Are we ethical?

[gouch]

I can't really see deciding what animal to take based on antler or horn size as an ethical question. Just a choice. Ethics seem to be based on "That's the way we have always done it" more than anything else. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme not reason other than that. For example I sometimes watch those TV shows like North Woods Law. They make a big point of telling folks that baiting deer is unethical. Yet baiting bear is ethical. What's the difference? Technology is a tough one. How much is too much? I have seen on here that some are passionate about trail cameras being unethical. Yet they have no problem with spotting scopes. A trail cam at best covers 1/8 of an acre and tells you where the animal WAS. A spotting scope can cover hundreds of acres and tell you where the animal IS. So why is the camera unethical and the scope ethical? Seems like it should be the other way around. Shooting a pheasant on the ground unethical. Shooting a Turkey on the ground ethical. Makes no sense. There doesn't seem to be much set in stone ethics, Just the way we have always done it.

 

[longbow51]

I don't know about that, women and children scream and cry when I get a haircut!

Maybe you should have joined the Marines instead of the Air Force

 

[longbow51]

But it's okay to ring a birds neck, or toss a fishing(sic) into a cooler alive.
You guys are killing fish? The horror...the horror.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I can't really see deciding what animal to take based on antler or horn size as an ethical question. Just a choice. Ethics seem to be based on "That's the way we have always done it" more than anything else. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme not reason other than that. For example I sometimes watch those TV shows like North Woods Law. They make a big point of telling folks that baiting deer is unethical. Yet baiting bear is ethical. What's the difference? Technology is a tough one. How much is too much? I have seen on here that some are passionate about trail cameras being unethical. Yet they have no problem with spotting scopes. A trail cam at best covers 1/8 of an acre and tells you where the animal WAS. A spotting scope can cover hundreds of acres and tell you where the animal IS. So why is the camera unethical and the scope ethical? Seems like it should be the other way around. Shooting a pheasant on the ground unethical. Shooting a Turkey on the ground ethical. Makes no sense. There doesn't seem to be much set in stone ethics, Just the way we have always done it.

Hunting deer in the high alpine in the summer, when they are all clustered in one spot and visible with a spotter from 3+ miles is ethical.

But baiting bears in dense forests with max visibility of 40 yards isn't?

 

[Deleted member 38069]

Maybe you should have joined the Marines instead of the Air Force

I was referring to my 7 brain surgeries. It makes me look like Frankenstein's monster! I came from a family of Jarheads and they all told me to go Air Force instead, something about our chow halls being better!

 

[FI460]

Technology I have seen on here that some are passionate about trail cameras being unethical. Yet they have no problem with spotting scopes. A trail cam at best covers 1/8 of an acre and tells you where the animal WAS. A spotting scope can cover hundreds of acres and tell you where the animal IS. So why is the camera unethical and the scope ethical?

I think the majority of what's been discussed in the thread is subjective and I would leave it to the individual to make their decision, as long as it's a legal method of take in your state.

I do have a lot of hesitation with the new cellular trail cameras though, as I'm seeing them become more popular here in Southern Oregon. I know a couple of guys that run them. A string of cameras across a mountain that you have to hike through to check seems fine to me, but it seems tech has gone a step too far when someone can get a notification on their phone and see that a bull just passed their camera.

I have one friend that uses one, and he definitely puts the miles in, but I suspect he only goes to the area with his cellular camera when he sees something he's interested in pursuing.

Legal method of take. I'm not going to preach at him. But it makes me uneasy.

 

[longbow51]

I was referring to my 7 brain surgeries. It makes me look like Frankenstein's monster! I came from a family of Jarheads and they all told me to go Air Force instead, something about our chow halls being better!

Oh, wow, sorry.

 

[Deleted member 38069]

Oh, wow, sorry.

No apologies necessary! I'm callused now to the AF jokes.

 

[2rocky]

My step dad started taking me night poaching around age 8 and didn't blink an eye when he shot a spotlighted doe in a farmer's field.
...My dad was technically legally blind, but could still shoot pretty good. He fed the family with the venison we shot. I don't hold it against him.

One of the stories from a land grant university was about how the young men managed to support themselves while attending university. Seventy years later one of the guys was relaying the story about how "Joe and his dog 'SPOT' kept the boys in red meat". You can bet they appreciated that meat almost as much as any hard scouted, fair chased, big racked buck. I think situations define ethics. Ethics is a luxury for us with other options. It is our privilege really to have them.

 

[44hunter45]

I don't accept the premise of the question.

Give us more. Why don't you accept it?

 

[np307]

Give us more. Why don't you accept it?

I was actually just hoping there were some more West Wing fans here that would understand the reference. Most anything I would have to say has been covered.

 

[2rocky]

I was actually just hoping there were some more West Wing fans here that would understand the reference. Most anything I would have to say has been covered.

I prefer the Ice Cream Defense from Thank You for Smoking

 

[44hunter45]

Good thread Boomer. And good job moderating.

Here's my TLDR on this. YMMV

I've spent a lot of time stewing on these issues. I wrote a little book on it, but no one would publish it. I'm no Poz, and there can be only one.
I'm not saying one thing is right and another wrong here. In the spirit of your first post, I am laying out what comes to my mind when I think of hunting ethics.

