Ethical kills?


PDA






beehlebf
February 14, 2012, 06:18 PM
An ethical kill on a game animal would be anything that effectively takes it down with the least amount of suffering. Yet many peoples definition of this seems to change with the animal. Many deer hunters would be horified to here of a head shot kill but if u told them u killed a squirrel they wouldnt thint twice. Shooting gamebirds is just disabling them to be dispatched by the hunter. Any varmint can get a gutshot and i doesnt matter. Why are deer so special to have people argue whether or not a head or neck shot is ok. If a hunter is skilled enough knows his limitations i dont see anyhing wrong with this.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ethical kills?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
caribou
February 14, 2012, 06:53 PM
I hunt for a living. The most Ethical shots ,to me, are blowing out their brains or busting their neck, basicly 'pithing" them, for an instant drop in thier tracks kind of Dead. No running awa across the tundra. I shoot Bears, Muskox, Caribou and all manners of meat in the head. I do this very well and have for most of my adult life. I use an accurate rifle, (open sights) and FMJ's that are very consitant and accurate. I post such shooting here too, you can look them up. If I couldnt place the shot as such, I would simply move to the Heart Lung shot, and Often I do , when lack of concelement on open Tundra wont allow me to get closer and I must secure a sled load of Meat.
The contention most seem to have is that the average Joe doesnt place the shot as well as some do. Newer hunters are encouraged to shoot "heart/lungs" as the target is larger, and if they cannot make a "Great shot" they can at least do a "Good shot" and kill rather than wound the animal.
This is the target of the begining hunter, and with time, experiance and developed shooting skills, I see nothing wrong with moving onto placeing the shot in the smaller but more quickly encapitating shots.

The Ethics of the shot are where you place it.

Robert
February 14, 2012, 06:56 PM
We have been over this more than a few times.

If a hunter is skilled enough knows his limitations i dont see anyhing wrong with this.
And I would agree. But thinking one knows their limits and actually knowing them are two different things. You see it a lot when people start talking about long range hunting. There are many folks that can make a clean kill at 500 or 600y. Most hunters can't. Just beacuse you can do it off a bench on a clear, calm, sunny day does not mean you can do it on a cold, windy, snowy day in mountains from a field position.

Same goes for head or neck shots. Art swears by neck shots. Do what works best for you and makes for a quick clean death for the animal.

adelbridge
February 14, 2012, 10:30 PM
Down here in Texas head shots are common, guys go out with .223, .22-250, .222, .243 and get surgical. A head shot or neck is usually a clean kill or a clean miss and I dont know of anything more ethical. I have seen too many gut shot animals run off when a hunter was trying to take an "ethical" shot. A lot of hunting is tradition and rules passed on from generation to generation. If you are hunting for meat, head and neck is good and if you have a shot under 50 yards go for it. If you are hunting for a wall hanger you might pay a little extra in taxidermy.

MCgunner
February 14, 2012, 11:06 PM
So, if a fast take down defines "ethical", where does that leave the bow hunter?

Hunting ethics is in YOUR mind, not necessarily universal.

irondavy
February 15, 2012, 12:31 AM
So, if a fast take down defines "ethical", where does that leave the bow hunter?

Hunting ethics is in YOUR mind, not necessarily universal.

-MCgunner-

Right, mother nature is anything but ethical, I have seen what coyotes can do to livestock, and how long they take to do it.

on the other hand I think part of what makes us human (and some people less human in my opinion) is our compassion for other forms of life. On my property wild hogs do thousands of dollars of damage per year but I refuse to set traps because I do not work the property full time and sometimes it could be days before I could check my traps. Leaving any animal in a steel cage with no food or water for days at a time in the Texas summer is unethical in my mind.

On to shooting, I wouldn't hesitate to take a neck or head shot on a deer but I am not out to fill my wall with heads (my wife would kill me), I am out to fill my freezer, a solid DRT shot seems to come mostly with shots to the head or breaking the spine. And I feel that I have the practice in with my rifle to take the shot that I need to.

as for the differentiation between animals I think it is largely due to tradition. shotguns and small cal rifles were what my grandparents had so that is what they hunted with, and they killed any animal shot as fast and efficiently as possible for their era and monetary ability.

Most people (psychopaths aside) don't want the animal to suffer, but they do want food in the freezer or a good wall mount. Also most people I think fall into the middle of the road category as far as marksmanship goes and opt for the middle of the road shot, in the "boiler room". Not a guaranteed DRT but I can follow the blood for a little bit and get the deer there.

I think of the heart lung shot as the compromise between excellent shot/ DRT hit, and have a life besides hunting and shooting/ need to fill the freezer.

hope I helped answer your question and didn't muddy the waters to much
ID

Art Eatman
February 15, 2012, 12:52 AM
beehlebf, many of the negative comments about head or neck shots have to do with some people's belief that movement could result in a wound and not a kill--and they have concern that such movement at the moment of trigger-pull is either likely or common.

"Eye of the beholder," I guess. It's not something I worry about...

shiftyer1
February 15, 2012, 01:47 AM
Ethical is a very differed opinion, I think most folks are ethical but there are some folks that go beyond what I feel is right. There was a thread recently about fishing for coyotes. I don't think thats right but if I had alot of stock damage and loses and had tryed everything else......I would probably use that method.

Recently my son was rabbit hunting on our land and came across a young doe that didn't make it over the fence. It was hung up and had been for a while, with a broke leg. He shot it and we took what little meat she had. Some folks would say this is wrong, I don't think so. In my eyes leaving her strung up half starved with a broke leg would be wrong. Ethics?

You should know if you can make the shot or not under perfect circumstances. Most times u take that shot and hope they don't move. In actual hunting situations drt is not how it works most times. IF that means boom.....fall over dead. Shooting an animal in the guts on purpose and letting them run and suffer is forever is wrong. But I never knew a man that would take such a poor shot that had intentions of harvesting meat. Met a few like that took shots like that.....but apparently they have a recipe that make horns taste good.

Loyalist Dave
February 15, 2012, 09:05 AM
Ethics as applied in this case means rules of conduct recognized in respect to a certain class of human actions of a particular group, hunter ethics, specifically in this case.

The question pertained to a humane kill, and ethics involved. So to answer the question, a person with sufficient skill combined with a known, accurate tool, who takes a head or neck shot at a deer is not unethical, for the skill and the tool makes the act ethical, as there is a very plausible belief by the hunter that such a shot will result in a humane harvest of the animal. The intent is a humane harvest; the skill and accuracy led to the hunter's conclusion that such would happen.

That does not mean that all risk of a less than successfully humane harvest is removed, as there are variables beyond the control or knowledge of the hunter, that might influence the outcome. One of these variables is the behavior of the animal, another is the weather, and another is the ammunition. The first two are never completely predictable, while the third (no matter how thorough the quality control) sometimes includes an erratic round. (there are other variables)

Folks tend to discourage such shots as a general rule, for there is a good chance that a person who thinks they can take such a shot, is not as skilled as is needed. As was pointed out..., hunting is different from shooting targets on a range.

The question really is, if a hunter is incorrect about their skill level, but honestly thought such a shot was not only possible, but probable in making a humane harvest, is that hunter unethical? I would say "no", but here is where the debate begins on whether the hunter should have known their skill level wasn't very high, or was using a poor standard to judge skill, or should've known the tool they chose was not as accurate as ethics demanded, etc etc.

