Hunting ethics-Are they regional?

[McDave]

Part of my ethic has always been to eat, or at least try to eat, whatever I hunt.  A corollary to this is to not shoot at anything I don’t have an excellent chance of killing. I find this ethic getting stronger as I get older.  At one time, I would take a shot at non-game animals, such as jackrabbits, if I had a chance.  Then one day when I was elk hunting with my brother-in-law, we were comparing notes mid-day, and he asked me how my morning went.  I told him I hadn’t seen any elk, but took a shot at a jackrabbit.  He asked me why I did that, since I couldn’t eat it.  It wasn’t in a mean way; I think he just wanted to know why I would do that.  I didn’t really have a good reason, other than that I wanted to.  Bunny rabbits are different; if I had shot a bunny rabbit, we would have cooked it right there for lunch.  Something about that made me rethink my ethics, and now I don’t shoot unless I have a good reason.  I suppose depredation of pests would be a good enough reason, but I haven’t been in a situation where I needed to depredate any pests lately.

I feel the same way about fishing.  I went into a hot shot fly fishing store here in Sacramento to buy some flys for my wife before one of our backpacking trips.  I, of course, wanted barbed flys because we would be fishing to eat on our trip.  The salesman turned his nose up at me and said that they didn’t sell barbed flys there, as if I had asked for some fish poison.  I told him I didn’t believe in torturing fish; I believed in eating them.  Needless to say, neither one of us made a new friend that day.  Walmart had barbed flys for sale.

[gregg dudley]

Good discussion, with input from people that I would like to share a camp with one day.  I have stated for a long time that an individual's view of hunting is largely a provincial one.  Ever see those surveys on social media asking you how many states you have visited?  Most people don't get too far from home.  The vast majority of hunters never venture outside their state.  Most who do, rarely get outside their region.  If you are fortunate, as some here are, to travel across the country hunting, you are definitely in the minority.  People's perceptions are limited by their experiences.  The internet is a poor substitute for immersion into a cultural experience like hunting. 

Within the scope of your experience, an individual should definitely have and live by a personal code.  I think where we get into conflict is by applying those ideas to a grander scale.  There would be no hunting in much of Africa if it weren't for high fences protecting game animals from poaching.  There would not be any practical black bear hunting in densely packed north Canadian forests without baiting.  Cat hunting would be an incidental experience without running dogs.  There are dozens of other similar examples linked to method of take, which is the most common topic of conversation regarding ethics.

Despite the fact that I think there are situational and regional considerations that impact our decisions in the field, I do think that ethics are important to the future of the hunting experience.  I think that the comments above regarding sustainability issues, health of the herd, managing populations, and following game laws are what determine our actions as being ethical.  To that, I would add the ability to consistently and humanely harvest game with the method that you are employing.

[GCook]

I guess you can look on that biblical principle;  Jugde not lest ye be judged also.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[pavan]

Game laws need to be updated to match the conditions and the situations.  In Iowa tree stand laws needed to be added as bowhunter numbers increased and some public woods were getting permanently claim staked by hunters with permanent tree stands.  Hunters are coming out with pickup loads of tree stands attempting to control entire small public hunting lands for their private use.  The law has been adjusted to state that all blinds ground or lofted in trees are public property.  That is not how the hunters see it. That law is once again in need of clarification and adjustment because of hunters' practices.  When CB radios were the rage, a law was needed to ban the use of them during hunting.  Such direct communications was taking an unfair advantage and adding insane behavior to those chasing deer to death.  A game warden believes that cameras on public land should be banned.  Some 'hunters' are going so far as to put cameras at  entrance areas on public land, just to see who is hunting the grounds.  I have had  two people come up to me just last year and show me pictures of my car and my wife and myself by our car and in the woods a month before the deer season.  Both individuals told me that I was in 'their' spot and asked if I could not go there anymore.  Funny, they don't go up to the gangs of foreign kids that go in and shoot at anything and everything with guns, I bet they get their picture taken too.  1500 public acres and it is 'their spot'.  That same game warden says that is voyeurism and it is illegal, he also believes that cameras that are iPhone linked break the electronics communication rules, He stated about satellite linked cameras, "More efficient and better than having a buddy with a two way radio and a pair of binoculars.  When we catch people using cell phones directing gun hunter drives, we throw the book at them.  Tell me, what is so different about that satellite linked camera and two way radios telling hunters when and where the deer are."   When mechanical and technological advantages get too far, adjustments get made.  Things like tightening up on game tags issued, season lengths, area accesses and other things, but going against corporate makers of things like cameras and crossbows and offload vehicles remain free and clear of game laws.  Once a crossbow gets into a state it will remain, the adjustments will be loaded onto the hunters, not the corporation that makes the crossbow.