Like others here, I grew up in a no-holds-barred subsistence hunting family. Interestingly, my dad hated it and talked about a future when he would make enough for us not to have to do it any more. He made that happen.
Somehow out of that I became a hyper-ethical, fair chase hunter when I got out on my own. I think it was his honesty about his moral dilema about it. I did not even hunt with my own family for many years. The question may be was that because I didn't like their ethics, or was it that they didn't like a self-righteous prig buzz-killing their hunts. I can't say. I provide that background to say I am not virtue signalling. I've personally been all over the spectrum on this.

The very term "trophy hunting" is virtually undefinable today. Most of us hold our nose at the high roller who spends his disposable income to buy a premium tag, pay some PH to scout for him, then get to the kill site by any means possible to pull the trigger. Someone who has spent his limited resources for decades to draw a coveted sheep tag, and is therefore selective, is not to be held in the same context.

Another post said that the days of running shots with 30-30s were behind us. I don't see that. Every year I see hunters in the woods with poorly maintained gear. I like to ask them where they are sighted in. You usually get an answer like , "about 100" My former neighbor, who I have described previously on HT as, "my slob neighbor", is a dedicated "Amish machine gunner" with his beat up old Rem 760. If I could only afford one rifle, it would shine from the attention I gave it. Keeping your gear in top shape is a form of hunting ethics.

What I think about the most these days are not so much method of take questions. That being how the kill happens in the final moments. I think about how other technologies, like ATVs, have made it possible for us to easily get to, and kill, game. Here in North Idaho there are very few places for animals to sanctuary. We all talk about being law abiding hunters, but each and every one of us carries some blind spot where we fuzz over laws inconvenient to our favorite methods. I see this most in the mechanical assault on game animals each year. Even HT as a thread about hunting rigs. When I see images of benches mounted to towers on the top of 4X4 trucks, I just SMDH. When I encounter ATVs miles behind a restricted gate, I want to bag and tag one.

Regarding the idea that what is legal is the baseline for discussions of what is right, don't get me started on shooting hogs from aircraft. I consider this culling, but there is certainly enough content on YouTube calling it hunting. It's no wonder hunting is considered barbaric by outsiders.

In the 70's there were louder debates about Native American treaty hunting rights. One common talking point for disgruntled whites was the idea that it was incongruent for Natives to demand access to their "traditional" hunting grounds so that they could drive to them in their trucks, shoot game with their bolt action rifles, and then put the meat in the deep freezers. Ironically modern hunters practice the same fallacy in claiming some kind of divine right to drive their ATVs around trailhead gates.

Is it OK to use your ATV or truck to haul in your tree stand? (I used my truck on my own property.) Just asking.

There are two fair chases. One is the individual hunter avoiding unfair advantages over the individual prey. The other is globally monitoring species health and avoiding methods or technology which threaten the herd population and health. I think we may be making strides on the latter, but not on the former.

 

[406LIFE]

Are we, as fair-chase hunters, more ethical today or are we better at hiding it?

If you were look at the history of a sporting ethics we have certainly more ethical. The initial mindset of the average "pot hunter" was kill whatever, whenever. Then when populations declined, it was sportsmen who were for limiting harvest. Then it was sportsmen who said we need a funding source, and it should be us. Even today, we are advocates for wildlife with many platforms.

What I have seen that concerns me is a questioning of fair-chase, equating any technology as canceling out the idea. That tells me that many don't understand what fair-chase really implores out of a hunter: to forgo any "improper advantage" over game. We will always, by our nature alone, have an advantage over game; I have yet to see any pursued animal shoot back... Yet, what we do need to consider is how we ought to limit ourselves once we are equipped with technology. Maybe seasons should be shortened, or limitations on harvest implemented. If you are going to use that heat-seeking, blue-tooth, auto-rangefinder rifle, maybe you should have to do it with your less dominant eye and you only get one shot. (satire) Again, I think we as sportsmen overall sense that and so we limit ourselves (just because we can shoot so far, doesn't mean we should). Technology will alwasy advance and will always be a two-sided sword. How it is wielded should be considered collectively and accountability maintained.

Ultimately, what I'm trying to understand is the ever-changing line we draw between our preferences versus efficacy. Or nostalgia versus technological innovations.

The ethical line of hunting will continued to need to be redrawn. Not because our ethics change, but because the circumstances will. Principles like Fair Chase, Hunter's Paradox, and Increasing Efficiency will guide us as those situations arise.

 

[Deleted member 38069]

Good thread Boomer. And good job moderating.

Here's my TLDR on this. YMMV

I've spent a lot of time stewing on these issues. I wrote a little book on it, but no one would publish it. I'm no Poz, and there can be only one.
I'm not saying one thing is right and another wrong here. In the spirit of your first post, I am laying out what comes to my mind when I think of hunting ethics.