So in conclusion, the shot taken is always up to the hunter, and to that hunter's judgement whether or not their skill, and the accuracy of their chosen tool, makes such a shot "ethical".

LD

Loosedhorse
February 15, 2012, 09:36 AM
Why are deer so special to have people argue whether or not a head or neck shot is ok.I think that if you have found a deer with its jaw shot off, and know that it died because it was unable to drink or eat, things get a little more understandable.

Ethics is not about placement, it is about shot selection. If you have a head shot, you probably also have an easier-to-make chest shot. That's a decision. If you KNOW you can make that head shot, and you have good reason to prefer it, then fine.

If you're unsure about the head shot, or you're only making the shot to "test yourself" or impress your friends, and you take it, that is not, IMHO, ethical.if a hunter is incorrect about their skill level, but honestly thought such a shot was not only possible, but probable in making a humane harvest, is that hunter unethical?Why was the hunter incorrect? Too little range time, and too much false confidence? Then he was unethical.

Missed because he had a simple human failing (a one in a hundred flinch)? Well, we're all human. Mistakes like that are part of hunting. Ethical.

Part of the equation is, what does the hunter DO with his mistake? If the miss happened because he took a long shot, but misjudged the distance because of poor lighting, or because the wind at the target was way different than where he was? Well, if he just says to himself, "Better luck next time," unethical. If he says, "I'm bringing a range-finder next time," or, "I'm not going to try a head shot at that distance ever again," ethical.

We all prefer to learn from others' mistakes (I mean experience :)). But learning from your own is ethical enough. Not learning a darn thing is not ethical.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 10:05 AM
But, again, what about bow hunters? There are few DRTs with a bow. It's like stabbing hogs, what about that? I've done that, run 'em down with dogs, the dogs pin the animal, a hunter grabs the legs while the other slits the throat or stabs at the heart. The pig squeals as he bleeds out. He doesn't die immediately. Then there's gator hunting, more akin to trot line fishing, is in the water for an extended period with a large treble hook stuck through its mouth. You could extend that one to cat fish if you're a PETA type. And then there's PETA who feels any harassment of the animal world is "unethical", especially shooting one. Seems the fuzzier the animal, the more unethical it is to shoot. Deer are cute, after all. Then there was Johnny Appleseed who put out his camp fire when he noticed it was killing mosquitoes.

Ethics is an individual opinion, is not written in stone, and one man's ethics cannot be applied to all. If you think bow hunting or alligator hunting is "unethical" by your standards, don't do it, but don't try to push your ethics on ME. Nothing worse than some condescending PETA butt wipe telling me how cruel I am. They have no clue of the real world. All the world is not a Starbucks coffee shop. They're telling ME, a life long outdoorsman with a Bachelor of Science degree in wildlife and fisheries management that hunting is cruel? Really? At what ivy league university were they taught this? :rolleyes:

Be careful of pushing YOUR ethics on others as others may try to push THEIRS upon YOU.

Loosedhorse
February 15, 2012, 10:19 AM
But, again, what about bow hunters?Bow-hunters should not take the shot unless they are confident it will result in a recovered animal. Just like every other hunter.

The ethics of a sport like hunting are NOT decided willly-nilly by each individual. A hunter (for example) taking a shot at an animal without zeroing his new scope is neither as competent or ethical as a hunter who does.

There are many gray areas; we can agree that they are gray, and disagree about what we'd indvidually do. But there are also far more areas that are clearly defined. Saying that whatever any hunter decides to do is "just his ethics" is the same as saying that hunting has no ethics at all.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 10:27 AM
But, a bow shot through the heart lungs results in a tracking job, not a DRT. The animal SUFFERS un-necessarily as he bleeds out, no DRTs. All you folks are talking about head shots and DRTs. You can't do that with a bow. So, to you, bows must be unethical? If not, where's your logic? And, again, how about running down a hog with dogs or snagging a gator with a hook? Is a gator not an animal just because it's not warm and fuzzy?

You guys are NOT using logic here to create your 'ethics" and apparently my ethics are not compatible with YOURS. Who sets these rules, anyway? I didn't read all these "ethical kill" opinions in Aldo Leupold's "A Sand County Almanac". Are these "ethics" written some where, chiseled on a tablet or something? Excuse my sarcasm, but it just irks me when someone speaks from the pulpit about such things, especially when they start to sound like the "animal rights" opposition.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 10:35 AM
BTW, I believe in "ethics", always make the most effort I can in retrieving my game. I've not lost a deer, ever, or a hog. I have lost ducks and doves as I've not always owned, nor do I now, a retriever. Even with a retriever you loose one now and again. I'm primarily a bird hunter/wing shooter. I'd rather hunt DOVES, let alone ducks or geese, than deer or any other big game animal, though I do hunt both. So, perhaps this gives me another perspective on the guy that never hunted anything other than 4 legged critters. You lose a bird now and then, cripple a lot. It just happens.

I remember my uncle who gave up deer hunting because he shot one and it "looked him in the eyes with those sad, big eyes" supposedly pleading to him or something. :rolleyes: He never quit hunting birds, though, loved his quail dogs and hunting as well as doves. Seems they couldn't plead for mercy or something. :rolleyes: I think part of his opinions, though, came from all the horrible action he saw in WW2, men dying around him. I can only speculate on this, though. That sort of thing can skew reality, if you know what I mean. I never went to war. I'm fortunate. I had a high draft number.

Again, this sort of "ethics" is just one man's opinion, not universal truth. State your opinion, but don't be condescending to others about such things.

Art Eatman
February 15, 2012, 10:43 AM
Well, with respect to ethics and hunting, the main deal is for a quick kill. Sure, a DRT shot with a firearm is right at being the ultimate for "quick". From what I've read, though, skilled bow-hunters don't have their game last very long after the hit. And many a quickly-dead deer lasted some minutes before the final breath. That's just the way it goes.

"Quick kill" and all that doesn't (IMO) mean "Instant!"

I'm not a Philadelphia Lawyer, and I've never really been interested in nit-picking over what to me are trivial details. I just figure folks do the best they can with what they've got. I mostly just want folks to think before acting--which of course is rather cruel of me. Heck, maybe unethical: Causing pain and suffering! :D

Loosedhorse
February 15, 2012, 10:45 AM
The animal SUFFERSThat is the the type of Bambi-esque anthropomorphism I'd expect from a PETA antihunter.

Does an animal suffer when it's cold? Hungry? In labor? Dying of "old-age" (starvation if it's worn out its teeth), cold, disease? Taken down by coyotes, or by a Honda Accord?

What about when it's lonely? http://www.zensplace.info/forum/images/smilies/Crying.gif

Any hunter who thinks he can get a DRT every time hasn't been hunting the same animals that I have. But any hunter who can "so what?" a lost animal that he wounded hasn't got much of a soul, IMHO.Who sets these rules, anyway?Why, hunters, of course. Hunting has been going on a long time, and (I sincerely hope and expect) will go on a long time after you and I have passed through our brief stint. There has always been a right way to do it, and there always will.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 10:51 AM
Why, hunters, of course. Hunting has been going on a long time, and (I sincerely hope and expect) will go on a long time after you and I have passed through our brief stint. There has always been a right way to do it, and there always will.

Well, the "right way to do it" for the plains Indians (okay, native Americans, I'm one eighth Cherokee myself, but not PC) was to run 'em off a cliff in herds while others below clubbed 'em to death as they tried to crawl away with their one unbroken leg. :rolleyes:

One man's "wrong way" is another man's only way. It's opinion, just opinion, YOUR opinion which I may or may not share completely.

