry point into the "technology will make us suckier shots, Ethics! Morals!" discussion. But the logic falls apart quickly.

"drones will make people take more unethical shots."

"so?"

"more deer will be wounded than before drones!"

"So?"

"We should be doing everything we can to ensure that the animals we shoot die as quickly and humanely as possible!"

"Why?"

"So they don't suffer!"

"Why?"

"Because it's wrong to make the animals we intend to kill and eat suffer too much if we have a way to prevent it!"

"How do you know they're suffering? How much suffering is too much? What cost to prevent that suffering is too much? Why not just not kill them? Why not just hire professionals to kill them in controlled environments? Why do we only care about the animals we intend to kill and eat? The list of questions exposing the flawed logic here might actually be endless...."


So let's go back to the beginning. Why are we cool with half our archery shots resulting in unrecovered animals, but some possible potential incremental increase to the already probable outcome is unacceptable?




I'm not saying this in favor of drones. I'm saying this to frame the conversation more appropriately. I'm conceeding about a dozen other points that are relavent, but would lose the plot quickly. I think it's beneficial for people who hunt, might hunt, or don't hunt to understand how uncertain of a proposition archery hunting is. Especially if you're going to plant a flag on moral high ground relative to the topic.

 

[kyler1945]

I've paid at least 100.00 for every time I've had a dog on a track job, plus the estimate at gas money to meet me to look. It was not required every time. I chose to do it.

What I'm paying for: joy watching a working dog work, an expert's time, dog food and vet bills, venison, mental and emotional closure, networking, storytelling.

The cost of drone recovery has the potential to get much cheaper much faster. If I can get the last 4 items above for less than 100.00, I have no qualms about doing it. I might even pay more, if it was my only available option.

It would not factor into my shot selection, or the shot selection of anyone I hunt with.

I'm all for discussing the comparison between dog and drone capabilities, and I'm sure hearing drones buzzing around all day and night could potentially be a point worth discussing. But the ethics, and shot selection conversation seems really confusing to me.

 

[BTaylor]

Outfitters already encourage hunters to shoot big mechanicals and to shoot back mid body because they are going to rely on a dog for recovery. I could not possible be more against such horse crap. Good hunters dont have low recovery rates regardless of weapon. What we need is more personal accountability and more peer pressure to not be a freakin jackwagon in the woods and we wouldnt have as much need for tracking dogs or drones.

 

[Plebe]

Controlling for lying, underreporting, bad memories, incentive misalignment, and the fact that most people really just hunt to make people like them.....

Over half the deer that people shoot at with archery equipment are not recovered. This encompasses misses, non fatal woundings, and fatal woundings.


I believe it is a crucial prior to take on board, to give proper context to conversations about wounding rates, recovery rates, etc.


Expandables, wheelie bows, heavy arrows, pods, dogs, drones, strings that connect your arrow to your bow, lighted nocks, phones with aerial photographs and gps tracking technology... It's turtles all the way down. It's easy to take an arbitrary entry point into the "technology will make us suckier shots, Ethics! Morals!" discussion. But the logic falls apart quickly.

"drones will make people take more unethical shots."

"so?"

"more deer will be wounded than before drones!"

"So?"

"We should be doing everything we can to ensure that the animals we shoot die as quickly and humanely as possible!"

"Why?"

"So they don't suffer!"

"Why?"

"Because it's wrong to make the animals we intend to kill and eat suffer too much if we have a way to prevent it!"

"How do you know they're suffering? How much suffering is too much? What cost to prevent that suffering is too much? Why not just not kill them? Why not just hire professionals to kill them in controlled environments? Why do we only care about the animals we intend to kill and eat? The list of questions exposing the flawed logic here might actually be endless...."


So let's go back to the beginning. Why are we cool with half our archery shots resulting in unrecovered animals, but some possible potential incremental increase to the already probable outcome is unacceptable?


I'm not saying this in favor of drones. I'm saying this to frame the conversation more appropriately. I'm conceeding about a dozen other points that are relavent, but would lose the plot quickly. I think it's beneficial for people who hunt, might hunt, or don't hunt to understand how uncertain of a proposition archery hunting is. Especially if you're going to plant a flag on moral high ground relative to the topic.

It’s not like a 50% (or lower) recovery rate is some sort of inevitable constant. That’s an important crucial prior imo.

Moral disengagement is cathole for contentiousness.

 

[kyler1945]

It’s not like a 50% (or lower) recovery rate is some sort of inevitable constant. That’s an important crucial prior imo.

Moral disengagement is cathole for contentiousness.