[Keefer]

 I know many of my friends will use trail cams and set up bait stations which is legal in my area but I personally don't do it for a few reasons. One being it cost money to buy the corn and two you need to travel in and out and to me that is more of your scent being spread around.
 I also don't use a trail cam cause of several reasons.
 One they cost money,two they need to be checked and three I like to be surprised at what is around and not knowing keeps it more exciting but I don't care that my friends use them.
  Now I do like to use what our Creator has put in place for game to eat like white Oaks ,foliage or if there is a field of Corn or Soybeans they funnel to.
  I on the other hand do use a cover up ground spray and use a grunt tube to try and coax a deer in .
I use natural down trees and look for root balls  and a water source as well.
  I may use a bottle of lure but don't waste a lot of money on that either.
  If my buddy has any I top off my containers with what he paid for .I figure I made him enough strings I don't mind letting him freshen my scent wicks if you follow me lol 

[pavan]

if what people do does not infringe on others, I consider that.  However, last year I had a new one.  I got my picture taken on Labor Day weekend on public land, the individual told me that he claimed the area with his trail cams and flags.  Tree stands are not legal at that time, so now they are hanging plastic flags to claim where they intend to put their tree stands?  I believe the technical term for that would be 'littering'.

[Don Stokes]

Yes, regional, due to differences in game species and the kind of habitat we hunt. In the deep South, hunting with dogs is considered by some to be necessary, because the ground cover is so thick the deer have to be routed out with dogs. Across the Mississippi to the West, we tend to hunt much more open ground where it's much easier to see game while still hunting. Other situations vary with the habitat, too. When in Rome...

[madmaxthc]

I'd like to note that I'm not advocating buck only across the board, it's a local balance issue to my mind. Alot of local hunters I've known, when they do think on conservation, usually fall back on "the DNR says I can shoot 5 does this season so they must be overpopulated" without actually looking at the area they hunt. The DNR is a relatively small outfit for the task at hand, most of the time the best they can do is based on educated guesses on the larger picture. And that's without the political influence that comes with any government organization.

Hi, Dough,
I did not mean for the post to be a personal attack, I hope it did not look as such. I agree with you, hunting regulations are not perfect, and while ecological models are based on math, there are factors, such as political pressure and poaching, that are difficult to control. I think you're right, the objective of governmental organizations is necessarily  long term sustainability, and rules might need to be adjusted as needed.

Best,
Max

[Doug_K]

Hi, Dough,
I did not mean for the post to be a personal attack, I hope it did not look as such. I agree with you, hunting regulations are not perfect, and while ecological models are based on math, there are factors, such as political pressure and poaching, that are difficult to control. I think you're right, the objective of governmental organizations is necessarily  long term sustainability, and rules might need to be adjusted as needed.

Best,
Max

No worries there Max, just wanted to clarify before someone got the wrong idea.

[madmaxthc]

No worries there Max, just wanted to clarify before someone got the wrong idea.

Cool, glad to hear that
 

[Eric Krewson]

Unfortunately we live in monkey see monkey do world.

It is the same with hunting practices, these trends spread like wildfires until they reach an area with opposing trends and stop.

The hunter that follows his own moral compass in spite of what everyone else is doing around him is a rare bird indeed and a breath of fresh air in a sea of lock step crowd followers.

Wayne Boone's post shows him to be just that kind of exceptional hunter, following his own moral comapass and a credit to the sport.

I managed a large 50 member hunting club for 15 years, QDM with very strict rules and a huge member turnover. We had to take in just about anyone who wanted to join just to keep the lease paid.

I finally walked away because I couldn't handle the way our John Q Public type members conducted themselves on the lease.

Here I what I found; 20% of the members were ethical hunters all the time, hard working, good men and a joy to be around. 60% considered themselves to be ethical hunters and would be most of the time, they could and would tip to the darkside occasionally if no one was looking and they thought they could get away with shooting a club illegal deer. The remailing 20% were downright criminal, no ethics, no honor and no respect for game. They would actually spotlight and kill deer on our food plots at night after everyone else had left the lease.   

[Bowguy67]

Ethics I was always taught was knowing right from wrong and conducting yourself that way whether someone is watching or not. Kinda blows #1 out of the water. No one would “party” hunt in front of a game warden unless that was legal for starters. If they are not breaking the law for instance baiting where legal this isn’t ethics. It’s a sportsmanship call. What is sporting to you and that does vary person to person. Ethics we can make an excuse about but if you wouldn’t do it w a CO watching it’s not ethical.

[pavan]

Party hunting is legal with gun season here.  It is one the of prime reasons some gun hunters go nuts chasing deer from section to section, trespassing their way across the county and lobbing 500 yard slugs at deer to keep them moving.  The old idiotic head them off at the pass game.  That kind of party hunting goes wrong more often than not.  Once a C hunter came up to me and my wife while we were putting are stuff together to go home and said that he shot a nice fat yearling doe for my wife to tag.  No one shoots a deer for my wife, especially not me.  That kid had two choices, 1. He tags the deer and takes it home.  2. I call the game warden.  He picked 1 and has hated me ever since.