Loosedhorse
February 15, 2012, 12:09 PM
One man's "wrong way" is another man's only way.No.

Ethics is a group decision. In your example of the plains Indians (assuming you are correct), the entire group decided that that was the way to hunt.

Saying that (as you apparently are) whatever way "one man" hunts, that is ethical "for him" is contradictory of the concept of ethics; it is saying that ethics doesn't exist.

If you are about to argue that the ethics of a survival situation is different than the ethics of a sport hunt, well of course they are. That doesn't mean that neither set of ethics is valid; or that because the two sets are different, that ethics is a "do whatever you feel like" proposition.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 12:26 PM
No, I'm just saying whatever is your opinion of "ethics", if it is contrary to MINE, don't think I'm going to care. You can moan all you want about me sticking pigs (for instance, if you think that's unethical, some do) or using a feeder (a big yankee gripe even on this board), but I really don't care what you think about it, it's the way I hunt and it's legal and not unethical to me. If it's illegal in YOUR state and you think it's unethical, just don't do it, but don't think that I'm going to lose sleep over YOUR opinions. I'll keep tossing deer corn in my feeder.

I get fed up with holier than thou, condescending northerners/north westerners, etc, that, for instance, tell me feeders are unethical. :rolleyes: "WHY, it's ILLEGAL and you should be shot on sight for doing it!" They are a way of life in Texas, don't like it, stay out of Texas. We don't need ya here, anyway. :D THAT is an example of the rants that have gone on here in the name of ethics, which is, after all, a matter of one man's opinion and not written in stone. Even LAWS vary. Texas allows feeders for deer and it's become an industry. One can buy feed corn at most convenience stores in small towns around here. Feeders sell by the boat load.

HOOfan_1
February 15, 2012, 12:36 PM
Shooting gamebirds is just disabling them to be dispatched by the hunter.

On what do you base this assumption? I have hunted doves for 26 years. Of the thousands that I have shot, 80% or more were dead before they hit the ground.

I try to kill any animal as cleanly as possible, even if it is considered a varmint. The only varmints I hunt, yeah I go for head shots. If I miss, it is a clean miss. With the varmints I hunt, and the ammunition I use, if I hit them in the head, they are going to die within seconds.

scythefwd
February 15, 2012, 12:38 PM
mc..they were out to get meat from the only source available...they weren't hunting for sport, or to replace meat they could buy at the grocery. They were hunting because if they didn't, people died. There was no other method to gather meat for them. And what ever farming they were doing probably was not sufficient to keep them all fed. Add to that the animals were also pretty much their source for building goods/clothing (skins, tendons, etc)... and they are even more compelled to get a kill, how ever it is done.

Find me a hunter in the woods today in that situation, and I won't gripe about him using a 22lr, at 100y, through a bush (as long as he does get his kill, regardless of damage to animal and whatever suffering it causes). For everyone else.. Kill that animal as quickly and humanely as you can with your skill.. Bring the right tool for the right job, and dont take sketchy shots just because you can.

The situational ethics of hunting from a tree stand, stalking.. when you don't HAVE to kill that animal to keep people from death is a whole lot different than when lives depend on it.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 12:51 PM
The situational ethics of hunting from a tree stand, stalking.. when you don't HAVE to kill that animal to keep people from death is a whole lot different than when lives depend on it.

Perhaps, but I'll still hunt as I see fit. I know how and where to shoot animals, have been doing it since age 7. I was the terror of the squirrel woods with my Remington M512X (still have it) .22, head shots at 50 yards with iron sights not a problem. My eyes require optics for anything past 50 yards now days though, dare I say it, bo be "ethical". :rolleyes: LOL! Those are MY ethics, though. Some consider optics as cheating. Some think smokeless powder is cheating. Some thing anything with powder is cheating. Some think having wheels on their bow is cheating. To each his own. I won't gripe if you will only use a .458 Win Mag on whitetail for an "ethical kill". Just don't gripe if I stab a hog with a knife now and then.

Someone put up a hog kill vid on this very board and, my gawd, all the whining about the lack of ethics. :rolleyes: "Why, that's CRUEL. Those kids looked like they actually enjoyed that!" Guess what, I'm sure they did. :D

beehlebf
February 15, 2012, 01:37 PM
My priginal question came from the fact that i waited for a perfect shot on a deer it was facing directly away from me tail in vision and when it lifted its head and stopped i dropped it the bullet hit the dead center of the back of its head it would have been a clear miss or ear shot at worse. What fot me upset was other hunters telling what if you would of... and that just wasnt the case. People will take running shots wont lead an animal and gut shot them thats way worse imo

Mike1234567
February 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
I'll let the law determine what is ethical. Outside the rules of law there is only speculation and opinion. I tend to be extremely conservative when it comes to animal suffering. In fact, I've nearly completely quit eating meat and only buy what little meat I consume from a kosher butcher. Frankly, I'm extremely offended by hunting techniques that result in extended suffering. And I will never understand killing any creature just for the sake of the kill. Don't misunderstand me... I think hunting, overall, is better than our wretched slaughter houses. Call me a sissy if you like but you'd better be outside of my reach.;)

Loosedhorse
February 15, 2012, 03:09 PM
No, I'm just saying whatever is your opinion of "ethics", if it is contrary to MINE, don't think I'm going to care.You might wish to reflect that a poacher or other criminal would have exactly that same opinion. Not meaning at all to imply you are either (I'm sure you're note), but I'm not sure why you'd choose a philosophy that can accommodate such folks.

As I said, there's black, white and gray to ethics. I'd be surprised if you and I disagree on the black and white stuff. To the extent that we disagreed about the gray, I think I'd still care enough to want to understand your reasoning. I've learned a lot over the years from such discussions.

So far, your reasoning consists of "anyone else doesn't matter to me at all."Again, this sort of "ethics" is just one man's opinion, not universal truthThere is a space between "everyone gets to make up his own individual rules" and "one set of rules applies to everyone, at every time, in every place." It's a pretty large space: as far as I know, the entire world lives there. :D

But you seem to insist there are just the two extremes, and so you justify prefering your extreme.

mbt2001
February 15, 2012, 03:14 PM
I think that the entire movement of Ethical Hunting is designed to stop snares / trapping / trot lines / bow and other primitive hunting. While that might be fine for most suburban hunters and what not, I still think it is worthwhile, survival skill wise, to learn about as many different ways of staying alive as humanly possible.

Loosedhorse
February 15, 2012, 03:17 PM
the entire movement of Ethical HuntingOh. I honestly didn't realize that the term "Ethical Hunting" had been co-opted by a specific group with a specific agenda. I was talking about lower-case "ethical hunting," in its traditional sense.

Any group or movement that calls itself Ethical Hunting has no more claim on actual hunting ethics than the Democratic Party has a claim on democracy.

Steel Talon
February 15, 2012, 03:21 PM
Ask a big game processor, about the ethical kills evidence he see's on the carcasses that he's brought for his service.

So many hunters say one thing, but have no problems taking foul shots.

Just saying not hating.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 04:34 PM
You might wish to reflect that a poacher or other criminal would have exactly that same opinion. Not meaning at all to imply you are either (I'm sure you're note), but I'm not sure why you'd choose a philosophy that can accommodate such folks.