I’m not saying it HAS to be, but it IS.

My gut feeling is that most of these conversations have at least a subtext of obfuscating that fact to make us feel better about what we’re doing.

I’m not disengaging. I’m just not taking a moral claim seriously until the person making it does.

We accept high wounding rates with archery equipment. We will fight tooth and nail for the right to continue that tradition. But we clutch our pearls at technology coming to make things worse! It’s mental gymnastics. Like I said, the only explanation that makes sense to me is that we’re deceiving ourselves.

I could be wrong. Probably am

 

[Lucky13]

Those saying price is a deterrent. That website states $200 early and late season. $400 during rifle. That’s 2023 prices.
This isn’t a livescope catching all the fish issue. Don’t be a I’ll never have a email account guy.

 

[Jrain904]

Lol. The days we are in… heck no a drone can’t replace a well trained dog.

 

[kyler1945]

If I wanted to be a deer hunter, and had zero experience, and didn’t know where to start, I’d either buy a well trained blood dog or start a drone recovery service. Meet killers, and put boots where deer go to die every day. Seems way cheaper and much more immersive than asking YouTube and saddle hunter.

Shoot I might go buy a drone

 

[sdoyle1]

I’m torn on the subject. I’m not entirely thrilled with the thought of drones being involved with hunting. With that being said I had a the owner of a neighboring property hit a buck last season. He and a buddy tracked it to my property line. He called and asked to look so my brother and I met him and continued the search. We never found the deer but there were several people walking through my property that night trying to help find this buck. This happened to be the week I took vacation for to hunt the rut. With all the human activity my property was pretty much completely blown out. I don’t regret letting him look as I’d expect the same if it happened in reverse. Now the dilemma, if a drone was available it would have removed all the human intrusion into my property to get the same answer and would have left me a decent chance for my rut vacation. Luckily, I have access to plenty of other private ground in the area so it wasn’t a total loss but it did limit my options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Plebe]

If I wanted to be a deer hunter, and had zero experience, and didn’t know where to start, I’d either buy a well trained blood dog or start a drone recovery service. Meet killers, and put boots where deer go to die every day. Seems way cheaper and much more immersive than asking YouTube and saddle hunter.

Shoot I might go buy a drone

Learning how to kill one in the first place seems cheaper and more immersive.

 

[Blacksmith]

Controlling for lying, underreporting, bad memories, incentive misalignment, and the fact that most people really just hunt to make people like them.....

Over half the deer that people shoot at with archery equipment are not recovered. This encompasses misses, non fatal woundings, and fatal woundings.


I believe it is a crucial prior to take on board, to give proper context to conversations about wounding rates, recovery rates, etc.


Expandables, wheelie bows, heavy arrows, pods, dogs, drones, strings that connect your arrow to your bow, lighted nocks, phones with aerial photographs and gps tracking technology... It's turtles all the way down. It's easy to take an arbitrary entry point into the "technology will make us suckier shots, Ethics! Morals!" discussion. But the logic falls apart quickly.

"drones will make people take more unethical shots."

"so?"

"more deer will be wounded than before drones!"

"So?"

"We should be doing everything we can to ensure that the animals we shoot die as quickly and humanely as possible!"

"Why?"

"So they don't suffer!"

"Why?"

"Because it's wrong to make the animals we intend to kill and eat suffer too much if we have a way to prevent it!"

"How do you know they're suffering? How much suffering is too much? What cost to prevent that suffering is too much? Why not just not kill them? Why not just hire professionals to kill them in controlled environments? Why do we only care about the animals we intend to kill and eat? The list of questions exposing the flawed logic here might actually be endless...."


So let's go back to the beginning. Why are we cool with half our archery shots resulting in unrecovered animals, but some possible potential incremental increase to the already probable outcome is unacceptable?




I'm not saying this in favor of drones. I'm saying this to frame the conversation more appropriately. I'm conceeding about a dozen other points that are relavent, but would lose the plot quickly. I think it's beneficial for people who hunt, might hunt, or don't hunt to understand how uncertain of a proposition archery hunting is. Especially if you're going to plant a flag on moral high ground relative to the topic.

Wow. If we are truely only recovering half of what we shoot at maybe we need to start some free archery seminars for the other 50% of the shooters.

 

[kyler1945]

Wow. If we are truely only recovering half of what we shoot at maybe we need to start some free archery seminars for the other 50% of the shooters.

That would help for sure.

Then a bow set up and tuning seminar.

Then a seminar for the deer to teach them to be still before during and after an arrow is released.

Then a seminar for executing a task while under time pressure, emotional and mental distress.

