Who's in charge of hunter ethics?

[MCgunner]

I think canned hunts behind high fences isn't hunting many times. Now, that said, is it any more unethical than shooting a pig in a slaughter house with a stun gun? I just posted a motorized decoy vid. I'm waiting for someone to post that it's unethical....while regular decoys aren't? from the north west, mostly, you know, the geek states that are full of know it alls, claim feeder watching is unethical. Well, feeder watching is a way of life in Texas and totally legal for whitetail and hogs and lots of turkey are taken at the feeder.

Just who is in charge of telling us what is ethical and what isn't and where the fine line is? I'm getting a little tired when people from yankeeland call me a sorry sack of poop for using a feeder on my place. Hey, I ain't doin' anything my neighbors ain't doin'. Like I said, it's a way of life here. And, where's the difference in a food plot and a feeder?

See, I figure since I ain't doin' anything illegal, if you don't like it, go play with yourself. Now, you're entitled to your opinion and you don't have to do it when and if you ever hunt here, but hey, that's your choice. There is a whole industry grown up around feeders and timers. They sell 'em like hot cakes at bass pro and academy and such along with stands of all kinds that some folks find offensive. There's MILLIONS of dollars in sales of these things and some of that contributes to pitman/robertson act funds. Why is it that feeders and stands aren't a GOOD thing?

 

[skinewmexico]

Amen brother. You tell 'em. Although I do have to consider what I'm doing as harvesting more than hunting sometime. But if someone doesn't like it, they can stay in their own state, and have a big cup of shut the hell up. It's sure considered hunting if you have a big food plot and use a bow from a stand most places......

 

[redneckrepairs]

Who's in charge of hunter ethics?

Beats me .

I just hope its none of the fellas who have shot two of my cattle this year plinking at prairie dogs ( That is just the cost this year of allowing hunting on private land , its not an uncommon year ) Come deer and speed goat season i expect to find more shot livestock , since on a normal year that is when i will get a cow or a horse shot .

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

I get into these sorts of conversations a lot, and what I find is that it invariably ends up (or even starts, like this thread) mixing up two different concepts under the common heading of "ethics". On the one hand, we have a set of choices made by hunters that determine the difficulty (or "sporting" qualities, if you prefer) of the hunt. These may range from hunting tigers with a spear in jungle conditions to using modern caliber semi-automatic firearms to take game animals in extremely confined quarters. Now, we all have opinions regaring where the lines are between sporting and non-sporting hunts, but none of this falls under what I would call "ethics". In my interpretation, that covers things that are more a question of responsible and humane actions. For instance, following established firearm safety rules, conscientiously minimizing the risk of wounding the game (not taking marginal shots, using an appropriate weapon, et al), etc. These are things that are not simply a matter of personal preference, but have a real impact on both the humane dispatching of game, as well as the safety of others who may be in the area.

Mixing these disparate concerns and calling them all "ethics" serves only to confuse the issue. So, if we really want to discuss hunting ethics (which is always a healthy pursuit, IMHO) then let's do that. But if we want to debate the sporting quality (or lack thereof) of "canned" hunts (or what have you) then that's fine too. But I think it best to pick one and not try to combine them.

 

[MCgunner]

In my interpretation, that covers things that are more a question of responsible and humane actions. For instance, following established firearm safety rules, conscientiously minimizing the risk of wounding the game (not taking marginal shots, using an appropriate weapon, et al), etc.

So, um, do you consider bows as "appropriate weapons?" See, right here you can get into a tiff. The animal rights crowd did a big push some years ago to outlaw bow hunting (part of their grand scheme I'm sure). You could construe bows as cruel or inappropriate considering they kill by bleeding the animal and the animal takes hundreds of yards to die most times and it must be tracked and making a good shot isn't quite as easy with a bow. Many deer are not hit appropriately.

I do not happen to think bow hunting unsportsmanlike. I think people were hunting with bows a long time before the firearm came along and not exactly modern compounds, either. But, there are some who think bow hunting is cruel. It is, of course, a lot more challanging having to get within bow range, so you could say it's more sporting. But, then, 90 percent of the successful bow hunters around use feeders in THIS state, so there ya go. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[Polishrifleman]

From a Geek State

To each his own and ethics are in the individual on all accounts.

Laws are for talking about baiting, crossbows, decoy's, harvest limits, etc... and states vary widely.

I, as a hunter understand it isn't easy period, so why not use everything necessary in your power to be successful? At least that is my opinion.

I think a major problem with different hunting methods is that people don't understand there is a reason to them and there only exposure to them is TV. What do they see on TV? The kill shot, so they think you go into your high blind, sit down have coffee, whisper a little, have deer scampering all around, and blamo shooting fish in a barrel.

As a generalization in the NW most of us Big Game Hunters don't understand food plots, hunt leases, automated feeders, fences, etc... But the bird hunters do.

 

[Cougfan2]

MCgunner, I am so conflicted! I just can't determine whether your method of hunting is ethical or not. I think the only solution would be for you to have me down to Tejas for one of your deer hunts so I can decide for myself!