I'll let the law set the rules. Poachers are outside the law. Baiting deer is legal in Texas and I own a feeder. You don't have to like it, but it's legal. THAT is my point. HERE, it's ethical to bait deer. Now, I'm not really debating the OP with this, but the idea that a fast kill is to be desirable sorta says to me that pig sticking and bow hunting should be considered unethical. Well, I don't consider either unethical. There was a big PETA movement a while back to outlaw bow hunting. It went no where, of course, but the media, as always, played it up. This was in the 90s. The PETA argument was that bow hunting is cruel and unethical, as if they thought any hunting was ethical. They painted a picture of a deer dying a slow death with an arrow through its lungs as opposed to shot dead instantly via a rifle. Their right to an opinion in this country, but not their right to push it upon ME.

As to the shot from the rear, I've twice shot from butt to throat and killed deer instantly, but both times the deer turned just as I was breaking the shot! BUT, fortunately, turned out okay.

I have taken game on the run, too, when jumped and I had enough time to get on them. But, I'm good enough with a rifle to do that and I don't stretch the yardage on such shots. I never take a long shot without a rest...my ethic and I know my limits in the field. I try to ALWAYS find a rest with a handgun, never take an offhand shot with a handgun. I know that past 25 yards, I'm just not good enough to do it "ethically". But, if I can find a steady rest or carry one afield with me, I'll take a 200 yard shot with my .30-30 Contender should one present itself in an ideal condition. I practice off shooting sticks at the range for such. Longest I've yet killed a deer with the Contender, it was DRT, was 90 yards, though. There's no way to get a 200 yard shot in the cover on my place.

Loosedhorse
February 15, 2012, 04:53 PM
I'll let the law set the rules.You have it backwards. Ethics sets the laws.

One of the central ethical principles of hunting is conservation; we all want to make sure we are preserving a healthy animal population--neither too small nor too large. That's why we developed laws establishing hunting seasons, which (unless the species is over-populated) tend to concentrate on males after the breeding season.

Ethics is not whatever is left undecided by the law. It is the guiding principles of hunting, only some of which are codified into law.

For example, there is no law against being a lousy shot and so consistently crippling animals; and then not bothering to track them for more than a minute, thus "losing" them. According to you, if someone does that, season after season, why he's just as "ethical" as a guy who is careful and prepared enough to take all his animals with his shot...or to decide not to shoot if he feels the risk of wounding is too high.

After all, neither guy is doing anything illegal, right? Sure, one guys is a bit unlucky; but ethically, they are exactly the same!

:rolleyes:

Well, you enjoy hunting with that lousy shot, okay? He wouldn't be welcome at my campfire. the ethical kills evidence he see's on the carcasses that he's brought for his service.I'm not sure what you are referring to. A misplaced shot can result from a sudden movement of the animal, an unseem twig that deflected the bullet--things besides bad preparation or bad judgment. Personally, if you showed me a bad shot on a carcass, I couldn't tell you by that if it was the result of an ethical or unethical shot--I'd have to talk to the hunter or someone else there to find out.

T Bran
February 15, 2012, 06:00 PM
Regarding the ethics of feeders. In some areas of the country there are no amber waves of grain for the critters to feed on during the lean times. Just as there are areas of the country that have little water and folks have tanks or ponds that are man made.
Those of us who maintain these oasis which help keep game and other animals alive and healthy invest a great deal of time and money year round.
I know the exact range to every feeder and pond on my place which takes the guess work out of the equation. Shooting lanes are cleared every year and my stands have a good rifle rest. This is as ethical as I can make it. Still not every shot is perfect as all shooters are not created equal. You do your very best and dont take questionable shots.
Ethics is not just about the kill it is also about how animals are treated through the rest of the year.
If it wasnt for the folks who ensure that the animals have feed and water in my area ethics would be a moot point as there would be no animals to hunt.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 06:17 PM
You have it backwards. Ethics sets the laws.

The laws are written. I make sure I'm within the law. Poachers (your example) don't. Poaching may or may not be unethical to an individual, but is sure by golly is illegal. I mean, I consider it unethical, but ethics are an individual opinion. I consider it unethical to cheat at solitaire. My wife does it all the time. :D I keep telling her God doesn't like that, but she seems to think it's okay.

A joke between us, of course.

Loosedhorse
February 15, 2012, 06:38 PM
Poaching may or may not be unethical to an individualThis clause makes no sense.

Again, ethics is NOT decided by each individual, it is decided by the relevant group. To define ethics as you do would mean ethics literally has no meaning; which may be why you have no use or respect for ethics.

"We" hunters can decide, if a guy poaches an animal in a true survival situation, that he behaved ethically. A different poacher cannot decide as an individual that it is "ethical" for him to poach because he finds the law inconvenient.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 07:58 PM
Again, ethics is NOT decided by each individual

Sure it is, else, why would so many think baiting deer (feeders) is unethical and we (Texans) don't?

Loosedhorse
February 15, 2012, 08:10 PM
whyBecause ethics is a group decision. To come to a decision, the group needs to discuss its differences of opinion. Sometimes, the decision will be that differing opinions are just fine (those decisions would be in the gray areas I talked about).

True: some folks will decide that they don't need to be part of the discussion. Because they don't care about what the group thinks; they just care about themselves. Some of those folks will be the poachers...

And, apparently, at least one nonpoacher who agrees with the poachers will be a Texan.

;)

Mike1234567
February 15, 2012, 08:15 PM
What is ethical? To follow the letter of the law and allow our families to starve (vs. poaching)? No, not IMHO.

What is ethical? To follow to the very letter and allow inhumane dispatching of game? No, not IMHO.

We're mincing words here. Human beings are extremely widely varied with regards to this topic. Many believe animals have no feelings nor do they feel pain the way human animals do. Others believe that they do have feelings and do feel pain.

IMHO... anyone who chooses to hunt with less than a very quick-kill means is a selfish jerk with no heart and could very easily do the same to another human being.

I realize I'm on the edge of where I should stop posting and, indeed, this will be my last post tonight.

Geno
February 15, 2012, 08:22 PM
Mike:

Apparently you saw the 1967 "Mr. Jonathan Kincaid and Ramoo" episode of Gilligan's Island. It sure as Hades inspired me. :neener: <<not>>

Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0588098/

Then again, I did always cheer for the coyote, not the road runner.

Link: http://www.cerbslair.com/ltcc/pics.html

Geno

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 08:33 PM
Loosedhorse, I don't agree with poaching, but then, I don't have yankee ethics either. If ethics aren't personal, they surely are regional. But, follow the law and I won't have a bone to pick with you, no matter how lousy a shot you are. To me, the law is the guideline, one must follow the law. In Texas, our ethics have shaped that law. We allow such things as baiting which so many yankees seem to abhor and the argument you seem to want to ignore.

Man, you should join PETA, I mean, really! You'd be aghast at what they do to animals in medical research. I've seen what they do to rabbits just to demonstrate what 5 percent NaOH will do to one's eyes (eye safety training in a chemical plant). A misplaced shot seems to be minor compared to some of THAT animal suffering, if the suffering of animals is your major concern in life.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 08:41 PM
Mike1234567, I hope you never slightly miss and cripple an animal. Don't take up dove hunting, either. I'd hate to see you suicidal. I mean, really, stuff does happen. If I was so good at wing shooting I'd never crippled a bird, hell, I'd give it up 'cause there'd be no more challenge, I'd have mastered the art. :rolleyes: After finding birds, I often yank the heads off to end it for 'em. Don't sound like you'd have the stomach for it.