Like others here, I grew up in a no-holds-barred subsistence hunting family. Interestingly, my dad hated it and talked about a future when he would make enough for us not to have to do it any more. He made that happen.
Somehow out of that I became a hyper-ethical, fair chase hunter when I got out on my own. I think it was his honesty about his moral dilema about it. I did not even hunt with my own family for many years. The question may be was that because I didn't like their ethics, or was it that they didn't like a self-righteous prig buzz-killing their hunts. I can't say. I provide that background to say I am not virtue signalling. I've personally been all over the spectrum on this.

The very term "trophy hunting" is virtually undefinable today. Most of us hold our nose at the high roller who spends his disposable income to buy a premium tag, pay some PH to scout for him, then get to the kill site by any means possible to pull the trigger. Someone who has spent his limited resources for decades to draw a coveted sheep tag, and is therefore selective, is not to be held in the same context.

Another post said that the days of running shots with 30-30s were behind us. I don't see that. Every year I see hunters in the woods with poorly maintained gear. I like to ask them where they are sighted in. You usually get an answer like , "about 100" My former neighbor, who I have described previously on HT as, "my slob neighbor", is a dedicated "Amish machine gunner" with his beat up old Rem 760. If I could only afford one rifle, it would shine from the attention I gave it. Keeping your gear in top shape is a form of hunting ethics.

What I think about the most these days are not so much method of take questions. That being how the kill happens in the final moments. I think about how other technologies, like ATVs, have made it possible for us to easily get to, and kill, game. Here in North Idaho there are very few places for animals to sanctuary. We all talk about being law abiding hunters, but each and every one of us carries some blind spot where we fuzz over laws inconvenient to our favorite methods. I see this most in the mechanical assault on game animals each year. Even HT as a thread about hunting rigs. When I see images of benches mounted to towers on the top of 4X4 trucks, I just SMDH. When I encounter ATVs miles behind a restricted gate, I want to bag and tag one.

Regarding the idea that what is legal is the baseline for discussions of what is right, don't get me started on shooting hogs from aircraft. I consider this culling, but there is certainly enough content on YouTube calling it hunting. It's no wonder hunting is considered barbaric by outsiders.

In the 70's there were louder debates about Native American treaty hunting rights. One common talking point for disgruntled whites was the idea that it was incongruent for Natives to demand access to their "traditional" hunting grounds so that they could drive to them in their trucks, shoot game with their bolt action rifles, and then put the meat in the deep freezers. Ironically modern hunters practice the same fallacy in claiming some kind of divine right to drive their ATVs around trailhead gates.

Is it OK to use your ATV or truck to haul in your tree stand? (I used my truck on my own property.) Just asking.

There are two fair chases. One is the individual hunter avoiding unfair advantages over the individual prey. The other is globally monitoring species health and avoiding methods or technology which threaten the herd population and health. I think we may be making strides on the latter, but not on the former.

Great input, thank you!

 

[VikingsGuy]

IMO, the real decline in hunter ethics in my lifetime is how poorly we deal with each other. Hunting is a very competitive thing to a lot of people, driven by money as in an outfitter situation. Ego, wanting to get an animal before someone else does or some sort of bragging right, for another. Having people file FOIA requests to find out where you drew, hack your draw results, follow you from town to your spot, look for your truck at trailheads, game preference point systems to draw more than your share, etc. etc.

I agree with this point. And, in my experience, to some extent it seems to correlate with the hunting experience extending outside of the local friends/family activity of the past - hunting becoming a "destination sport" with all the complexity and costs that come with it. When I was growing up (70s/80s), we hunted in-state, we hunted with friends and family exclusively, there were no "Monster Muley" TV shows, very rarely did a lucky few get to travel west once or twice in a lifetime. It was about the camaraderie, the community, meat on the table. Politeness and respect to fellow hunters was expected without question - and the guys you were hunting with were the guys you would see at the Thanksgiving table or at work or in the neighborhood. Distant strangers played no part in this experience. Beyond normal fireside ribbing, it was not competitive, we shared equally the take. Now it is far more individually focused, far more attention paid to the most difficult hunts, the biggest antlers, testosterone-fueled TV, big dollars, it's destination hunting, and personal egos seem to be at stake in a way I don't recall growing up. All these changes, not surprisingly, have made hunting a less polite and respectful activity in my view. On the flip side, focus on the land, environment, and animal welfare do seem to have risen.

 

[ImBillT]

You can’t eat it unless it’s dead. That goes for plants too.

That animal isn’t going to live forever if you choose not to kill it.

Nothing dies of “old age”. That’s especially true in the natural world. The death you offer an animal, even with a poor shot, is usually no worse than, and sometimes better than the alternative. Disease, starvation, fighting, exposure, dehydration, predation...it’s mostly slow and painful.

If you had unlimited either-sex tags, you likely wouldn’t shoot mostly bucks with nice head gear. You’d fill your freezer, often with the most convenient animals, and go on about your business. Proper management puts limits on the number and sex animals that can be killed, and as a result we want to make the most of our opportunity. That means different things to different people, but often the animal with the most meat, or the meat with the biggest head gear on top is going to be the preferred animal.

No, most of us are not unethical. Don’t be a jerk on purpose. Show respect to the landscape, the animals, and the other hunters while you’re hunting. You do those things and you’re not too likely do end up doing anything unethical.