Hunting ethics-Are they regional?

[Doug Treat]

I have noticed an interesting occurrence when it comes to hunting ethics. It seems that the region of the country and the hunting ethics in the family that one grows up in determines a hunter's ethics. Let me give some examples:
Example #1 I know someone who grew up in upstate New York who is totally fine "party hunting". That is, it doesn't matter who has the deer tag, anyone in the hunting party can take the shot and "we'll figure out the tags later". Then, if too many deer are taken, oh well, some will just go into the freezer without a tag. If hunting his family's land, he rarely even bothers getting a tag. It seems the attitude there acknowledges that there are too many whitetails there so they take care of it, legal or not.
Example #2 Last year, I shot a traditional 3-D shoot with a group of guys that I met at the shoot. As we were shooting, one of the gentleman went on a tyrade about how unethical it was that hunters in Texas tend to use feeders to bait deer. "That's not hunting" he said, even though totally legal in Texas. About an hour later, this same gentleman stated that the best way to hunt blacktail deer was to get some good dogs trained to run the deer to you and a flat shooting rifle. I imagine that some Texas corn-feeder hunters would be totally appalled with the thought of running deer with dogs, although totally legal here in California.
Example #3 I have heard hunters in Montana say that it's not ethical to use trail cameras (it's illegal during the season in MT) but tell that to a Midwest whitetail hunter.
Example #4 In California, it is considered the unpardonable sin to shoot a doe deer (and not legal for most of the state) where in other states you have to shoot a doe before you can shoot a buck.
I'm sure there are lots of other examples but my point: Perhaps we should have a strict personal understanding of our own ethics that we are comfortable with and stick to those tenaciously but, cut our fellow hunters some slack when it comes to hunting ethics, understanding that regional cultural differences exist and there is no "One size fits all" when it comes to hunting ethics. Your thoughts?

[fnshtr]

I agree that there are many factors that affect a persons hunting ethics. I remember first hearing that they hunted deer with dogs down south (I believe at the time it was Georgia). I thought that was terrible and definitely not “fair chase”. However, I didn’t think twice about hunting rabbits with a dog and shotgun . Go figure!

I also had reservations about baiting bears, but have since shot one off a bait.

Personally, I separate legal and ethical in my own mind. For me, illegal is “off limits”. No justification for that. I feel a responsibility to always operate within all known hunting regulations. This, I feel, is my contribution to the overall good of society (including the privilege to hunt). Not just for my benefit, but for the benefit of everyone.

A few years ago I had trail camera pics of a mature buck. We called him “freaky”, due to his non-typical right beam. We had a “earn your second buck” rule at the time. I shot a small 8 early in the season and then set out to take the required doe so I could hunt exclusively for Freaky. Well, I couldn’t find a doe, which isn’t usually that hard. You guessed it. One morning Freaky strolls in and stops at 15 yards. I’ve heard of people checking in “phantom does” in such cases. We have electronic check in which would make it easy. Although tempted, I passed him. We never seen that buck again. Another factor in my decision to pass on the largest whitetail I’ve ever seen during season is my personal moral compass. I could not lie.

This is a very interesting topic. I’ll be watching. Good to hear from you.

[Doug_K]

From what I've seen it's more cultural than regional. Around here, driving deer is popular. I hate it. I don't protest or rant about it, but I wont do it. In Wisconsin you can buy as many antlerless tags as you want until the quota is filled. I don't shoot does or fawns, and get labeled a trophy hunter for it. It's nothing to do with trophy hunting, I figure there's plenty of others killing anything that's brown, and frankly I'd rather leave the does to repopulate and keep the herd thriving. Not a popular train of thought around here. I keep my freezer stocked with meat from bucks as it is.

Now, my ethics got started with my fathers influence (who is technically a life long trophy hunter) despite other influence in family and friends. But throughout my life my hunting philosophy has evolved due to logic and reasoning on my own situation.

