Are we ethical?

[Deleted member 38069]

Are we, as fair-chase hunters, more ethical today or are we better at hiding it? For example, some hunters donate x amount of dollars to a good cause but still choose a self gratifying method over a more efficient method when harvesting an animal (think technology advancements).

Another big example is the obsession with measuring inches of antlers. The act of staring at bucks or bulls through a spotter and trying to decide if it is worth the pursuit, is a bizarre act to me. One that makes me feel like I'm no longer hunting but window shopping. Please know that I like big bucks and bulls too. But I get excited in the moment and let that feeling guide my trigger pull.

I ask this question because as I go through my gear for the Fall I'm reminded of my many past failures and few successes. Like many, the failures haunt more than successes excite me. Wounded animals make me toss and turn at night more than the anticipation of an opening morning.

As a fair-chase hunter, I believe that I have a responsibility to the game I chase. My standards fluctuate from year to year as my experiences add up. I typically try to increase my standards rather than lower them. The other responsibility is to use as much of the animal as possible. For example, taking just the breast off a rooster really started to bug me last year. So this year I will be using the whole bird and try a spatchcock recipe. Granted, I know I could go to Hyvee or the local butcher shop and buy my meat but that doesn't complete the circle for me.

**I'm not trying to come off as self righteous! I'm simply offering food for thought as we approach hunting season.**

Please try to offer thought provoking replies please and not personal testimonials. Like how you can shoot your bow at 100 yds and have killed 40+ deer at that distance. That may be your standard but a far cry from the mean.

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

 

[bullbugle307]

Id say more ethical based on my experience. The way I was taught vs. the way I do things now are light years apart.

 

[longbow51]

Kudos. Antler obsession is a pet peeve of mine, and many of my friends, and like you, yeah, of course we all like a nice rack too, but we hunt for ethically harvested meat and to be a part of the natural world. All the talk about "shooter bucks" and "J 1s" and "management bucks" drives me nuts. "Hunting" TV with obvious exceptions is the worst thing to happen to hunting. And, too many bow-shot bucks where the arrow is clearly way too far back and then they miraculously find it right where they expect; the next morning. Yeah, when the meat is sour.

And spatchcock is the bomb for any bird above grouse size; even cooking and doesn't dry out.

 

[dgc1963]

I use all of the animals I harvest except yotes they go to a fur buyer
I hunt to put meat in freezer, that being said at home here in Pa I get 2 doe tags and 1 buck so for me to shoot a buck he has to be handsome, not the bigest on the planet but im more than happy to let a smaller buck walk on by
when Im away hunting I let every hunt speak for its self, if im seeing a lot of good bulls im also happy to let a small guy pass and yup sometime I regret it but thats hunting. One hunt I passed up a cow at 15 yrds on last evening because I just knew the big bull that was 75 yrds away was going to come up with all the cows I JUST KNEW IT!! lol but he knew something else and walked out a different way
I enjoy every day in the field win loose or draw taking each day as an adventure

 

[2rocky]

http://www.huntfairchase.com/five-stages-of-the-hunter/

Part of "advancing our craft" is becoming more discerning, less indiscriminate about pulling the trigger. Maybe for you it's not about antler....

Maybe instead of limiting out on Mallards you want a blue wing teal that day. That's a version of trophy hunting.

Less ethical would be "success at any cost". More ethical is self imposed limits. Could be size, sex, location, color. What ever.

I'd say long distance glassing is low impact hunting. I think at the end of the day a B&C or P&Y score gives us one organization's quantification of symmetry and size. Kinda like standardized test scores. Really doesn't mean anything in the big picture. I like the Eastman term "Trash Factor" Yeah doesn't score well but has a lot of character....

 

[LopeHunter]

I will be on a mountain goat hunt in a few weeks. I will be using the spotter to check out horns. I will use the spotter to check out hair length. I will use the spotter to check out body size and face shape. I will use the spotter to see if there is a safe path if was to shoot that goat. Not sure why matters if I opt to seek out an older class of billy. Seems ethical to me to seek out a mature goat in their prime or a bit past their prime. Not sure how ethics are enhanced by merely shooting the first legal goat I encounter. What is the hate with the spotter use? With seeking out a mature animal?

 

[Ben Lamb]

I will be on a mountain goat hunt in a few weeks. I will be using the spotter to check out horns. I will use the spotter to check out hair length. I will use the spotter to check out body size and face shape. I will use the spotter to see if there is a safe path if was to shoot that goat. Not sure why matters if I opt to seek out an older class of billy. Seems ethical to me to seek out a mature goat in their prime or a bit past their prime. Not sure how ethics are enhanced by merely shooting the first legal goat I encounter. What is the hate with the spotter use? With seeking out a mature animal?