Crippled birds are common. Down at the WMA, they even have a spot on the exit questionnaire, says "Cripples lost". Not everyone has a dog and it's REAL weedy out there with reeds and spartina grass everywhere. Drop 'em over the water is the goal, but it don't always work out as planned.

12gaugeTim
February 15, 2012, 08:46 PM
Internet fights result in frustrated factions of people that, in the end, have the exact same opinion that they had when it started.
How about we all agree that clubbing baby seals is wrong? That's pretty messed up, right?
See, now everybody is on one side, and life happily goes on.
But I'm sure somebody will say skinning baby seals alive is a perfectly justified source of income for the Canadians, and the fight ensues.. But seriously, you won't change anybody's mind! Your efforts are in vain!

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 08:47 PM
I'd club baby seals for the fur....money....if legal and would do it in season with all the permits. Hell, I've done same with the spring traps PETA loves to hate to raccoons. Nothing wrong with sustained yield harvests. I figure there are those whose "ethics" allow that, so who am I to disagree, anyway, since we don't have baby seals in Texas and I know squat about them or the market. Besides, I've done worse trapping racoons and letting 'em suffer til I get there to put 'em down. Do I really deserve an opinion on seals? Well, yeah, I guess everyone deserves an opinion, but it might not be MINE. I ain't gettin' all PETA over it, let's put it that way.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 08:54 PM
Hmm, a whole thread full of baby seal killers. :D

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=625731&page=3

scythefwd
February 15, 2012, 09:03 PM
Those are MY ethics, though

You do realize that if ethics are a personal thing, and people act upon their ethics, then the word ethics means absolutely nothing as a person is ethical no matter what they do since they don't have a problem doing it personally right?

Mike1234567
February 15, 2012, 09:18 PM
MCGunner... True, I don't have the stomach for it. I guess I'm a coward at heart. This is why I'm eating a plate full of corn hominy tonight. I did feed the cat and dog their meat.

12gaugeTim
February 15, 2012, 09:32 PM
I skimmed the thread and didn't find anything about seals. When you trap, do you club your fox/coon/whatever half to death and then skin it while it still breathes? Having an option to use a gun and using a club instead is borderline sadism. That's just my opinion, I'll give it even though nobody asked for it, which seems to be the trend here. My last post ITT.. I know better than to stick around when a s***storm is brewing...

jbkebert
February 15, 2012, 09:54 PM
Hmm, a whole thread full of baby seal killers.


Sweet I made the club:D

Its amazing how many people do not understand trapping. Those dreaded snares often work more as a leash. Most yotes have been very submisive when I have approached. I check my traps at least once a day if not twice. If I decide to set a snare to kill it can be done very very quickly.

My own definiton of ethics is who we are when no one is looking. Laws are typically based upon ethics and morals of a group of people. Mostly set up with the feelings and sitiuations of a specfic region. Running deer with dogs is very much legal in the south and I have no problem with it. Yet the same thing is illegal as heck in Kansas and much of the midwest.

Now just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is ethical. Yet only each individual can determine what defines there ethics and morals. Doing something just because it is legal to do so makes no since if you have moral or ethical bias against it.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 10:03 PM
MCGunner... True, I don't have the stomach for it. I guess I'm a coward at heart. This is why I'm eating a plate full of corn hominy tonight. I did feed the cat and dog their meat.

Okay. I just gotta ask, though, no disrespect meant, but WHY are you on a hunting board? Odd.


When you trap, do you club your fox/coon/whatever half to death and then skin it while it still breathes?

I'm lazy and .22s are cheap. :D But, it's not my understanding that during the fur seal harvest they were clubbed HALF to death. Twas my understanding that they were clubbed to death. Saves money, ammo costs. They were large scale harvesting. Don't have to worry about it anymore, though. The PETA folks have successfully ruined the market for fur of all kinds. I can't get squat for much anymore other than bobcat and I'd have to burn more gas to get to the buyer than I could make of THAT. Fur market is dead, so no more fur clubbers. :D That's why there haven't been any more PETA commercials about it in 30 years. They shot their selves in the foot doing away with the fur harvest. That was their best photo ops.

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 10:23 PM
Sweet I made the club

Its amazing how many people do not understand trapping. Those dreaded snares often work more as a leash. Most yotes have been very submisive when I have approached. I check my traps at least once a day if not twice. If I decide to set a snare to kill it can be done very very quickly.

My own definiton of ethics is who we are when no one is looking. Laws are typically based upon ethics and morals of a group of people. Mostly set up with the feelings and sitiuations of a specfic region. Running deer with dogs is very much legal in the south and I have no problem with it. Yet the same thing is illegal as heck in Kansas and much of the midwest.

Now just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is ethical. Yet only each individual can determine what defines there ethics and morals. Doing something just because it is legal to do so makes no since if you have moral or ethical bias against it.

Finally, an explanation I can agree with. :D Unfortunately, I have few biases against different ways of hunting so long as it's within the law of the state where applied.

I thought of something concerning ethics the other day, was up in New Mexico talking to this fellow that ran a little store in Queens, only little store for miles around. He is telling us that he gets guys in from Texas with "war wagons" as he calls 'em, trucks with high shooting platforms. Those are legal on Texas ranches, but you can't shoot off the road in the Guadalupes. Regional ethics are a bit different on that subject, but then, in Texas, they're using those on private land. New Mexico we were hunting national forest. I don't think his "war wagons" :D are legal on PRIVATE land in New Mexico, though, not sure.

Well, I never set a snare. I used spring traps. I'm an evil, unethical person to PETA and if they weren't mostly atheists, I'm sure they'd agree I was doomed to burn in hell. Only thing I trap now is hogs in a giant "have-a-heart". I sometimes shoot 'em in the shoulder instead of the head just to compare the affects of different carry calibers. They do die pretty quick, but when I do that, I'm not even head shooting 'em POINT BLANK. I have a lot of confidence in 9x19 +P, though, from doing this. .357 is simply devastating. 9x18, well, I'm a little disappointed in that one. It confirms that I don't need no stinkin' Ruger LCP, though, rather pocket my 9mm. All in the name of science, you understand. Nothing they didn't do in Strasbourg to goats, less all the timing and nervous system testing, though. Call it, redneck Strasbourg if you will :D.

Art Eatman
February 15, 2012, 10:30 PM
I'm not gonna spoon-feed anybody, but go to a dictionary and start with "ethos".

Hunting laws generally derived from what hunters said were wanted to control mis-management of game animal populations. As things got more codified with wildlife agencies and independent groups like Boone and Crockett, "fair chase" grew in importance as part of the hunting ethic. As a group, hunters and wildlife agencies have included hours, limits and seasons--and cooperating with all that is part of the ethical hunt.

And forget this BS about needing to poach in order to feed the family. Not in this modern welfare state. Poaching is unethical; I don't care if everything poached is DRT.

So we're back to clean kill. I dunno how much Bambi suffers. Me, I suffer if I have to walk very far from where was when I shot him to where he ends up when he's "plumb daid". So far, fifty yards is the max. I've commented in many a thread that I'm picky about my shots. Why? I'm lazy.

Now, if a guy thinks he has the skill to make a shot, but does not make a good hit, he's not unethical. Stupid or incompetent, maybe, but not unethical. There is a difference.