I'd wager that most hunters who stick with it long enough, and especially the traditional community, go through a similar evolution throughout their lives, regardless the end result.

[Sam McMichael]

My short answer is, "Yes". We are all products of our environment to a large degree. Common practices within our family and the area in which we live strongly affect our "ethics". True some may change hunting habits over time but, in my opinion, not likely.

[pavan]

Ethics around here is hit and miss per individual.  As far as your numbered issues, all but the last one to me is unethical.  whether one shoots a doe or not is totally a management issue.

[SwampRabbit]

Fair chase is always an interesting term. That is, obviously there is a fine line and in most cases the judgement is somewhat subjective. It seems most folks make a determination of ethics based on some sense of difficultly in the pursuit. To make matters even more complicated is when people make a judgement based on factors of thier regional environment. For instance hunting feeders vs food plots. Dogs, party drives, fences, ozonics, you name it.

Also, something to think about is your motivation for pursuit. Is it sport, or is it sustenance, or a little bit of both?

I personally like to form opinions based on whether a method is resource sustainable. That is, does a specific method adhere to conservation guidelines and manageability. Whether or not I feel a method is "hunting", is somewhat personal.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[SwampRabbit]

... so I tend to think it is somewhat regional based soley on game populations by region and which methods can be sustained. That is of course assuming all game laws are chosen based on studies and not just based on personal feelings.

It does bother me when people paint with broad brushes... ie when a food plot or corn feild hunter judges a South Texas feeder hunter and vice versa.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[madmaxthc]

Very nice post, Doug!

Behind some of these behaviors there factors, which may vary from region to region.

Hunting game with dogs often doesn't give you time to be selective of sex/age of what you shoot. That is fine for animals with a numerous litter, such as rabbits and pigs. Deer usually have a smaller litter size (1-2 fawns per year) and hunting by dog might decimate its population. Of course, if you are in an area with few hunters/limited access, the impact might be reduced, so it depends on the territory. Last winter I was invited to a deer hunt with dogs, but that was in a very large area and hunting was limited to one day every 1-2 years.

I shudder  a bit when I hear people saying "why did you shoot a doe?".  The idea of harvesting only males is a bit of an old one, and it has been demonstrated that skewing the male/female ratio too far can be very detrimental to the populations, particularly in cold climates. That is because when there are not enough adult males, the younger ones become sexually active before they normally would. This means they spent their time fighting/defending the territory/looking for females instead of feeding. When winter arrives they are too weak and die. Easy to see how this might become a cycle, the less the males, the more they die. That is the reason why in some areas in Europe we have to tag a doe before we can tag a buck, or in some cases doe tags are given to younger hunters, and older ones can draft a buck tag. For what I hear some states here have similar policies. Once again, it depends on the region and on the number of hunters; I guess in warmer climates the dynamics might be different.

Personally, if it's legal and edible I go for it. I haven't harvested anything by bow yet, so I'll take what comes around. I have never been a trophy hunter, not even by gun, but I have  heard people saying that "we are not animals, why would you even shoot something that does not have a trophy...?!" To each their own I guess, as long as they don't prevent me from shooting a doe. :P
I don't eat antlers 

[madmaxthc]

Also, an excessive pressure only on older males with big trophies might be detrimental to the quality of the trophies on the long run. If people shoot exclusively animals with large trophies, they end up pressuring the species to have small trophies: animals that tend to have smaller trophies are more likely to survive and breed, while the ones with big antlers/horns are more likely to be harvested. That is another reason I tend not to pass anything as long as it is legal. Adult animals tend to be the best breeders, and harvesting a younger one actually has less of an impact on the population.

[madmaxthc]

... so I tend to think it is somewhat regional based soley on game populations by region and which methods can be sustained. That is of course assuming all game laws are chosen based on studies and not just based on personal feelings.

