[itgoesboom]

I am a fairly new hunter, I have only been on two hunts, one as the hunter, and one as a helper/packmule.

I notice lots of discussion about what is and what isn't ethical, and I just wanted to get clarification on what everyone means by a couple of terms:

1. Fair chase. I am assuming this means no fences, the animal is free to roam, go anywhere it wants? Is that right?

2. Road Hunting. I also assume this means those who shoot from their trucks or who never actually get off the road to track and hunt?

What about driving an area and glassing clearcuts, or finding tracks by the road and then hiking in and hunting those areas? Is that considered the same thing as road hunting, or is that completely different (I think this is called spot & stalk or drive, spot & stalk.)

Any other pet peeves about unethical hunting?

Thanks in advance.

I.G.B.

[rwc]

Like with many issues, you'll get as many different opinions on "fair chase" as anything else. I'll give you an example. WA state is revising its hunting regs and requested comments on a series of questions. If you read the public comments they received you'll see an amazing diversity of opinion.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/seasonsetting/

Here's a place that you might wish to poke around at
http://www.huntfairchase.com/

For me hunting is about the experience AND filling the freezer. I think hunting game that has always roamed free and still can is fair enough. I am not under any illusions of "fairness" as we commonly think about that word when it comes to hunting with my scoped .308. That said, probably the most "unfair" aspect of my MT deer hunt last fall was my father-in-law taking me to a good spot, and setting me up for success.

I suppose if I wanted to be "fair" I'd head out on foot, wearing buckskins, carrying a stick bow & arrows (sling, atlatl, spear, etc.) I had made myself with what I had gathered from the woods. Now THAT would be "fair." As things stand, I'm happy to decrease the "fairness" to increase the probability that my freezer stays full. Just my opinion, your mileage will vary.

[birddog]

I agree with RWC's post. The definition of "Fair Chase" is a moving target. I used to think baiting bears was not an ethically healthy thing to do. Now, after ten years, five bear hunts, and 3 dead bears, I think hunting bears over bait is just fine and, in the country I hunt in Maine, probably the only way you're going to get one. I hunt deer with handguns, rifles, shotguns and bows and each offers its own challenge. Do I think a 30-06 is less of a challenge than killing one with an arrow? Certainly! Do I think therefore that a bowhunter stands on higher moral ground? Absolutely not.

Good luck with this thread, lol.

[Rem700SD]

Your best reference or fair and legal would be your state parks and wildlife authority. I got a booklet when I purchased a hog hunting license in TX. It was very helpful and informative on all types of hunting and fishing.

[AnthonyRSS]

If you are just trying to get food for your family, then would it be unethical to hunt deer over a salt lick?

Or would it be more ethical to let your family eat berries?

There is a such thing as 'situational ethics'.

Anthony

[rbernie]

Most any manner of hunting can be considered ethical under the appropriate circumstances and potentially inappropriate under other circumstances. But killing just to kill something is never appropriate or ethical....

[Malfader13]

None ethical hunting is easier for me to define.

1. Poaching
2. Canned Hunting
3. Trophy Hunting (Not using the meat excepting varmint)
4. Internet Hunting (the guy in Texas who set up the internet site)

I don't say hunting from a vehicle is unethical simply because I know some old hunters that have a hard time getting around in the woods, but for the average guy I think it is just lazy.

It dose irritate the hell out of me seeing able bodied people cruising around on their ATVs in a back woods area and hunting from them. I mean COME ON :cuss: you don't think the deer and elk can hear that damned thing?

I think that about covers it.

Good luck on your next hunt, be safe, and always take a moment to just enjoy where you are and what your doing regardless of the outcome.

[LAK]

Perhaps it helps to first define hunting. And there are some things which might not be considered hunting - but still ethical in capturing or killing animals strictly for food or other purposes. I think we have to separate "sport" or "fair chase" from "obtaining food (etc)".

I like Lt. Col. C. H. Stockley's comparisons and opinions in, "Stalking in the Himalayas and Northern India" published in 1936. It begins with a chapter entitled:

"What is Stalking?

..... Stalking is getting on foot within shooting or photographing distance of an animal first discovered by eye, making use only of natural cover, and without artificial aid. "Shooting distance" meaning such distance that will almost certainly ensure a clean kill.

This, it will be seen, excludes the use of motor car, elephant, cart or boat, or dressing up in native clothes; the employment of such adventitious aids destroying a true conception of sport, as making the approach too easy by abusing the confidence of the game.

Herein lies the essence of sport, in the means employed to gain one's end. It must not be too easy and the game must have a fair chance. Equally, to gain real sport, the vigour, nerve and intelligence used must be one's own: by merely following at the heels of a hired ghillie or shikari no man can experience the joy of achievement which comes from defeating a wary old beast on his own ground. Not that a fair partnership with the ghillie or shikari is to be despised, far from it; for few can learn the lessons of the wild from books, and it is from such men that one aquires the knowledge which eventually leads to sole conquest of a worthy antagonist, by means worthy of the trophy." [he then follows with "trophies"]

"I would place tracking on an equal plane of sport with stalking, but beating and sitting-up are not in the same category. To take the analogy of fishing; tracking and stalking may be graded with fair methods of rod and line, while beating is equivalent to netting, and sitting up to night-lining." [he goes on to dissect "beating" or "driving" game]

"Sitting-up at night is hardly ever sport: only where a maneater is concerned, and even then it may be mere destruction."