Ortega y Gasset's "Meditations on Hunting" is recommended reading. Granted, it's not a lightweight beach-reading book:

http://www.amazon.com/Meditations-Hunting-Jose-Ortega-Gasset/dp/1932098534

MCgunner
February 15, 2012, 10:42 PM
And forget this BS about needing to poach in order to feed the family. Not in this modern welfare state. Poaching is unethical; I don't care if everything poached is DRT.

Yeah, I didn't address THAT one in all the flurry of back and forth, but I totally agree. Breaking a law, game law or otherwise, be prepared to pay the price. You want food, go to the food bank. Go to my church. They help folks ALL the time. Don't even NEED a welfare state in this country, plenty of charity around and we give what we can, believe it or not. We've taken several trunk fulls over to the food bank here in Corpus and we give through our church regularly. The other day we took a donation down to "Good Samaritans". Man, that was a fine side of town. I was thankful for the 9mm security I felt in my pocket THAT morning, can tell ya that. :D "Good Samaritans" feeds, clothes, and houses the homeless.

Yeah, I agree with the "lazy" angle, too. I HATE blood trailing. I had to do it with a hog and a Javelina before from poor hits. The Javalina was mine. I shot too far back, didn't know the anatomy. I got charged when I finally caught up with both these animals. the Javelina gave me a thrill, but the hog was about gone when I got there and didn't have much left. I did learn my hog/javelina anatomy after that. :D Proper shot placement COULD be good for your health, depending on the game. Now, hogs and Javelina were bad enough, but imagine having to go after an African Leopard in the brush like that. Uh, well, I'd prefer to make an instant kill and it would have little to do with "ethics". :D

Bone2bWild
February 16, 2012, 01:21 AM
All this talk about "knowing" you can take an ethical shot is BS. Last time I checked my guns and bows could out shoot me any day of the week. In fact buck fever makes me an entirely unreliable hunter yet if all I did was worry about the ethics of the shot I'd have to hang up the camo. Hunt enough and you'll injure an animal or just plain miss. I figure it's no worse than starvation, predation, or the grill of a Buick so I don't lose any sleep over it. Id bet PETA loves our own discussing this topic because unless you are a surgical killing machine it's not ethical in their view. So why are we helping them along with their agenda?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

caribou
February 16, 2012, 03:03 AM
""I get fed up with holier than thou, condescending northerners/north westerners, etc, that, for instance, tell me feeders are unethical.""

Well, Mc, in Alaska we call it "Baiting", and its how we get bears and fur bearers out of the bushes where we can size them up, look for cubs/pups, and have a clean clear shot where we can put in a second shot before it makes cover.

In Farm country, feeding Deer aint much different, as far as I see........

Loosedhorse
February 16, 2012, 07:27 AM
We're mincing words here. Human beings are extremely widely varied with regards to this topicGo to any appeals court on any day, and you will see folks there who are "mincing words", disagreeing about what a law actually means. Yet, no one claims (I think) that such disagreement means that the law doesn't exist, or is unique to each indivdual person.

(To choose not to hunt is not being a coward, Mike--no reason to do it if you don't need the meat, or don't enjoy the sport. Besides, that leaves more deer for the rest of us! :))I don't agree with poaching, but then, I don't have yankee ethics eitherYou seem to always use yankee as an insult. You seem to portray me as having "yankee ethics." Ironic that you, the "great individualist", see me only as a yankee stereotype--not an indivdual. Fortunately, I've met enough Texans to suspect that very few of them are as dismissive about hunting ethics as you.If ethics aren't personal, they surely are regional.Not regional, ethics are situational. They depend on circumstances. If the realities of deer hunting in Region A are different than Region B, then we'd expect hunters in the two regions to behave differently. But, we'd also expect that, if you swapped the hunters into the other region, they'd then behave in the way appropriate to that region, not continue to act as if they are still where they used to be. They'd act not according to who they are (personal ethics), but according to their activity (hunting) and their specific circumstances.

That is what makes ethics not personal: we expect hunters in similar circumstances to make similar decisions. Except in understood gray areas.

Another ethical principle (not just of hunting) is home-rule: that the people who live somewhere have a large say in what the laws are there.In Texas, our ethics have shaped that law.We finally agree!Man, you should join PETA, I mean, really!But then you make a nonsensical insult (especially after you talked about bowhunters making animals suffer). It shows that your main purpose here is to disrupt discussion and insult--but again, it does clarify that you have no use for ethics.You'd be aghastYour ignorance of me is much, much greater than my ignorance of medical research; I am not aghast.if the suffering of animals is your major concern in life.Any hunter who is completely unconcerned with causing animals unnecessary pain (as you seem to be) should give up hunting...and take up torturing--which you seem to have a fascination with already, given your gleeful references to clubbing (see next) and caustic eye injuries.I'd club baby seals for the fur....money....if legal and would do it in season with all the permits.I believe you would; even if there was a more humane way of taking them (shot to the head comes to mind), my guess is you'd club them, and put the video on youtube.

You are a true ambassador for hunting everywhere.Yet only each individual can determine what defines there ethics and morals.Everyone gets to decide their individual ethics, even criminals--if someone says "These are my ethics," who can tell him they're not?

But hunters as a whole decide what ethical hunting is. If someone says (as we apparently do have someone saying) it is ethical for hunters to be completely unconcerned with causing animals pain when hunting--in fact, what's wrong with a little torture?--we get to say he's wrong. Because he is wrong, and it doesn't matter what his "personal ethics" allow him in that regard.In fact buck fever makes me an entirely unreliable hunter yet if all I did was worry about the ethics of the shot I'd have to hang up the camo.If you are, as you claim to be, an entirely unreliable shot, then IMHO you should hang it up.Now, if a guy thinks he has the skill to make a shot, but does not make a good hit, he's not unethicalI agree, but I would change it to "reasonably thinks." Then, I would agree entirely.You do realize that if ethics are a personal thing, and people act upon their ethics, then the word ethics means absolutely nothing as a person is ethical no matter what they do since they don't have a problem doing it personally right?Bingo.

MCgunner
February 16, 2012, 10:43 AM
All this talk about "knowing" you can take an ethical shot is BS. Last time I checked my guns and bows could out shoot me any day of the week. In fact buck fever makes me an entirely unreliable hunter yet if all I did was worry about the ethics of the shot I'd have to hang up the camo. Hunt enough and you'll injure an animal or just plain miss. I figure it's no worse than starvation, predation, or the grill of a Buick so I don't lose any sleep over it. Id bet PETA loves our own discussing this topic because unless you are a surgical killing machine it's not ethical in their view. So why are we helping them along with their agenda?



Well, Bone2bWild, I really don't get the buck fever anymore. I did when I was a kid, but I've shot a lot of game over the years, lost none of it though I've had to track a few, and I cannot remember making a head or neck shot. My grandpa told me as a kid to always shoot for the biggest target, the shoulder, always puts 'em down, and he was right methinks. Don't hurt much meat and if the deer kicks around on the ground with a broken shoulder, at least he ain't goin' anywhere. I can take him out with a .22 to the cranium when I get there. I've done that a few times with my NAA mini I always have on me. They usually expire before I have to do that, though, and the shot is a kill shot because all the important plumbing is behind that shoulder. I always try to get the bullet in that plumbing.

