Thread: Thermal gear. Should we have it?

I think if everybody was really honest, we would have to admit that we hunt because we want to and it is fun. There are very few people in this country who legitimately need to hunt to stay alive or fed. The overwhelming majority of the country does just fine buying meat at the supermarket. I pretty much eat next to no venison. I just enjoy going out and shooting deer. I've got two small freezers full of venison that barely gets touched as I've cut red meat back significantly in my diet. If somebody asked me to go out and get a deer for them and give them the animal, I'd do it, because I enjoy stalking and shooting deer and the physical challenge of carting it out. I guess some guys enjoy enjoy smoking them with thermal and I'm cool with that. As long as the govt considers them a pest and treats them as such, do what you want IMO.

Thermal gear has become a new way of land owners spotting poachers and drug growers as well...the police on occasion have been known to borrow hunters thermal gear when hunting persons.

Amazing that police are not equipped with this gear but civilians are.

Originally Posted by headcase

Amazing that police are not equipped with this gear but civilians are.

Police are encouraged to use civilian gear rather than buying their own.

I shoot what I can and still supplement with some meat from the supermarket but I hear what you are saying @mimms2.

What's the best reasonable price thermal to buy for a scope?

The best you can afford. What do you want it for?

The whole argument over "which" gear is ok is a funny thing. I think sometimes people confuse values (respect of animals and tradition, self-centered benefit, care of environment and animals) with intent (fair chase, experiencing nature, humane hunts, poaching etc), and that leads to misunderstandings between people with different methods of doing something.

It's entirely possible that two people who share opposing view points on something (thermal imaging) have the same respect for a hunt, animals, and reason for hunting, but usually attribute their own perspective to the other person.

On that note, I've always been a bit amused at the whole idea of "fair chase"... There is a part of me that can appreciate giving an animal a "fair chance" like it's a game, but this' the animal's life we're talking about whereas as humans, we absolutely don't need to hunt. Every one of us has the capacity to find food otherwise, even if it means moving elsewhere to do it. From that stand point, my main metric has been whether something is likely to reduce suffering of an animal or not, and from that, I am fine with anything that does that. Better equipment? Fine. More practice? Great. That said, I'm not in disagreement who choose to do things in a way that makes the hunt more challenging in exchange for a slower kill - the odds of an animal being killed are proportionally lower as well.


Some people hunt with a bow in order to give a deer a better chance to survive. That takes a lot of skill, and part of the benefit goes to the deer who has a better chance of survival, and part of the benefit goes to the hunter who faces a greater challenge and experiences a greater sense of achievement when they get something. I also understand that an instantaneous death is almost unheard of with bows. It's a trade off.

Same goes for someone who hunts with iron sights on a rifle, or only hunts close, or practices their shooting at distance, or uses thermal gear. Anything that is done with the intent of making an animal's death as close to painless as possible is fine with me. If that intent isn't there, then I would have to think more about what's being done.

Furthermore, the argument that something shouldn't be available because it could be abused is the same flawed logic that has us as a hunting community under attack at this very moment over our firearms in general. The laws already exist, if they're broken, lay charges - problem solved, don't go trying to regulate every aspect of our lives with more unneeded red tape.

With that I'd say I'm fine with thermals when used by people who respect the animals they shoot, and are upstanding members of the firearms and hunting community. If they misuse them, they'll have broken some already existing law and the problem will sort itself out.

Originally Posted by canross

The whole argument over "which" gear is ok is a funny thing. I think sometimes people confuse values (respect of animals and tradition, self-centered benefit, care of environment and animals) with intent (fair chase, experiencing nature, humane hunts, poaching etc), and that leads to misunderstandings between people with different methods of doing something.

It's entirely possible that two people who share opposing view points on something (thermal imaging) have the same respect for a hunt, animals, and reason for hunting, but usually attribute their own perspective to the other person.