All in all a pretty fair summary IMO.

---------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[shermacman]

Try this:
My brother took a deer in his backyard. Four of them were chewing through the suburban wasteland of tulip bulbs and rhoddies. So it wasn't technically baiting, although the deer were in hog heaven. The shot was 20 yards with a 9mm pistol, also illegal. Didn't even need to go to the trouble of getting in his truck and jacking it at night! Did it from the warmth and comfort of his kitchen window, also illegal. In a town where there is a no gunfire anytime, any place law.

It jumped a few yards and went down, he gutted it and packed the meat in the freezer for some good old venison steaks.

Immoral? Illegal? ;)

[roo_ster]

Try this:
My brother took a deer in his backyard. Four of them were chewing through the suburban wasteland of tulip bulbs and rhoddies. So it wasn't technically baiting, although the deer were in hog heaven. The shot was 20 yards with a 9mm pistol, also illegal. Didn't even need to go to the trouble of getting in his truck and jacking it at night! Did it from the warmth and comfort of his kitchen window, also illegal. In a town where there is a no gunfire anytime, any place law.

It jumped a few yards and went down, he gutted it and packed the meat in the freezer for some good old venison steaks.

Immoral? Illegal? ;)

My great uncle defended his garden with firearms. Many a rabbit met its end. I doubt he would have made an exception for Bambi.

[Art Eatman]

There can be fair chase in a high fenced pasture, but it's a function of the size of the pasture. Whitetail deer live in an area of not much more than a square mile, and are known to starve or die of thirst before they'll move to other areas. A square mile is a section is 640 acres, so a high fenced pasture of a few thousand acres is plenty fair. Ten? Nope.

"Road hunting" is generally accepted as a poaching deal, with people riding down a public road and shooting at deer in the right of way or behind the pasture fence. Not the same as driving around a pasture and looking for Bambi, although that's technically the same physical thing.

Otherwise, one imposes the level of challenge in hunting upon one's self. It can be made easy or very difficult--but it all can be ethical.

The issue of stand hunting is often brought up. There are places around the country where any other method requires a level of skill that few ever achieve. Jungly forest as in the bottomlands of the Appalachicola River in west Florida; high, thick brush as in the brasada of south Texas: If you don't have some elevation, you won't even see a deer. You gotta do like a cougar sitting on a rock, waiting to ambush.

Art

[itgoesboom]

Thanks everyone.

I know that ethics vary based on the situation, as well as the region of the country that you are in, and the type of hunting that is available. My concerns aren't so much for what is legal, since that is very easy to find in the little booklet. My concern is about being an ethical hunter, not being a slob hunter.

The description of fair chase that Art and others give goes along pretty well with what I figured, it was fairly obvious.

As for "road hunting", it doesn't seem quite as clear, and I have seen mixed definitions of it here and on other sites.

Here in Oregon, where I have gone on only a couple hunts, it seems a very popular method of hunting is to drive the logging roads that are open to hunters, looking for areas to hunt, glassing distant clearcuts, looking for tracks on the side of the road etc. After some sign is found, or a clearcut shows some animals or sign of animals, then the hunter would disembark from their vehicle and track the animal and try to get a shot at it.

The tracking could be as short as a couple hundred yards, up to a couple miles from the road. The hunt that I recently went on, we were about 3/4 of a mile in from the road when we found the Elk (we actually hadn't seen them from the road, we just identified a logical place where they might be).

Would that type of hunting be considered unethical? Would that be considered road hunting?

I.G.B.

[rbernie]

Would that type of hunting be considered unethical? Would that be considered road hunting?In my opinion - no. Using the vehicle to cover more ground when the game is dispersed isn't unethical so long as you make the effort to track and stalk once you get somewhere you judge the game is likely to be. Heck, if driving to where the game is likely to be is unethical, am I supposed to hike hundreds of miles to my lease? :D

In a mo' perfect world, I'd love to think that we'd all be riding horses or doing something a bit more, ah, robust to get to the hunting locations. But for most of us, that's just not reasonable or feasible - hence the use of motor transport.

[MNgoldenbear]

+1 on rbernie's statements. From what I've seen and done, that's not road hunting. Here in the farmlands of western MN, we do a lot of different hunting. I've seen the same guys spend hours stalking whitetails with a bow, and then come along on a "party" hunt driving deer out of filter strips to others waiting on the other side with slug guns. The first activity is basically hunting, the second is more like shopping for meat. We are at least honest in that we would not refer to driving game as "hunting" -- basically getting meat and doing some management (helps reduce the deer/vehicle collisions, though I saw on another posting someone arguing the issue). I think it's best to stay away from the moral argument, lest we stray into PETA territory. I think that's a slippery slope that we too often venture down. Along the same lines as arguing over what firearms are "legitimate" sporting arms. Just adds fuel to the antis fire. I do take issue with people who endanger others by their methods, or are exceptionally and intentionally cruel to the game. Also, waste in any form is not something to be proud of, whether hunting or in any other activity. (Basically, just being good stewards.)