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So, um, do you consider bows as "appropriate weapons?" See, right here you can get into a tiff.

Not at all. When I said "appropriate weapons" I meant that to be determined based on the combination of factors that establish its ability, as used by a particular hunter), to have a high probability of producing a clean and relatively humane kill. If you are proficient with a bow (more specifically, the bow you're using) and only take shots that are within the limits of your proficiency, then you've behaved ethically. Granted, all of this is subject to situational variables and a fair degree of judgment, but most things are, including interpretation of the law. But we don't abandone the idea of law simply because it requires some judgement, do we?

The animal rights crowd did a big push some years ago to outlaw bow hunting (part of their grand scheme I'm sure). You could construe bows as cruel or inappropriate considering they kill by bleeding the animal and the animal takes hundreds of yards to die most times...

If the animal is going hundreds of yards before falling "most times" then you're doing something wrong.

and it must be tracked and making a good shot isn't quite as easy with a bow. Many deer are not hit appropriately.

Some of which are due to variables beyond the hunter's control (the animal moves suddenly just as the string is being released), but others are due to the hunter taking a shot he had no business taking in the first place. I separate these two in my mind.

But remember, we're talking ethics here...not legalities.

I do not happen to think bow hunting unsportsmanlike.

Nor do most hunters. In any event, the question is ethics, not sportsmanship...in which case the issue is how the bow hunt is conducted, not whether it's conducted at all.

I think people were hunting with bows a long time before the firearm came along and not exactly modern compounds, either. But, there are some who think bow hunting is cruel. It is, of course, a lot more challanging having to get within bow range, so you could say it's more sporting. But, then, 90 percent of the successful bow hunters around use feeders in THIS state, so there ya go.

What do feeders have to do with ethics?

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

To each his own and ethics are in the individual on all accounts.

Only if you're making up your own meaning for the word "ethics". Most groups engaged a common pursuit develop an agreed upon system of ethics, and many even have mechanisms in place for policing their own via enforcement ethics. For instance, the AMA, the legal Bar, etc.

Laws are for talking about baiting, crossbows, decoy's, harvest limits, etc... and states vary widely.

True. But we're not talking about laws. We're talking about ethics.

I, as a hunter understand it isn't easy period, so why not use everything necessary in your power to be successful? At least that is my opinion.

Of course. But ethics isn't concerned with how successful those methods are with ensuring that you harvest game, but with the effect of those methods on the suffering of the game, the safety of others, impact on the environment, etc. There are aspects of these issues that it is best we, as a group, find some common ground and do our best to adhere to generally agreed upon standards. I say this because, as most of us realize, the future of hunting in this country is far from secure, and it behooves us all to do our best to behave ethically...not only for moral purposes, but because doing so presents a more positive picture to the public. More specifically, the voting public.

 

[MCgunner]

In any event, the question is ethics, not sportsmanship...

To some, it seems to be one in the same. The feeder thing comes up now and then and people jump all over us Texans for being unethical if we use them.

Another subject I've seen come up is people claiming hunting with dogs (even if it's legal) is unethical. BUNK! I think a lot of this stuff is regional because dogs are legal even for deer in some states in the south and they're used routinely for bear and mountain lion in some states. I've hunted hog with dog and knife before, kill made by stabbing the throat with a fillet knife and cutting the carotid. I did not feel unethical in doing so. It's big sport here.

I've also seen folks say it's unethical to shoot it if you don't eat it. Well, I have shot quite a few coyotes, farmers/land owners LOVE it when a hunter leasing their land takes out a coyote. I always try to hang it on a fence where the rancher will see it.

As for shooting livestock, I've never experienced that on any lease I've ever hunted. I kinda write that one up and moronic stupidity rather than unethical, but I suppose if it's on purpose and the guy doesn't fess up and pay for the animal, it is quite unethical also.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

To some, it seems to be one in the same. The feeder thing comes up now and then and people jump all over us Texans for being unethical if we use them.

That's because they're being intellectually lazy and conflating disparate concepts. That's not a reason for us to make the same pointless mistake.

Another subject I've seen come up is people claiming hunting with dogs (even if it's legal) is unethical. BUNK!

More conflation. Legality and ethics are two different things. Something can be both legal and unethical, which is why there are ethics-enforcement groups like the ones I mentioned. On the other hand, something that is illegal can also be deemed quite ethical.

What reasoning have you been given for hunting with dogs being unethical?

I've hunted hog with dog and knife before, ill made by stabbing the throat with a fillet knife and cutting the carotid. I did not feel unethical in doing so.

Nor would I. That's a relatively quick and humane kill.

I've also seen folks say it's unethical to shoot it if you don't eat it.

I'd have to hear their reasoning but, even though I *generally* follow that rule myself, it's not a matter of ethics for me. Once dead, the animal really doesn't care one way or the other.