And a seminar for making good choices when faced with the pressure of impressing your friends.

And a seminar for, well you get the point…

 

[Plebe]

...

And a seminar for making good choices when faced with the pressure of impressing your friends.

Probably impress the friends more if the deer is recovered...without a drone.

 

[Jagger0502]

Probably impress the friends more if the deer is recovered...without a drone.

It’s all about impressing your friends… or at least having a good pic to post on the instergram or the MySpace wall….

The rest of us are filling freezers and hanging antlers on our own wall.

 

[kyler1945]

It’s all about impressing your friends… or at least having a good pic to post on the insetergram or the MySpace wall….

The rest of us are filling freezers and hanging antlers on our own wall.

I didn’t think my pile of skulls is all that impressive. Until I started working for a German company.

Quite a few of the guys I work with hunt. Seeing the antlers in my office in web meetings got their attention. When they found out most of them were killed with a bow they lost their mind.

They can’t bowhunt there. It’s unethical.

 

[thedutchtouch]

I think drones don't work everywhere and will likely get outlawed many places before dogs do.

Edit: those of you that have used dogs, do you just have enough cash in your pocket, or do they accept Venmo/PayPal? Lol I rarely have 100+ cash on me, particularly when I'm hunting. (Or I suppose you have time to run out to an ATM or something?)

 

[Plebe]

I didn’t think my pile of skulls is all that impressive. Until I started working for a German company.

Quite a few of the guys I work with hunt. Seeing the antlers in my office in web meetings got their attention. When they found out most of them were killed with a bow they lost their mind.

They can’t bowhunt there. It’s unethical.

It’s true. We’re lucky to have the opportunities we do. Goes back to TR. Probably before that. Don’t screw it up.

 

[Jammintree]

If we are talking ethics it’s also important to talk optics. Hunting is something that until fairly recently was done in total isolation. What we do and how we do it only reached the awareness of the greater public through the stories we chose to tell and the very rare moment the larger public could see glimpses of what we do - seeing trucks on the side of the road, observing a vehicle with a deer on the roof and perhaps an occasional article. But now in the era of infinite hunting shows and self filmed hunts on the web our hidden world is being revealed. This presentation is informing the public about how hunting happens and it’s also informing hunters about how other people do things.

Personally I don’t really know much about drone recovery - the the Drone Deer Recovery videos watched leave me feeling sick to my stomach about my fellow hunters. I don’t know what happened in reality - but most of the videos I watched gave me the impression of lazy hunters who either didn’t have the skill to follow a blatant blood trail - or didn’t have enough respect for the animal to try. A lot of this hunting media is directed at the hunter - and is usually in reality an advertisement. But the non hunting public (who by and large currently don’t oppose hunting) are able to watch all this stuff too. And when they read articles or hear news about controversial hunting topics and proposed regulations these hunting shows and other online hunting content will be the sources that they seek to understand more. In the era of the internet, What we do and how we do it is not as Important as what we present and how others perceive our actions.

 

[BTaylor]

If we are talking ethics it’s also important to talk optics. Hunting is something that until fairly recently was done in total isolation. What we do and how we do it only reached the awareness of the greater public through the stories we chose to tell and the very rare moment the larger public could see glimpses of what we do - seeing trucks on the side of the road, observing a vehicle with a deer on the roof and perhaps an occasional article. But now in the era of infinite hunting shows and self filmed hunts on the web our hidden world is being revealed. This presentation is informing the public about how hunting happens and it’s also informing hunters about how other people do things.

Personally I don’t really know much about drone recovery - the the Drone Deer Recovery videos watched leave me feeling sick to my stomach about my fellow hunters. I don’t know what happened in reality - but most of the videos I watched gave me the impression of lazy hunters who either didn’t have the skill to follow a blatant blood trail - or didn’t have enough respect for the animal to try. A lot of this hunting media is directed at the hunter - and is usually in reality an advertisement. But the non hunting public (who by and large currently don’t oppose hunting) are able to watch all this stuff too. And when they read articles or hear news about controversial hunting topics and proposed regulations these hunting shows and other online hunting content will be the sources that they seek to understand more. In the era of the internet, What we do and how we do it is not as Important as what we present and how others perceive our actions.

I am not sure it would be possible to agree more. I have never felt the problem with social media or hunting TV was people telling their story, it's how they tell their story. When the editorial reins were removed, control of the narrative was lost. Unfortunately, shock "sells" but way too many self-publishers fail to consider the downstream impact. How you tell your story matters and leadership in that arena is sadly missing.