[svtruth]

I'm surprised no one mentioned bad shots. Too small a caliber, too long a range, shoting at an animal on a ridgeline, etc.
My daughter's BF is an avid hunter in AZ, he won't hunt during the deer, rifle season bc he has heard too many bullets zippping by.

[Art Eatman]

svtruth, there are a gazillion posts here at THR and over at TFL on the subject of "enough gun" and proper shot placement. For the vast majority here, the clean, quick kill is a given.

:), Art

[itgoesboom]

svtruth, there are a gazillion posts here at THR and over at TFL on the subject of "enough gun" and proper shot placement. For the vast majority here, the clean, quick kill is a given.

:), Art


Exactly.

Thats also why I didn't bring up stand hunting. I remember the last time someone challenged people here and said that it wasn't hunting.....:p

I.G.B.

[Double Naught Spy]

1. Fair chase. I am assuming this means no fences, the animal is free to roam, go anywhere it wants? Is that right?


There is a big difference between ethics and laws and fairness. Not all laws are ethical and not everything that is ethical is legal. What is fair to the animal is a joke by most hunting standards and that is because of the resources available to hunters to make them more successful.

I always laugh when hunters refer to things like "fair chase," or "fair hunt." I have yet to figure out what is fair about being able to shoot an animal at distance that you could not otherwise get to on foot. I don't know what is fair about shooting an animal that can't see you or sense you because of camoflaging agents. In states that allow baiting or non-season baiting, I can't even begin to imagine what is ethical or fair about shooting an animal at a feeder you set up, be it full or not full at the time of the shooting. Feeders creature an artificial and apparently hyper productive concentrated food resource that the animal will come to recognize as a food source. Even if not full at the time of the hunt, the animal will check and will do so because when producing, the feeder is a bonanza for the animal.

By design, hunting is NOT intended to be fair, be it by man or by beast. There are many ways to take advantage of intended prey. Man gets the unequalled benefit of compensation for his pitiful biological self through technology. Man does not have sharp teeth, tough hide, big claws and is not terrible fast on land, water, or in the trees and so man compensates with his brain and technology. That is fine, but it isn't fair.

I don't hunt, but have let hunters use my land. Aside from legal obligations, the one thing I require is that when a shot is taken at an animal, it is a positive ID shot and it is an unobstructed view shot. Probably the most unethical things a hunter can do is take shots at animals he has not 100% positively identified (hence hunter shooting hunter incidents, or hunter shooting holstein incidents) or don't have a clear shot at the target vital organs, resulting in the shooting of the wrong animals or the non-lethal or long suffering before lethal wounding of an animal as a result of the hunter's bad shot choice.

I personally think it is horrible when hunters choose hunting locations where they know there is a chance the game they shoot may be able to cross property lines after being hit, but yet the hunters have not secured permission from adjoining properties to track down wounded animals or to follow the blood trail to the animal that expires shortly after being shot, but manages that last 100-200 escape ran including the crossing of a fence.

Hunting is not fair, but to be as ethical as one can to the animal, the cleaner the kill the better...and I am not talking about other hunters when I say the cleaner the kill the better. Shooting other hunters, on accident or on purpose, can be seen as illegal in most states.

[JollyWhiteGiant]

What is ethical and leagal in TX is considered neither here in MN. It seems that we allow the DNR to decide what is ethical hunting.

Here is what I consider ethical:
#1 positive identification and safe shooting
#2 only taking shots to minimise suffereing of animal, ie. adaquit caliber, range, and shot angle
#3 Use as much of what you take as possible
#4 do what is best for the heard not your ego. Too many trophy hunters, especially in areas that have too many does.
#5 following seasons and limits
#6 basic hunter ethics, like not knowingly messing with other hunters hunts, trespassing, following landowner requests, ect.

what I don't get is baiting laws. You can put out all kinds of scents and salt, built a food polt wtih a patch of standing corn but you use a feeder to give them the same corn and you are baiting. It just doesn't make a bit of sence to me.

[birddog]

I personally think it is horrible when hunters choose hunting locations where they know there is a chance the game they shoot may be able to cross property lines after being hit, but yet the hunters have not secured permission from adjoining properties to track down wounded animals or to follow the blood trail to the animal that expires shortly after being shot, but manages that last 100-200 escape ran including the crossing of a fence.

When you're hunting a 20 acre woodlot such as I do, since "big woods" or big tracts of land are absent in the area around my house, the possibility of a bow shot deer running on to an adjacement property is staggeringly high. Securing the neighbor's permission to track is a necessity.

[Art Eatman]

JWG, I don't know of anybody I've ever hunted with here in Texas who'd disagree with your six points.

Baiting is fine if you want meat. Does and little bucks show up. Ol' Biggie might be nearby in the brush, but his appetite is for other than corn. I've always considered baiting to be legal food-gathering. It's not "hunt" in the dictionary sense of the word.