Not to steal the OP's thunder, but I think he's talking about the obsession with antlers/horns rather than seeking a mature animal.

I don't think we're anymore ethical now than we were then, personally. I see us only want to save the things we hunt or fish for, to ignore the warning signs of loss of hunters in favor of exclusive access, to argue that a wolf has less right to live and eat than we do to hunt for sport (and it is sport folks, a magnificent and virtuous one, but still). We fall for guys who pump their fists and shout obscenities over food plot bucks, we elevate rock singers who say abhorrent things and we take that attitude into the field when hunting becomes a competition or a status symbol about our gear.

Ethics go far beyond field craft for me. it's about embracing the Leopoldian/Posewitz ethic and thinking like a Mountain, rather than just a hunter.

but that's been the rub since Walton penned The Compleat Angler, or Leopold wrote the Green Fire.

 

[np307]

I don't accept the premise of the question.

 

[NMGuy]

Are we, as fair-chase hunters, more ethical today or are we better at hiding it? For example, some hunters donate x amount of dollars to a good cause but still choose a self gratifying method over a more efficient method when harvesting an animal (think technology advancements).

Doesn't this apply to everyone who chooses to use a bow or other primitive weapon instead of a high powered rifle with scope? We choose to use less efficient weapons in order to increase our opportunity or increase the challenge, knowing they carry a higher margin of error.

 

[Pucky Freak]

OP question is pretty broad - I’ll take a stab at the antler/horn size focus. I don’t think it’s unethical to be obsessed about big racks, but oftentimes such an obsession leads to illegal or unethical behavior such as poaching, messing up someone else’s hunt, pushing kids‘ and first-time hunters’ opportunity aside for oneself, etc. But the same could be true for other obsessions too such as “need” to tag out, social media image, commercial needs (e.g. film footage), etc. I place my main hunting focus on enjoyment of the outdoors, ecology, camaraderie, conservation, challenge of the pursuit, celebration of tradition, and meat harvest. I don’t think that makes me more ethical though.

I regularly use glass to try and size up headgear or age an animal from a distance. Where I hunt 1-2 year-old bucks are very common, 3-year-olds are uncommon, and mature deer are rare. No glass means I am pretty handicapped when trying to hold out for an older animal. If I shot the first dink I saw my season would be over way too soon.

 

[Deleted member 38069]

I posed this question not to be comfortable but to invoke thought! I can't help interpretations, that is intrinsic and out of my reach. I gave MY examples and MY standards due to those examples. Distinguishing the legality of game is a given must (nanny vs. Billy, 2 points vs 4 points on one antler)!!

Not to steal the OP's thunder, but I think he's talking about the obsession with antlers/horns rather than seeking a mature animal.

I don't think we're anymore ethical now than we were then, personally. I see us only want to save the things we hunt or fish for, to ignore the warning signs of loss of hunters in favor of exclusive access, to argue that a wolf has less right to live and eat than we do to hunt for sport (and it is sport folks, a magnificent and virtuous one, but still). We fall for guys who pump their fists and shout obscenities over food plot bucks, we elevate rock singers who say abhorrent things and we take that attitude into the field when hunting becomes a competition or a status symbol about our gear.

Ethics go far beyond field craft for me. it's about embracing the Leopoldian/Posewitz ethic and thinking like a Mountain, rather than just a hunter.

but that's been the rub since Walton penned The Compleat Angler, or Leopold wrote the Green Fire.

Thank you for finding the words I couldn't.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

I'm not sure I would say that being picky/obsessing over horns as "ethical" but rather a luxury to have different standards. I think today we are far more worried about herd health and animal numbers than when big game populations were being decimated (until people cared enough to make some changes).
I've passed up bulls, but I never thought I was more ethical for it. I just have different standards.
Ethics seems to be one of those things that's always changing in some way through experiences and exposures.
How does one define if an animal's antlers/horns are big? There had to be some kind of comparison. Maybe comparing animals in the field or the animals that one sees others shooting.

As far as ethics and technology...I have a hard time with this. Technology can mean a more efficient/quick kill but maybe a more unfair advantage to the animal in terms of getting away from the hunter. More primitive weapons may not be as efficient in the kill, but getting close to the animal is difficult. Using binoculars to make sure an animal is legal before going after it is a lot easier than spending hours getting close enough to see if it is legal. I know a guy that hunts barefoot for a challenge....I didnt even think to recognize that boots are technology.