I'm a good shot if I do say so myself, head shot many a squirrel from 50 yards and in when I was a kid, learned to hunt and shoot on small game. I can probably out shoot most of the people on this board, I say that as fact, no brag, because I've shot against many in local competitions and I know what the average hunter is capable of and I know what I can do. I'm not THAT great, no national camp perry marksman type, but I consider myself well above the skill level of the average hunter with his thuddy thuddy. Yet, I will go for the biggest target BECAUSE it works, it puts 'em down, and I usually won't have to go looking for 'em. If I have to finish 'em off when I get there, so be it. But, if I hit that shoulder, a roughly 12"x12" target area, the deed is done. On deer, even if I get it off the shoulder slightly behind, if he don't go right down, he ain't goin' far. And if you've ever seen a cat kill, you know my kill is far more "humane" than a natural predator's kill, though I do consider myself as a "natural predator". :D

So, you keep on hunting. No one on this board was a nationally ranked rifle shooter, i'm guessing, when they shot their first deer and I can guarantee you, if they weren't a little nervous, they had neurological problems or just weren't in to it because that first couple of dozen or so deer get you going. Even today, my heart rate elevates when I see game, especially a shooter I want to take. :D If it didn't, I'd quit. I don't need the meat that bad. THAT is really what it's all about and in that state of elevated heart rate, I'm not shooting for a 3" target at 200 yards, I'm putting it to the shoulder. I pretty much agree with you on all counts. PETA would love this thread. It would acknowledge that they're getting their message through, even to HUNTERS. :D And, I hunt alone, just me and the wild and God is present. I don't need to be with Loosehorse or in his camp nor glorified by his presence. :D

Loosedhorse
February 16, 2012, 01:04 PM
PETA would love this thread.If that is true, your posts have made it so, by stating that animals suffer during bowhunting, claiming you'd enjoy clubbing seals (if legal), declaring that hunters shouldn't be bothered by wounding animals or other points of ethics, and promoting divisiveness among hunters.

Give yourself a prize, in between those 50-yard squirrel head-shots.

MCgunner
February 16, 2012, 01:27 PM
If that is true, your posts have made it so, by stating that animals suffer during bowhunting, claiming you'd enjoy clubbing seals (if legal), declaring that hunters shouldn't be bothered by wounding animals or other points of ethics, and promoting divisiveness among hunters.

Just WHO is promoting divisiveness? Must be a mirror in front of your monitor. My whole point is that YOU are not the keeper of the book of ethics. You do not tell me what to do or how to do it or even where to shoot an animal and if you tried, well, I'll quit while I'm ahead on that line of thought. :rolleyes:

I've never clubbed (nor seen) a fur seal other than on PETA commercials, but I'm not going to tell a group of seal hunters they can't make a legal living just because seals are all furry and fluffy and, anthropomorphically "cute". If they looked like gators, you probably wouldn't have a problem with it. YOU are potential PETA bait. If there is a viable population of seals, why cannot there be a sustained harvest? And, what does it matter how they whack those seals. You trying to help out the ammo companies with sales? Heck, the "doomsdayers", ammo hoarders, don't need any help with that. They're doing a great job.

Loosedhorse
February 16, 2012, 01:47 PM
My whole point is that YOU are not the keeper of the book of ethics.Even though you insist on telling me I'm not...I never said I was. So, why is your "whole point" a strawman argument?

What you have said is that animal suffering is routine in hunting, that you are unconcerned with that, and that you feel all hunters should also be unconcerned with it. Be sure to dress nice when PETA comes to interview you, spokesman for all "true" hunters that you are. :rolleyes:You trying to help out the ammo companies with sales?To the same extent that you are trying to help the seal-club companies with their sales, I guess. :D

MCgunner
February 16, 2012, 01:54 PM
Anyway, I started a new ethics thread where everyone can feel free to hijack. I think we got a little off the "ethical shot" theme with this one. I'm out on this one, had my say. Done enough damage to this one.

Mike1234567
February 16, 2012, 02:16 PM
I wonder if, during our judgment (if there is such a thing), we'll all be subjected to all the wrongs and rights which we've done in our lifetimes.

Steel Talon
February 16, 2012, 03:08 PM
I'm not sure what you are referring to. A misplaced shot can result from a sudden movement of the animal, an unseem twig that deflected the bullet--things besides bad preparation or bad judgment. Personally, if you showed me a bad shot on a carcass, I couldn't tell you by that if it was the result of an ethical or unethical shot--I'd have to talk to the hunter or someone else there to find out.

You are thinking in singular situations. I'm talking more to the quantity of carcasses presented that display evidence of hind quarters struck, multiple bullet strikes etc. It's also very clear which animals recieved a single quick kill shots to the heart/ lung cavity, neck, or brain shot.

Our local processor and his brother from November to December from firearm season can do as many as 100 plus Deer (Couse White Tail and Mulies) and maybe an Elk or two given the luck of AZ draw.

Steel Talon
February 16, 2012, 03:26 PM
Doves...I'd have mastered the art.

When you have truly MASTERED the art ,as I have. I deliver my kill shot in such a way the birds fall to earth and land on thier back,so as not to bruise the breast...:evil:

MCgunner
February 16, 2012, 03:48 PM
Helps in finding them in the brush, too, I'd bet. :D Hell, I've lost birds in a FRIGGIN' PLOWED FIELD. I need another dog......

I wonder if, during our judgment (if there is such a thing), we'll all be subjected to all the wrongs and rights which we've done in our lifetimes.

Bible says our sins are forgiven, IF........a link....

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version=NIV

Up to the individual to believe it and accept it.

BTW, far as I know, there is no mention of game law and hunter ethics in the Bible that I've ever found. :D I'd have paid attention if I'd ever read something like that. These laws, far as I know, are all contrived by man.

Mike1234567
February 16, 2012, 04:05 PM
So, to clarify, what you're advocating is do as we please with the knowledge that, as long as we believe a certain thing, there will be no consequences to ourselves and that makes it okay to do as we please whenever we please?:)

MCgunner
February 16, 2012, 04:29 PM
Unless you break GOD's law. There will be judgement. God gave Moses his laws. Shot placement on game animals was never mentioned, I know this for fact. :D

I'm a learning Christian and don't know it all, never will. That's why I go to Bible study. :D You probably should be asking this stuff to your pastor, not me.

Loosedhorse
February 16, 2012, 04:54 PM
BTW, far as I know, there is no mention of game law and hunter ethics in the BibleWell, of course the Bible is not a game law handbook. But it does say a lot (in the OT) about how to treat and use animals. Jewish law has done a thorough explication of those principles.

Hunting for sport is prohibited in Jewish law (http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm), based on the Torah. Hunting for food is problematic as the animal must be killed not by the shot, but by a slaughtering knife stroke.

In addition, the Bible does not look kindly on hunters: Esau and Nimrod were hunters, and Esau at least was a villain (traditionally, not Biblically, Nimrod was, too). And negative hunting and trapping imagery is found elsewhere, like Psalms: "He is the one who will rescue you from hunters' traps and from deadly plagues..."

Thankfully, we are not bound by Biblical or rabinical (or even Hindu) beliefs. But the idea that game laws designed to manage animal populations are inconsistent with the Bible would be an odd one.

Mike1234567
February 16, 2012, 04:57 PM
**deleted** just received a "hint" via a deleted post. So I'm stopping here.:)

MCgunner
February 16, 2012, 05:01 PM
If I thought Jewish law were my salvation, I wouldn't have most of a hog in my freezer or a hog trap for that matter. :rolleyes: AND, I hunt primarily for "sport" as I don't NEED to hunt for meat. I have an HEB down the street from me.

"He is the one who will rescue you from hunters' traps and from deadly plagues..."