DNS, I got into a similar discussion with a guy about "how easy it is to kill a deer with a scope-sighted rifle". I made him an offer: I'd rig a motor-drive Nikon camera with crosshairs on the shutter. I'd mount the camera on a rifle stock and arrange a trigger to operate the shutter.

All he had to do was find a truly decent buck and bring me a picture with the crosshairs centered on a kill shot. I'd pay him $1,000 if he could do it; he'd pay me $1,000 if he didn't.

I'd take him with me on a walking hunt of no more than ten or twelve miles in my Solitario country, where I knew there were a fair number of mule deer. You could generally figure shots would be no more than 200 to 500 yards.

He passed the deal...

Art

[Highland Ranger]

ethical = a quick clean kill, no undue/avoidable suffering

Meat must be used, trophy taking and wasted meat is borderline.

That's your definition.

State rules and regulations have nothing to do with ethics.

[pax]

Road hunting ...

I've got a buddy who hasn't taken a shot except from a truck or ATV in years. To my knowledge, he hasn't walked up on a deer in at least 10 years.

Of course, that'd be because he lives in a wheelchair.

If some folks had their way, no one would be allowed to hunt from a vehicle, and my buddy's freezer would always be empty.

To me, that would be unethical.

pax

[Stand_Watie]

Road hunting ...

I've got a buddy who hasn't taken a shot except from a truck or ATV in years. To my knowledge, he hasn't walked up on a deer in at least 10 years.

Of course, that'd be because he lives in a wheelchair.

If some folks had their way, no one would be allowed to hunt from a vehicle, and my buddy's freezer would always be empty.

To me, that would be unethical.

pax

Is that legal in Washington? If so, good job on the game laws that make proper exceptions for disabilities.

Laws ought to reflect realities of different animals too. The best, most proficient hunter that I know kills 95% of the coyotes he takes from the road. He doesn't consider it hunting, and I think it's not legal, but it's beneficient to the neighborhood and the bob wire fences for miles around are strung with his victims.

[pax]

Stand_Watie ~

He's an Oregon resident. Oregon does have pretty good disabled-hunter laws.

pax

[LAK]

DNS, I got into a similar discussion with a guy about "how easy it is to kill a deer with a scope-sighted rifle". I made him an offer: I'd rig a motor-drive Nikon camera with crosshairs on the shutter. I'd mount the camera on a rifle stock and arrange a trigger to operate the shutter.
Very fitting challenge!

For every hunter that manages a textbook stalk under the general rules of fair chase and brings home the goods with regularity - there are countless numbers who make errors, suffer simple misfortune - or who get spotted, outsmarted, by the animals they pursue.

I have been within rock throwing distance of deer. No camo, face paint, scent blockers, bait etc; simply by spotting them at a distance, remaining perfectly still, and letting them walk right up to me. Once.

But to say that there is no challenge stalking and cleanly taking any game animal or bird under fair chase is in error. For me the entire experience of a hunt is in the chase; if it were so easy and such a sure thing, I personally would have lost interest in it a long time ago.
-------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[JohnKSa]

WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

Here's my take.

Ethical hunting:


Is legal.
Is consistent with the SPIRIT of the law.
Offers a reasonable level of challenge to the hunter.
Offers a reasonable chance of escape for the prey.
Results in a reasonably low probability of wounded prey escaping.
Is not wasteful of natural resources.
Is not significantly harmful to the environment.
Does not harmfully reduce the population level of game.
Does not unecessarily demean the hunted animal.
Is not solely kill oriented. (A hunt need not ALWAYS culminate in a kill to be sucessful.)
Encourages hunters and others to learn about and support the environment.

If the game is dangerous game, then the following applies IN ADDITION to the comments above.


Presents some reasonable level of risk/danger to the hunter.

[Koobuh]

[QUOTE=JohnKSa]
Is legal.QUOTE]

Law and Ethics should never be paired together in an argument. Ethics, like morals, exist independantly of the law, though they are often codified within laws.
Ethics are derived from the most common accepted practice of those who make morally sound decisions.
It is Ethical to put down a car-hit deer which is going to die slowly of its wounds, because that is what a Moral person would do- in a society where Morality considers animal suffering unacceptable. However, it is often Illegal to do so; discharging a firearm in city limits, shooting a game animal for a purpose other than consumption, taking a game animal out of season, various onerous poaching regulations, etc.

All other legal requirements aside, ethical hunting really should include only the following (in my opinion).
Property rights will be respected, and no shot is taken without positive identification of the target.
The animal is cleanly killed.
The hunter utilizes the whole animal directly or by proxy (donation of meat, hide, etc.), and disposes of the waste (offal and blood) in a way that will not contaminate local water supplies.

That's all. All I am concerned about Morally in hunting is that the animal not suffer unduly, that I make its sacrifice worthwhile, and not infringing another person's rights or safety in the process.
Everything else is superfluous as far as my ethics go, although often necessary for management goals. It is of course recommended to be highly scrupulous when it comes to the law.

[CrazyIrishman]

WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

Here's my take.

