I want to make clear from the beginning that I am not attempting to make a trolling question from an anti-hunting perspective. I admit that I find the idea of killing for sport distasteful. However, this is just my personal value, and I would never try to impose it on anyone else. I think that hunting for food, skins, and the like, seems very sound; and I may try it myself. (Though it doesn't seem entirely necessary: it's not hard to come across fresh road kill.) Anyway, I'm not trying to start a flame war; I'm legitimately curious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never hunted to kill. However, I imagine that many aspects of hunting are similar to the animal tracking and stalking that I perform frequently in my job as nature photographer.
My experiences photographing wildlife have lead me to conclude that hunting most species which I hear about people hunting--deer, elk, bears, buffalo, antelope, duck, turkey, etc.--must be very, very easy. When I photograph wildlife, I almost always have to get myself within 50 feet of my subject, very often within 10 or 15 feet. Then I have to set up my tripod, pick a lens and mount it on my camera, mount my camera on my tripod, take some light meter readings, set up a good composition, set my aperture, set my shutter speed, focus my lens, wait for the optimal moment, then take multiple exposures.
It seems like this wildlife photography process is probably harder than shooting to kill. I need to be much closer to the animal, and for much longer periods of time. It seems like it would be easy to take aim for a few seconds from 50 or more yards off, and fatally shoot an animal.
Be it big horn sheep or mountain lion, I've hardly ever failed to track down the animal I set out to find within a reasonable period of time. I have only very rarely failed to get close enough for long enough to grab my photo. (Of course, it's common for my shots to be unpublishably mediocre quality.) I've been able to perform the necessary tasks of wildlife photography consistently enough to generate a moderate regular income.
What am I missing about the difficulty with hunting? Where's the challenge? Where's the sport?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have never hunted to kill. However, I imagine that many aspects of hunting are similar to the animal tracking and stalking that I perform frequently in my job as nature photographer.
My experiences photographing wildlife have lead me to conclude that hunting most species which I hear about people hunting--deer, elk, bears, buffalo, antelope, duck, turkey, etc.--must be very, very easy. When I photograph wildlife, I almost always have to get myself within 50 feet of my subject, very often within 10 or 15 feet. Then I have to set up my tripod, pick a lens and mount it on my camera, mount my camera on my tripod, take some light meter readings, set up a good composition, set my aperture, set my shutter speed, focus my lens, wait for the optimal moment, then take multiple exposures.
It seems like this wildlife photography process is probably harder than shooting to kill. I need to be much closer to the animal, and for much longer periods of time. It seems like it would be easy to take aim for a few seconds from 50 or more yards off, and fatally shoot an animal.
Be it big horn sheep or mountain lion, I've hardly ever failed to track down the animal I set out to find within a reasonable period of time. I have only very rarely failed to get close enough for long enough to grab my photo. (Of course, it's common for my shots to be unpublishably mediocre quality.) I've been able to perform the necessary tasks of wildlife photography consistently enough to generate a moderate regular income.
What am I missing about the difficulty with hunting? Where's the challenge? Where's the sport?