It does bother me when people paint with broad brushes... ie when a food plot or corn feild hunter judges a South Texas feeder hunter and vice versa.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[Bvas]

I think region is only one part of personal ethics. Local laws, population density, hunting opportunities(time and land), goal(meat, trophy, relaxation) and other things all play into one’s personal ethics.
I don’t believe we should fault another for their personal ethics just because they are not the same as ours. As long as they play by the rules!!

[Bowwild]

I agree, how one is raised hunting has a lot to do with molding one's personal ethic.  I started hunting in Indiana. Therefore, according to law, no baiting, no dogs, and shooting does is fine.  I've lived and hunted in states where other things are legal but I have no interest. 

Another thing that can impact one's "ethic" at certain times and places is what the landowner wants. If the landowner says no does or only large bucks, I must adopt that constraint while there. I've hunted places where the landowner wanted more liberal harvest than the law allowed (antelope and whitetails), of course I declined compliance.

My personal ethic starts with what is legal. However, my ethic may be more strict than what is allowed.

I also think one's personal ethic may change (likely) as they are exposed to other people and their techniques and age/ability. I don't criticize another's ethic UNLESS it is illegal. I've lost a few hunting spots over the years because of insisting that everyone follow the law.

[Doug_K]

Also, an excessive pressure only on older males with big trophies might be detrimental to the quality of the trophies on the long run. If people shoot exclusively animals with large trophies, they end up pressuring the species to have small trophies: animals that tend to have smaller trophies are more likely to survive and breed, while the ones with big antlers/horns are more likely to be harvested. That is another reason I tend not to pass anything as long as it is legal. Adult animals tend to be the best breeders, and harvesting a younger one actually has less of an impact on the population.

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.

[LBR]

Laws are regional.  Ethics are individual.

[Doug Treat]

All great and well thought out feedback, guys. Thanks.

[YosemiteSam]

Laws are legal.  Morals are universal.  Ethics are always situational.

If I could, I'd take fawns & spikes while preserving those animals with proven wariness.  But it isn't legal.

I'll never take a shot that I think may miss the vitals or where recovery was impossible.  I also don't animals I can't eat or otherwise have no use for once they're dead (pests like rats and some birds being the exceptions).  That's my moral code.

I've hunted over feeders, shot a doe, etc. where legal and where I was confident that populations were high.  But I wouldn't advocate that on my home turf where our success rates are a dismal 5%.  Yet if the economy collapsed & I had to feed my family, I do any of those things without a second thought.  That's ethics.

[Lakerat007]

From what I see hunters are a product of there mentors reguardless of region. If some dirtbag takes his boy out poaching one night I would be willing to bet that kid will grow up with no respect for game laws much less anything remotely close to ethics.

There's many hunting practices that I personally frown upon, but they are legal so I just worry about me and what makes me happy. The game of chess is where it's at for me. But I also feel hunting is a lot like religion u start telling folks what's right, wrong or indifferent tempers are gonna flare.

[Red Beastmaster]

I surround myself with like minded traditional Bowhunters to shield from the slobs.

[TooManyHobbies]

Legal is not always ethical, ethical is not always legal.
I think most of us would dispatch a severely injured animal whether it was shot or hit by a car. Legally would probably be wrong, but ethically it would be the right thing to do. There may not be time to get permission, and even if there is, it may not be granted. I won't watch an animal suffer just to wait for an authorized person to come and dispatch it.

It's legal here to kill a doe with spotted fawns, ethically I think it's wrong.

Parts of our state is legal to bait, the rest of the state it's illegal. Ethical goes with the legality in that situation.

[olddogrib]

To a large degree I'm sure they probably are, but I suspect the job of Fish & Wildlife depts. in the various states face drastically different challenges, i.e. managing game populations, controlling natural predation, stemming the spread of CWD, etc.  Stampeding bison over cliffs  would be frowned on today, but nobody can argue it wasn't darned effective if there were lots of Native American mouths to feed.