Ethical hunting:


Is legal.
Is consistent with the SPIRIT of the law.
Offers a reasonable level of challenge to the hunter.
Offers a reasonable chance of escape for the prey.
Results in a reasonably low probability of wounded prey escaping.
Is not wasteful of natural resources.
Is not significantly harmful to the environment.
Does not harmfully reduce the population level of game.
Does not unecessarily demean the hunted animal.
Is not solely kill oriented. (A hunt need not ALWAYS culminate in a kill to be sucessful.)
Encourages hunters and others to learn about and support the environment.

If the game is dangerous game, then the following applies IN ADDITION to the comments above.


Presents some reasonable level of risk/danger to the hunter.



John,

I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head with your list. I no longer hunt myself due to health issues but I have yet to forget the memories that I have. Even if I went home with no game to eat I still considered it a "good" hunt.

[JohnKSa]

WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.Law and Ethics should never be paired together in an argument.It is true that ethics and legality aren't the same thing and I didn't mean to imply that they are.

Ideally, an equitable, omniscient and benevolent government draws the circle of law around the activities of its citizens. Likewise, in the ideal situation, each citizen then draws his own circle of ethics and morals WITHIN the circle of law.

While ethics and morality sometimes conflict with the law, that shouldn't happen in a fair and benevolent representative government that has considered every case and made the right decisions in every situation. So your PRACTICAL example is of interest only to the extent that it makes the case that the government is either not completely fair, not perfectly benevolent, or can't make laws that always adequately cover every possible circumstance. Which is a given--no government can possibly conform to those standards.

However, that doesn't change the fact that ethics and morality are concepts that involve the idea of right and wrong. A disregard for the law is generally considered to fall more under the concept of wrong than right and therefore a very good beginning point for defining personal ethics and morality is legality.

It is clearly true that a person can hunt legally without being an ethical hunter.

But, in my opinion, it's hard to make a case for being an ethical hunter if you disregard hunting regulations. Particularly, since the general idea of hunting regulations is to benefit the hunted animals and to protect those who are doing the hunting and those who are nearby.

Which reminds me--I've left at least one thing off my list... ;)

Here's the revised version.

Ethical hunting:


Is legal.
Is consistent with the SPIRIT of the law.
Offers a reasonable level of challenge to the hunter.
Offers a reasonable chance of escape for the prey.
Results in a reasonably low probability of wounded prey escaping.
Is not wasteful of natural resources.
Is not significantly harmful to the environment.
Does not harmfully reduce the population level of game.
Does not unecessarily demean the hunted animal.
Is not solely kill oriented. (A hunt need not ALWAYS culminate in a kill to be sucessful.)
Encourages hunters and others to learn about and support the environment.
Respects the property and rights of others.
Considers the safety of others.

If the game is dangerous game, then the following applies IN ADDITION to the comments above.


Presents some reasonable level of risk/danger to the hunter.

[lawson]

i was raised as a hunter by a hunter, and i believe i am an ethical hunter.

i never shoot something i don't intend to eat. i'm not going to eat an entire deer on my own, but i have lots of friends that enjoy gifts of venison.

i don't take a shot unless it's clean. in the terrain i hunt in, most deer shots are under 100 yds, usually around 50-75.

i've never hunted from a stand, but i've climbed a few trees in my day.

[Art Eatman]

Hey, anybody who's not figured out that being with a bunch around the campfire, talking about today's hunt, yesteryears' hunts, and "Where ya gonna hunt tomorrow?" just hasn't a clue about the best part of the whole deal!

:), Art

[Stand_Watie]

A good point regarding ethical vs. legal above.


[redacted to protect the innocent and the guilty]

[Mantis]

Hey, anybody who's not figured out that being with a bunch around the campfire, talking about today's hunt, yesteryears' hunts, and "Where ya gonna hunt tomorrow?" just hasn't a clue about the best part of the whole deal!

:), Art

+1

That's one of the most difficult things for non-hunters to understand.

[ID_shooting]

As a disabled hunter and a holder of a disabled hunters permit, I think road hunting is fine. When I was younger I did most of my hunting on foot, now that I have synthetics in my knee, I do most of my hunting on an ATV. My permit does allow my to shoot from a vehicle, though I rarely do, but does not allow me into the gated off roads in the public lands.

Since these gates are closed, (not private land, USFS or BLM mostly) I do not get to expirience 7/8th of the same country able bodied hunters get to. (is that ethical?)

My hunting sucess and been 1/10th of what it used to be (big game, turkeys, upland) simply becuase I can not walk as far or over the same ground that others can.

What is unethical? For me it using too small of cliber and shooting at ranges too far for reliable kills. I am not into baiting iether, but that is illegal in Idaho so I dont worry. Everything else is OK.

[JohnKSa]

WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

Not legal, but in an area where red-tailed hawks are very common (my county bills itself as the red-tailed hawk capital of the world), I think ethical.Also not hunting.

IMO, pest control is a VERY different thing from hunting and the same rules do not apply.

[H&Hhunter]

I pretty much agree with most that has been written here.

A couple of points of order however.

1. Not all people who use four wheelers are evil. I use a four wheeler instead of my new pick up on narrow tree choked rocky roads and in mud and snow that make driving a 1 ton pick up impossible at worst and dangerous and expensive at best.