 

[Deleted member 38069]

http://www.huntfairchase.com/five-stages-of-the-hunter/

Part of "advancing our craft" is becoming more discerning, less indiscriminate about pulling the trigger. Maybe for you it's not about antler....

Maybe instead of limiting out on Mallards you want a blue wing teal that day. That's a version of trophy hunting.

Less ethical would be "success at any cost". More ethical is self imposed limits. Could be size, sex, location, color. What ever.

I'd say long distance glassing is low impact hunting. I think at the end of the day a B&C or P&Y score gives us one organization's quantification of symmetry and size. Kinda like standardized test scores. Really doesn't mean anything in the big picture. I tlike the Eastman term "Trash Factor" Yeah doesn't score well but has a lot of character....

It's like you read the script or something! Thanks for the thoughtful reply and the link!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thank you for finding the words I couldn't.

You're the pretty one. I'm just the nerdy one.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

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

Or now more so then in previous decades we find a need to justify being human and participating in the food chain.

~The following are musings... not arguments reserve the right to 180 with no notice ~

Sometimes I do wonder if fair chase conversations are just a load bs, bottom line no animal wants to die, and that animal doesn't give a crap who killed it, how it was killed, or what was done with it's body afterwards.
I think fair chase rules are important, eg. I love wanton waste laws because I think they help keep up the image of hunting and therefore allow us to continue to hunt in a modern society... but I don't know if I think they are actually "ethical". Meat in the woods does not go to waste...

Method of take arguments I agree (a bit) with arguments about reducing suffering, though I think only in the extreme case do they hold water, i.e. rifle seasons versus a buffalo jump.

Archery v. rifle. v muzzy. v crossbow, spinner, v. fly rod arguments that try to bring ethics into the conversation are ridiculous.

I grew up with the asinine debates about activity purity; Tele, Alpine, and snowboarding or free climbing v. aid, etc... these method of take debates are the same thing, people defending their favorite activity. Sorry there isn't a moral pyramid of method of take, no elk ever thought... "Well I mean you had to spend 3 hours a day practicing with your bow... so I'm totally cool with you shooting me in the neck and chasing me through the woods for 18 hours."

For me antler/horn/skull size is more about being selective in order to extend my season and/or is a personal justification not to kill something. Not really a moral thing... sometimes I want to go on a hunt and have the full experience I'm totally cool with taking a small bull/buck if that's what I need to do.

There are certainly ethical questions, and important things to ponder, but I think "ethics" as an argument is over played.

it's about embracing the Leopoldian/Posewitz ethic and thinking like a Mountain, rather than just a hunter.
but that's been the rub since Walton penned The Complete Angler, or Leopold wrote the Green Fire.

^ Exactly.

 

[Deleted member 38069]

You're the pretty one. I'm just the nerdy one.

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

 

[Deleted member 38069]

As far as ethics and technology...I have a hard time with this. Technology can mean a more efficient/quick kill but maybe a more unfair advantage to the animal in terms of getting away from the hunter.

A great point, thank you!

 

[Deleted member 38069]

arguments about reducing suffering

This is mainly what I was driving at! Thank you

 

[Sasquatchewan]

I think to better answer the question, you have to ask yourself; what's ethical? Your personal or communal ethos and ethical guidelines can change slightly/greatly based on personal, environmental, cultural, etc, factors.

What is ethics with regard to the realm of hunting? I completely understand OP's question and agree with most what's being discussed but what's good for me isn't necessarily good for thee! What was ethical then is not necessarily ethical now, but who decides? Obviously we have laws which dictates what is legal or not but that doesn't make one's actions ethical.

I don't think much has changed over the years other than access to information and the opportunities to share/receive information by all. Stories that were limited to Fur, Fish and Game/Field and Stream or the hunting camp, are now easily available to all. That azzhole cousin/uncle who would find every possible opportunity to judge others in camp can now do it online by making comments on people's trophy size or the way they harvested it. Azzholes have no particular, language, race, gender, culture, era, age, etc; azzholes are just everywhere and they are not going away.

 

[MTelkHuntress]

bottom line no animal wants to die, and that animal doesn't give a crap who killed it, how it was killed, or what was done with it's body afterwards.

This. I think about this a lot and after seeing a wolf kill an animal, I definitely think being shot in the neck is a nicer way to go but that animal still didnt want to die and does everything it can to get away. I also heard a guy talk about how we project human feelings on to animals. I think there is some truth to this and it's a little more complex in a way. There are some brutal things in nature, but we perceive them through our own human lenses.