Well, I have shot quite a few coyotes, farmers/land owners LOVE it when a hunter leasing their land takes out a coyote. I always try to hang it on a fence where the rancher will see it.

No big deal. Now...if coyotes were an endangered species (regardless of whether or not they were protected as such under the law) then you may well have an ethical issue. But they're not, so you don't.

As for shooting livestock, I've never experienced that on any lease I've ever hunted. I kinda write that one up and moronic stupidity rather than unethical, but I suppose if it's on purpose and the guy doesn't fess up and pay for the animal, it is quite unethical also.

Absolutely.

 

[JohnBT]

I've never hunted with a feeder. And some days I'm not too sure how well duck and goose decoys work.

John

 

[MrDig]

Hmmm, I find this to be a razor fine line to walk. What is unethical to me may be standard fair for another. As a Case in point Black Bear Hunting here in MN. It is legal to hunt bear over a Bait pile but illegal to hunt too close to a dump. To my mind the bears that are habituated to the dump are nuisance bears and need to be removed from the area as they are a danger to Humans and pets. We should be more able to shoot Dump Bears that hunt them over bait.
You may not hunt Deer, Turkey, or other game animals over any form of bait during the legal season, it is however legal to Bait until two weeks prior to the season. What? What kind of sense does that make? It is Illegal to hunt over bait but not a food plot that occurs naturally, in fact a land owner may plant a food plot and allow it to grow as in no further agrarian steps like spraying or fertilizing and hunt over that but hunting over a bag of apples is illegal. It
doesn't make sense what they prescribe as baiting and not baiting.
In a similar act of stupidity one may only use a Scope on a Muzzle Loader with a Doctors permission. I may however put a scope on a Shotgun, Handgun or Rifle as I would choose and see no penalty for doing so. What? It makes no sense what so ever. Yet it is still law.
Ethics on the other hand seem to make me answer to a higher authority than the DNR. Ethics are Social / Spiritual standards that tell me for example that I only harvest what game I can use as opposed to shooting everything that moves. If I can't eat two deer between the time the hunting seasons occur shooting two deer is unethical to me even if it is legal for me to shoot two deer. Sometimes the Law allows me to do things that go against my sense of ethics. Does this mean I should impose those ethics on you? absolutely not. As long as no Laws are broken I have no call to enforce my spiritual beliefs on you.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

As long as no Laws are broken I have no call to enforce my spiritual beliefs on you.

So you're arguing that there's no reason for ethics organizations like the AMA to exist?

 

[john1911]

Each individual has to decide "ethics" for themselves. Laws are objective and ethics are subjective.

As long as people are abiding by the laws in their area, I don't care how they are hunting. I expect nothing less from others.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

As long as people are abiding by the laws in their area, I don't care how they are hunting. I expect nothing less from others.

So then, if there were no law against torturing an animal to death you'd be A-OK with it?

 

[MCgunner]

So then, if there were no law against torturing an animal to death you'd be A-OK with it?

john1911 probably WOULDN'T be okay with it, but apparently Michael Vick would. He won't, however, have the chance to do it again anytime soon where he's goin'.

BTW, that's a well fed kitty cat sittin' in the snow.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

john1911 probably WOULDN'T be okay with it

Are you sure? He just said that so long as it's legal, he doesn't care.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, it IS legal in the Philippines and I don't care. How about that? Ain't none of my business if they fight chickens in the Philippines. Ain't my country, ain't my culture, ain't my business.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Well, it IS legal in the Philippines and I don't care. How about that? Ain't none of my business if they fight chickens in the Philippines. Ain't my country, ain't my culture, ain't my business.

What does where it's done have to do with whether or not it's ethical? Do you think the animals in the Philippines feel less pain than animals in the U.S.? What exactly is the basis for your sense of ethics on the issue?

Hypothetical:

There are no laws against child abuse. The neighbors routinely beat their children, to the point of torture. Not your house, not your kids, none of your business....right?

 

[CodeSlinger]

Laws are objective and ethics are subjective.

That is a nice thought, but many (most?) "objective" laws exist purely because one group of people isn't happy that another group of people disagree about certain "subjective" ethics.

 

[trueblue1776]

I have no problems with the ethics of baiting, but I don't confuse target shooting skills with tracking and stalking either.

 

[ArmedBear]

So, for a real-world question: Is it ethical to shoot crows over BoD*?

*Box of Donuts, an effective crow decoy in some areas.

 

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

So, for a real-world question: Is it ethical to shoot crows over BoD*?

*Box of Donuts, an effective crow decoy in some areas.

Sure, so long as you pick the lead out of the chocolate covered ones before I get there.

 

[trueblue1776]

ArmedBear-
Crow calling works best when you wing one, tie a string around his feet and swing him like a lasso. He will cry to high heaven, and his pals will come to investigate.

My family grew nuts in the CA central valley, crows will decimate an acreage if they think they can get away with it. Ranchers paid me and my buddies bounties for crows and magpies, enough to keep us in shot shells and hamburgers.