I.E> I use my 4-wheeler as a jeep and only on legal roads and trails. I don't hunt off it any more than the guy driving his jeep or other 4WD vehicle to and from the area I intend to hunt. That being that if I was to spy a big bull or buck from atop a 4 wheeler I'd dismount uncase load and go try to collect him just as you would in a jeep or P/U.

This procedure save a bunch of money in truck repairs. And contrary to popular B.S. spread by anti ATV persons they don't make any more noise than your P/U or jeep does banging down a rocky forest road. Thank you very much.

As a note I prefer to hunt off of my horse which in most parts of CO is the true unfair advantage. I usually pass the red faced huffing puffing foot hunter about 20 minutes up from the trail head (an hour or more for the hiker) and get so far back into prime country within an hour it's like having your own private hunting ranch. I really like the part when I've got my bull all quartered up and stored in my saddle panniers and pass the same red faced huffing hunter on the way down and he's still climbing.:D

Also as a point of correction before it gets started you don't shoot of a horse you use them to get into prime country then park them and hunt off of foot. For those who haven't done it.

2. To the fellow who claims that there is nothing "fair" about hunting due to rifles and range and the animals not knowing you are there. Has admittedly and OBVIOUSLY never hunted. I would invite you to come for a week in the Rockies climbing the steep and deep for elk or possibly to sneak into a herd of irate cow elephant. And then tell me how unfair you thought the whole process was.;)

[Stand_Watie]

...Also as a point of correction before it gets started you don't shoot of a horse you use them to get into prime country then park them and hunt off of foot. For those who haven't done it.



Because it's unethical or because it's impractical?

[ID_shooting]

"Also as a point of correction before it gets started you don't shoot of a horse you use them to get into prime country then park them and hunt off of foot. For those who haven't done it."

I have to ask why as well. Growing up, I streched fence and tossed hay and straw for a guy that had horses. His were gun trained. I had seen him take a shot of one several times. I dont know that I saw anything wrong with that.

[Woodland_Annie]

Road hunting ...

I've got a buddy who hasn't taken a shot except from a truck or ATV in years. To my knowledge, he hasn't walked up on a deer in at least 10 years.

Of course, that'd be because he lives in a wheelchair.

If some folks had their way, no one would be allowed to hunt from a vehicle, and my buddy's freezer would always be empty.

To me, that would be unethical.

pax+1

My uncle had a stroke several years ago and walks with a cane. To get to our hunting area, you have to go down a steep hill, cross a creek, and go deep into the woods. He has an ATV just for that purpose. Before the stroke he would have travelled the route on foot.

We do have a serious problem with poaching. My dog came home from trotting around the woods dragging a black garbage bag, neatly tied. The contents of the bag was one carcass of a buck with its head neatly sawn off.:( Unless my dogs have developed opposable thumbs to do all this, I'll go out on a limb and say it was probably poachers trophy hunting.

We have approached vehicles parked up the road in the middle of the night with the dogs in tow and "offered assistance." Funny, they always manage to have just finished "fixing" their truck and they drive off.

In a conversation about the state's tip line to turn in poachers I asked a wildlife officer if I'm supposed to shoot the poacher before or after calling the tip line. He said, "Lady, I ain't touching that question with a ten foot pole!" :evil:

So first on any definition of unethical, I would say trophy hunting and hunting w/o landowner's permission.

[Art Eatman]

"So first on any definition of unethical, I would say trophy hunting and hunting w/o landowner's permission."

Careful in your word usage. :) Before a war starts, I'll presume you mean by "trophy hunting", somebody who only cuts off the head of a superlative animal but leaves the carcass.

In normal usage, "trophy hunting" only means selecting a superior animal. The meat is taken as well as the head.

Art

[Woodland_Annie]

Before a war starts, I'll presume you mean by "trophy hunting", somebody who only cuts off the head of a superlative animal but leaves the carcass.

Art
Thank you, Art. I meant exactly that.:)

So when does the poacher shoot begin?:D

[Pharley]

People have different ethics across the board. I feel I am an ethical hunter, and someone else may disagree. I eat what I kill, and i fish the same way. I do kill groundhogs on 2 farms, and this is at the request of the owner. There are a lot of right answers, but none of them are right.

[MCgunner]

In Texas, feeder watching is a way of life. I've found, on my own 10 acres, that if your land is in the right spot, a feeder can be quite productive. :D However, it gets boring. I'd much rather spot and stalk out west, but white tail in the woods and prairies don't lend themselves to spot and stalk. Feeder watching is the only way. But, that's why I go west to hunt when I can afford the time and money.

Baiting hogs at night is legal here in Texas. I do it on occasion. Not a big deal and fun. I don't consider it unethical.

On the subject of "enough gun", what about archery, where it is expected you'll have to blood trail the animal because he only dies when he's bled to death????? I still consider it ethical. If he's stupid enough to come within bow range, hey, he gets what he deserves...:D I don't bow hunt, can't shoot the things with my eyesight in my strong side eye.