[Roy from Pa]

^5 Lawrence

 

[fnshtr]

Party hunting is legal with gun season here.  It is one the of prime reasons some gun hunters go nuts chasing deer from section to section, trespassing their way across the county and lobbing 500 yard slugs at deer to keep them moving.  The old idiotic head them off at the pass game.  That kind of party hunting goes wrong more often than not.  Once a C hunter came up to me and my wife while we were putting are stuff together to go home and said that he shot a nice fat yearling doe for my wife to tag.  No one shoots a deer for my wife, especially not me.  That kid had two choices, 1. He tags the deer and takes it home.  2. I call the game warden.  He picked 1 and has hated me ever since.

You mean one tag issued to a “party” of hunters? That makes no sense to me! That is inviting game law infractions!

[gregg dudley]

You mean one tag issued to a “party” of hunters? That makes no sense to me! That is inviting game law infractions!

Actually it refers to everyone pooling the available tags and hunting until the quota is filled.  In some places tags aren't actually assigned to an individual and it can work well.  In fact, it is a much closer step towards managing the resource for specific harvest goals than assigning tags to individual licenses.  A lot of large private landowners or large clubs in the south are given a set number of doe tags for the property.  They are then shared as members see fit.  There are shortfalls, however, and that is why party hunting as described is illegal in many places.  Unfortunately, most hunting regulations are set up to manage people rather than resources.  There is usually justification for that...

[fnshtr]

You mean one tag issued to a “party” of hunters? That makes no sense to me! That is inviting game law infractions!

Actually it refers to everyone pooling the available tags and hunting until the quota is filled.  In some places tags aren't actually assigned to an individual and it can work well.  In fact, it is a much closer step towards managing the resource for specific harvest goals than assigning tags to individual licenses.  A lot of large private landowners or large clubs in the south are given a set number of doe tags for the property.  They are then shared as members see fit.  There are shortfalls, however, and that is why party hunting as described is illegal in many places.  Unfortunately, most hunting regulations are set up to manage people rather than resources.  There is usually justification for that...

Thanks for the clarification. Totally unfamiliar with that concept.

[Cyclic-Rivers]

Although there may be some regional trends, I know hunters in NY who do not fit the profile of the person you mentioned.

I think ethics are personal and different. I believe I need to be an ambassador for bowhunting at keep on the moral high ground. I tell people what I think about immoral actions in the field such as poaching.

I can only hope ethics and morals will sink in to some.

[JohnV]

Party tag hunting makes it easy for a non-resident hunter with a doe-only tag to illegally kill a buck.  Resident hunter in the party buys an either sex tag.  Non-resident with the doe tag shoots a buck while party hunting with locals and puts an either sex tag purchased by the resident on the buck and then takes it home.  This has happened in Iowa and money often changes hands where the grateful non-resident hunter rewards the local for using their tag.

[Hackbow]

Interesting topic Doug. After reading through the previous posts, I'd say I agree with all the above and maybe expand upon a couple aspects. I think Gregg Dudley hit on perhaps the biggest factor - range of experience and travel - very insightful post. For me, defining my goals is what drives my agenda, my methods, my success and ultimately, my personal ethics.

I believe most of the discussions on ethics are rooted in our tendency to elevate the animal we are pursuing past its status as being either food or a target of our bloodlust. Boiled down there are only those two reasons to hunt - sustenance or sport. Our personal reasons to hunt vary in degree along the line between those two. We then define our personal ethics by where we exist on that spectrum and fall into the trap of using our definitions to attempt to regulate others.

The relatively new (historically speaking) phenomenon of attributing some mystical worth to animals, especially whitetail deer, is causing a lot of this naval gazing. Our incredibly high standard of living and very easy lives have led us to be soft. We are constantly being challenged to find new ways to justify our participation in hunting. We’ve allowed those who don’t hunt to define us. Instead of fighting back, we have collectively tried to reason with those who do not operate from a position of reason.

Since we are talking about hunting, death of an individual animal is the desired result of our pursuit. Where the ethics discussion goes awry is when one person tells another how they should pursue and kill that animal within the law. Some seem to think that if they shoot an 8 pt buck that it is somehow a more ethical death than if they had killed that very same deer as a button buck. Why? The very same animal is no longer breathing. It had no concept of time. The successful hunter in either case made a conscious decision to use a tag on that particular animal, and concluded that within the framework of laws, regulations and their personal needs and/or desires, that buck was an acceptable animal to kill for their needs. Why should anyone else have a say in that?

Here's my suggestion; those that like to hunt bears and deer over piles of donuts and corn from a tree stand outfitted with time-stamped trail cams stay quiet about the guys that like to shoot spotted fawns and does on drives. Unless someone is breaking a law, any hunter shaking their finger at another hunter to shame them is weakening our argument and the bonds of our ranks.

The question isn’t about ethics Doug. The question is why do so many hunters feel the need to put other hunters down in the futile attempt to assuage perceived guilt they’ve allowed non-hunters and animal worshippers to put on them? It all boils down to some hunters trying to paint a prettier picture of how they kill animals than others who do it differently.