Interesting thread. It's fun to see the different personality types revealed in such threads. I can tell which hunter's I would probably prefer to hunt with and which ones I wouldn't. Not that one type is wrong and one is right, just some better suited to my temprament and some not. Some guys are poetic and introspective and others are no-nonsense just the facts ma'am types. Isn't variety wonderful? I'm glad we're all not like one another.

I think the problem with this sort of thread is you use adjectives like "good" and people see it as a judgement call and get defensive. I think buckeye did set it up that he accepts that this will be subjective and expects differing opinions. The way I see it this thread suffers from trying to define too many different things. Some are describing "proficient" hunters, others "ethical", "successful", and some are describing woodsmanship rather than hunter (although it should be a part of a "good" hunter), while others are describing all-star athlete hunters if not prodigies. It would probably be easier to define a "bad" hunter than a "good" one....then again maybe not. I think we can all (or mostly) agree on what is a basic, decent, hunter: Someone who follows the regulations and is able to kill game in an efficient manner without endangering other people/property. From there I guess it depends on what you consider a "good" hunt for you to define what you feel is a "good" hunter. I don't mean to be touchy-feely here but we do have a greater amount of leisure to define our own objectives in hunting these days than in days of old. At one time a "good" hunter was a man (and only a man) who could put the meat in the pot and that was it. Whether he was a "good" companion was a whole different story. (Festus is a good hunter, but I wouldn't want my scalp dependant on him.) Today we have all types of hunters. There's hunters that only have a practical view of seeking meat, some hunters enjoy being outdoors and the companionship/nature/solitude that it brings andthe kill is incidental if not a downright interuption,some are trophy rack hunters (as defined by their area or "what would go on the wall."), some are strictlyrecord book hunters, some are challenge seekers that live for the most difficult type of hunt they can conceive within certain parameters (this may be defined by hunting a specific animal, a certain age group, or any other sort of self imposed limitations ie. recurve only) for them the challenge is what appeals to them, some are more casual in their approach in that if they go out and see a deer, or even better, kill one than they've had a good hunt. All of these types of hunters can be "good" hunters. It doesn't mean that you'd want them as YOUR hunting partner, but I'd still give them my respect. Very few of us can hunt with people thatshare the same view of hunting as closely to ours as we would like. I have a preference to a style of hunting and my ego/self-esteem/manhood is not so caught up in it that I have to prove my way is better or that I'm better at it than anyone else. I will say I am a "Better" hunter...."better" than I used to be, and hopefully one day "better" than I am.