The ONE thing that sort of irks me, I answered an ad in the paper once for hog hunting just south of San Antonio. When I got there, it was a 700+ acre high fence ranch with exotics. The hogs were plaguing the place and you were allowed 3 under 100 lbs on a two day hunt, what I was looking for, meat hunt. It was only $180 for the hunt. I had great fun killing my three hogs. Anyway, on a tour of the ranch when I first get there, the guy is feeding the exotics. I mean, there are red stag, muffolon (sp?), black buck, this and that and they come out of the woods like the pied piper following the jeep. The guy says, "Yeah, when I bring exotic "hunters" out, I like to let 'em out down the road so they can make a "stalk"." Now, this guy was serious! I shot one hog on the run, he fell a few yards into the woods, when we went after that hog, and just after the shot, this red stag comes walking up for a hand out! :rolleyes: Later, I'm walking through the woods kicking brush piles looking for my third hog when the sheep/goat of some kind, probably Barbary sheep or something, one of those curly horned looks like a big horn sorts is walking toward me down the same trail. I was camoed out in my 3d, so I stop motionless. This thing walks right up to me on the trail sniffs me, turns around, and walks off! What the heck kind of "hunting" is THAT?! The hogs were wily enough and the deer stayed to cover pretty much, but the danged exotics were friggin' PETS. It's like walking out in the woods and shooting a cow! I don't call that hunting, ethical or not.:rolleyes:

[redneck2]

So, when I sit down my beer and crank down the window to take a shot while Bubba holds the light, you guys think that's unethical???

:D

An ethical hunter thinks the hunt is more important than the kill

[Art Eatman]

"So, when I sit down my beer and crank down the window to take a shot while Bubba holds the light, you guys think that's unethical???"

Well, I've noticed that ol' Wile E. Coyote seems to think so--but I don't. :D:D:D

Art

[f4t9r]

Most any manner of hunting can be considered ethical under the appropriate circumstances and potentially inappropriate under other circumstances. But killing just to kill something is never appropriate or ethical....

I will go with this one +1

[U.S.SFC_RET]

+ 1 on not killing just to kill. Laid a law on my son if you kill it you eat it.

[H&Hhunter]

"Also as a point of correction before it gets started you don't shoot of a horse you use them to get into prime country then park them and hunt off of foot. For those who haven't done it."

I have to ask why as well. Growing up, I streched fence and tossed hay and straw for a guy that had horses. His were gun trained. I had seen him take a shot of one several times. I dont know that I saw anything wrong with that.

Well,

To answer your questions about shooting from a horse. I guess there are some gun broke mounts around. I have a hard enough time hitting what I'm aiming at on foot from a rest, I just ain't man enough to try it from atop a swaying horse.

And I do know one thing for certain you could shoot from atop my horse. But only once and then things may well become a little more exciting than you bargained for.

He tends to jump at a the shot. There have been plenty of times I've jumped off of him grabed a rifle stood on the reins or held them to make a shot.

The point I was trying to make however is that a horse is a vehicle to get you into prime country while reserving your strength so that you can hunt hard when you get to that prime country.

I am often asked when I mention hunting on horse back if I shoot from my horse. The answer is I guess you could but only once and then you'd be on foot anyway.;)

H&Hhunter

[Art Eatman]

Lord knows there have been enough stories in the gunzines about packing in on horseback, and then scouting from atop Old Crowbait. Dunno why it's a question. :)

As far as shooting from horseback, I did have a palomino gelding that finally got used to it. He didn't like the '06, but he wouldn't buck. I'd see a deer in the pasture and rein him in. He'd learned to turn about 45 degrees right from a 12 o'clock deer so I could get a shot. He'd put his head down as far as he could, lay his ears back, and sorta hump-flinch when the gun went off.

I probably never would have worked on him to train him, but when I'd be shooting pistol at my range, he'd walk up behind me and stand by my right shoulder as if he wanted to tell me what I was doing wrong. Revolvers were okay, but he didn't like the way my 1911 ejected over my shoulder.

Lordy. Doesn't seem like it was 35 years ago...

Art

[CowboyEngr]

JohnKSa,

I think you made several wise comments. It's hard to always say what is ethical in every situation, but your rules would work well for most of us.

In regard to shooting from horseback: I guess you can do whatever you like, but I never considered a horse to be a shooting platform. I've hunted with horses plenty, but always considered shooting while mounted as Hollywood. But, to each his own, I guess.

[JohnKSa]

WARNING! BEFORE reading farther, please read the disclaimer at the end of the post.

Thanks!

I'm also torn regarding the horseback issue. I don't think it's inherently unethical, but I wonder how many people have taken the necessary steps to make sure that it's SAFE.

As Art points out, it's not just a matter of gun handling, you also need a horse that knows what guns are about too. On top of that, you need to be able to shoot accurately enough so that you can be sure of not wounding game.

Elmer Keith mentions some of the pitfalls of horseback gunnery in his book "Sixguns". I don't recall him telling about shooting anything but varmints from horseback though.

[Ankeny]

So, when I sit down my beer and crank down the window to take a shot while Bubba holds the light, you guys think that's unethical???