On that note, I've always been a bit amused at the whole idea of "fair chase"... There is a part of me that can appreciate giving an animal a "fair chance" like it's a game, but this' the animal's life we're talking about whereas as humans, we absolutely don't need to hunt. Every one of us has the capacity to find food otherwise, even if it means moving elsewhere to do it. From that stand point, my main metric has been whether something is likely to reduce suffering of an animal or not, and from that, I am fine with anything that does that. Better equipment? Fine. More practice? Great. That said, I'm not in disagreement who choose to do things in a way that makes the hunt more challenging in exchange for a slower kill - the odds of an animal being killed are proportionally lower as well.


Some people hunt with a bow in order to give a deer a better chance to survive. That takes a lot of skill, and part of the benefit goes to the deer who has a better chance of survival, and part of the benefit goes to the hunter who faces a greater challenge and experiences a greater sense of achievement when they get something. I also understand that an instantaneous death is almost unheard of with bows. It's a trade off.

Same goes for someone who hunts with iron sights on a rifle, or only hunts close, or practices their shooting at distance, or uses thermal gear. Anything that is done with the intent of making an animal's death as close to painless as possible is fine with me. If that intent isn't there, then I would have to think more about what's being done.

Furthermore, the argument that something shouldn't be available because it could be abused is the same flawed logic that has us as a hunting community under attack at this very moment over our firearms in general. The laws already exist, if they're broken, lay charges - problem solved, don't go trying to regulate every aspect of our lives with more unneeded red tape.

With that I'd say I'm fine with thermals when used by people who respect the animals they shoot, and are upstanding members of the firearms and hunting community. If they misuse them, they'll have broken some already existing law and the problem will sort itself out.

Very well said.

Thermals are heaps safer than spotlighting or looking through a scope. You can identify the target and what's behind it to a certain extent. So long as you identify your target, line of fire and what's beyond.

For me it’s a bridge too far and tips the balance too much in the hunter’s favour. I have always been of the opinion that the hours of darkness give our prey a little respite, which is now being diminished. I get the point that without innovation I would be without my rifle, scope, GPS, ballistic app, rangefinder, etc, but this is a step change beyond all of those. I will never do it, but it’s a personal choice. I am also not comfortable with the argument that it makes hunting at night safer. Yes, unit may be safer than spotlighting, but it’s never going to be as safe as seeing the target and what’s behind it in shooting light.

Originally Posted by Outdoors

Thermals are heaps safer than spotlighting or looking through a scope. You can identify the target and what's behind it to a certain extent. So long as you identify your target, line of fire and what's beyond.

Issue is your last statement its not a given everyone does it. And at night the target doesn't get a warning whether that be deer or person.

Hell yeah i love me thermal makes up for my lack of hunting talent.

To answer the original post. It is my opinion only that if you need thermal gear at the present time to score a feed then you shouldn’t call yourself a hunter and take up something more appropriate like online gaming.

Originally Posted by Hiawatha

I worry that it is creating a culture where people just write a cheque and go shoot deer and more deer more easily. There is very little sport in thermal use that is for sure. I think we are in serious danger of totally and absolutely treating our deer like targets, more than the amazing animals that they are. There has already been an element of that creeping in with some (not all by a long stretch) long range shooting as well. C'mon lets be honest here. I know there are personal variations, but like no other tech ever invented I think thermal gear is potentially an issue. Not only that but when do the deer get a break?

If we took that and ran with it we should all limit ourselves to .50 cal muzzle loaders, and ban optics too so people with older eyes can't go hunting but have to just watch it on the box. That way we will have more heart attacks in front of the TV in reach of a phone and with easier ambulance access.

Originally Posted by Max Headroom

I intend to buy thermal kit at some stage, as a substitute for a mutt. It's cheaper to run than a dog, it doesn't bark, chew stuff, or crap on the lawn.

I also like the notion that I could use it for other stuff like looking for a hot spot that might flare up into a fire, and also to search for a missing person.

Maybe thermal for pig hunting has potential as a more humane method than dogs? Just throwing it in, no beef in that game myself. (sorry, pork)