Night hunting legally for predators certainly isn't unethical, as for the beer part, well obviously any one who mixes booze with guns isn't too bright.:) Of course I know you are just speaking figuratively.

[islandphish]

I list ethical hunting as being

1. safe
2. respectful of other people's rights. (land rights etc.)
3. Doing what you can to be reasonably humane

The big problem I see is that we shouldn't have a "hunting" season. we should have a "harvest" season. How is it some legislator's right to tell me what is sporting and OK? My understanding of the constitution is that I have a right to hunt. How is it anybody's business if I use a crossbow or an electronic sight? so long as I'm hunting safely. To me the law should be about safety and management.

If there are 2000 deer tags, as decided by professional herd managers then fine. To me it doesn't even matter if you are just using them as target practice. That meat wont be wasted. You just fed a coyote. or you fertilized the ground. and as we learned in hunter safety, no species has been endangered by a properly regulated hunting season. Not saying i would do all that but it isn't my place to tell someone else that they can't.

For instance, internet hunting. That deer was put on the "harvest for benefit of herd" list. why does it matter how it is killed? to me the fair chase mentality is washed out liberalism or pc'ism. same with feeding or baiting. using dogs is the same. trapping and snaring are fine in my book. also crossbows.

so language plays a big part. If you want to "cull" a herd for fun or sport then that is your choice and i dont have a problem with it. same with meat hunting or trophy hunting. Just be humane with your method, dont endanger anybody or infringe on their rights, and be safe about it. I leave the rest up for individuals to decide for themselves. Like the poster above said, draw your ethical circle within the circle of the law. But i do think the circle of the law should be larger.

for the record, I like to look for trophy's. But i dont waste meat and if i cant find a trophy i take a meat animal on the last day. I look long and hard for birds that go down and i use dogs. When I fish I dont fillet unless i have time to do it right so i dont throw away meat. I'm not big into killing prairie dogs if you can just go out and poison them but have nothing against it if your state won't allow poison. I will drive until I find animals, will hop out, get onto legal shooting land and take them. Yet I will also stalk or sit for them.

[Troutman]

Ethical? What’s ethical? Educate me please!?
According to PETA. When hunting varmints. BTW! What are varmints? Aren’t varmint’s animals?
Well let’s look.

http://www.helpinganimals.com/wildlife_livingWithSquirrels.asp

“Living in Harmony with Squirrels”... Their article. btw,…. the same article covers tree squirrels, flying squirrels, ground squirrels, chipmunks, prairie dogs, and woodchucks.

The humane way:
Quote: Despite squirrels’ many likeable attributes, some people don’t appreciate it when squirrels raid their vegetable gardens or tear a hole in the roof of their house to build a nest. Nevertheless, it’s important for all of us to remember that we should not vilify these animals—they don’t have a score to settle with us. They are simply doing what comes naturally to them in order to survive. Fortunately for squirrels and us, there are numerous ways to prevent these curious animals from damaging property without harming them in any way End Quote

Is their “humane” way, the “ethical” way? Vilify. Impressive. Have to look that one up….. “They don’t have a score to settle with us”…. O.K. I’ll buy into that…….So does the burglar who steals personal property. Nothing personal. Just wants the property. Don’t worry about it. Insurance will cover it. If one has insurance, that is, and if not, it’s a tax write off, if you itemize. I’ll be simply doing what comes naturally to me in order to protect my property.


“Squirrels in the Home”

Taking this out of context, Quote: When you’re ready to humanely remove the squirrels from your home, begin by thoroughly inspecting attics and eaves to find openings where the squirrels enter and exit, concentrating your efforts on areas where noises have been heard. If you find no apparent points of entry, inspect the eaves, vents, and roof outside until you find the opening. If you find a nest, and there are no immature squirrels, attempt to encourage the squirrels to go outside by placing a radio tuned to a talk-radio station inside the attic, along with several ammonia-soaked rags and/or a portable lamp End Quote

Very nice!!!!! Why not just play some tunes and have a tanning bed (instead of a portable lamp) for them, to get some rays. They can have a party! This way they never have to leave the house.
Fox urine can be bought (at the feed store) for this purpose, can be used. Squirrels will think:” theirs a fox around and unless we relocate somewhere else we will be relocated in the fox’s stomach”. I guess, this will fall under the cruel and inhumane treatment act? Using fox urine? The trauma these varmints will go through being horrified…. The …..Horror! The…. Horror! (Thinking of Brando, saying this)
Also, the article says about their young. Well! Have they (PETA) found a home! Well! After reading that (got to my heart) since their might be a possible chance of “immature” ones. And I can’t do anything, anyway. I guess just give up the house and move into Motel 6 in the mean time. Is this being ethical and humane? “Living in Harmony with Squirrels”

On Ethics and being humane, each man……when it comes to mans law, has his own rule book. Then theirs Gods law.
Even if you do a, “one shot, one kill” (sometimes this does not work out that way), to some it will still not be ethical and humane way of doing things.
All others, that is, being safe, following wildlife and hunting laws is academic.

[Art Eatman]

Re PETA: Sincerity of belief, repetition and db level do not combine to create truth.

Art