And you think that's not a metaphor? :rolleyes:

I just don't believe that we can go through our lives causing pain and suffering and not pay a penalty (if there's a penalty to be paid). I think we've grossly misunderstood and/or muddled whatever message(s) were given to us (if there was/is any message).

Causing pain and suffering to whom? I kinda think maybe Bernie Madoff is headed to hell, but it's not mine to judge. :D

allaroundhunter
February 16, 2012, 05:07 PM
When you have truly MASTERED the art ,as I have. I deliver my kill shot in such a way the birds fall to earth and land on thier back,so as not to bruise the breast...

That's nice shooting and all....mine land in my vest :cool:

Loosedhorse
February 16, 2012, 05:08 PM
I just don't believe that we can go through our lives causing pain and suffering and not pay a penalty (if there's a penalty to be paid).Well, hunting is not metaphysics. But I share your belief.

On a practical level, the more that hunters are unconcerned about animal suffering--and the more they BRAG about that lack of concern :rolleyes:--the more likely that we will see the political will created to increase hunting regulations, in order to "fill the gap" created by hunters refusing to self-regulate. And eventually hunting will be regulated out of reach of most hunters.

We can say what we want about 2A, but there is no fundamental right to hunt in this country. To the extent that hunters are seen as unethically abusing the privilege (or as abusing animals), hunting will be taken away.And you think that's not a metaphor?Of course it is a metaphor: for oppression and evil. Nice associations with hunting and trapping, huh? You're the one making a big deal about what the Bible says. Live with it.

MCgunner
February 16, 2012, 05:12 PM
That's nice shooting and all....mine land in my vest

What, they don't pick themselves first? :D

Steel Talon
February 16, 2012, 05:27 PM
That's nice shooting and all....mine land in my vest

You got me there! Well, not to brag..(much):D

I've numerous times over the years shot a Dove coming head on and have caught it in my hand as it folded and plummeted tom the ground.

MCgunner
February 16, 2012, 08:55 PM
I've numerous times over the years shot a Dove coming head on and have caught it in my hand as it folded and plummeted tom the ground.

Can you do that with a snow goose? :D

Bone2bWild
February 17, 2012, 12:55 AM
All this empassioned talk about an ethical shot, if this were so cut and dried wouldn't it also be logical to only have one form of capital punishment in the delivery of a death sentence? Stoning used to be ok, hanging used to be ok. I don't want my bow hunting to go the way of the noose. Do you not see the slippery slope we are on trying to appease these activists? I'm not advocating all out abolishment of a code of conduct but we are dealing with irrational folks with not comprehension of a day prior to grocery stores. Forget hunting for a moment, the grocery store as we know it invented the modern day vegetarian and with it their contrarian beliefs systems. What my grandmother did not 80 years ago to feed her kids would turn the noses of vegetarians and PETA for sure. our nation has gotten soft and political correctness has run amuck. It's why I'm an NRA supporter. I don't willfully set out to wound a deer but it has happened and I don't lose any sleep over it knowing that it was far better than starvation, predation, or he grill of a Buick. We as hunters are not the surgical practicioners of death that would appease all their objections to our sport. I for one am tired of trying.

Loosedhorse
February 17, 2012, 10:22 AM
the grocery store as we know it invented the modern day vegetarian and with it their contrarian beliefs systems:confused:I don't willfully set out to wound a deer but it has happened and I don't lose any sleep over it knowing that it was far better than starvation, predation, or he grill of a Buick.If you wound a deer and lose it, you have no way of knowing it didn't starve, or get preyed upon--or smashed by a Buick. And no way of knowing that those deaths would not have been "better."

I don't "lose any sleep" over an animal I recover, even if I had to trail it way too long. I do try to find out how and why I messed up the shot.

I have lossed sleep over an animal I lost--in part because I was trying to trail it until after dark, and was right back there again the next morning at first light.

allaroundhunter
February 17, 2012, 10:47 AM
I've numerous times over the years shot a Dove coming head on and have caught it in my hand as it folded and plummeted tom the ground.

Haha, I have only done that once....and I'll admit...I have never caught one in my vest (but I did try ;))

Can you do that with a snow goose?

Never tried with a goose....never been goose hunting (dying to go soon though)
However, when duck hunting in a lay-down blind I shot one and as soon as I had lined up a second one the first landed flat on my stomach and knocked the breath out of me....

RevGeo
February 17, 2012, 12:55 PM
So, a baby seal walks into a club - BadaBoom! (sorry, couldn't resist).
The blood sports are just that - bloody and a sport. With the exception of Caribou, everyone who has posted so far seems to be a sportsman. Modern American society is changing away from acceptance of the blood sports as an ethical form of recreation. I, for one, am sad to see this change as I have been a hunter and fisherman since I was a kid.
Here in Idaho it is legal to hunt black bears with dogs and to bait them. I have baited bears but not hunted them with dogs. I plan to try it this spring as I have a friend who is a hound hunter. I have watched TV programs where the evolution of the dog as a friend to man is portrayed in the most positive - indeed loving - terms as a protector of the home and as a partner in the hunt. It was apparantly fine then to have your dog help you hunt game, but not now, with the interesting exception of birds. It's okay to have a dog point, flush and retrieve birds, but it's not okay for a dog to chase and tree a bear or a cougar.
But I digress. With the exception of subsistance hunting, as with our friend Caribou, hunting is a sport. Sports have rules. Rules in sports constantly change. If find it interesting that only in the blood sports are the rules allowed to be changed with the input of those who are not playing the game.
Anyone who follows internet forums about trout fishing is well aware of the arguments that ensue about the subject of catch-and-release fishing. The self-righteousness of some 'release 'em all' fisherman can be astounding, to say the least.
Ethics in sport is always a contentuous subject, as shown in this thread. I guess I'll have to go along with the comments that say 'follow the rules (laws) and make up your own mind as to what is 'ethical' otherwise'.
Peace,

George

Loosedhorse
February 17, 2012, 01:32 PM
Sports have rules. Rules in sports constantly change. If find it interesting that only in the blood sports are the rules allowed to be changed with the input of those who are not playing the game.Even though there are rules, some players still get a reputation as "dirty" because they violate rules whenever they think they can get away with it. More importantly, some violate the ethic behind the rule: many of sports rules are predicated on the ethic that no one "should" be maimed by playing a sport; but some dirty players don't mind going for the knees or the head, if they can.

For sports, the question will be, are those "dirty players" ethical? After all, when caught, they are assessed a penalty, and maybe a fine--as long as they take their medicine, a player intentionally injuring another is just as "ethical" as someone who who doesn't, right?

;)

BTW, team owners have A LOT to say about rule changes in sports, and few of them were ever professional players. It is not just hunters who "own" hunting areas and the animals in them; it is appropriate then that not just hunters have a say in hunting.

RevGeo
February 17, 2012, 06:55 PM
The owners are playing the game, same as outfitters and guides. Like I said in the last sentence of my post, I think everyone will make up their own mind about ethics. I consider my own pretty high, if I do say so. I don't kill coyotes on sight, I let most rattlers live and I always try to make the first shot the last shot. I don't poach. I don't hunt anything I don't intend to eat. I keep enough fish to feed the family. I hunted varmints in my younger days but I don't anymore. But I don't impose my ethics on others as long as what they are doing is legal. If I disagree strongly enough with the law I will do my best to change it.
It's not just golfers who own the golf course or race drivers who own the race track. They all pay to participate. As do we.

George

MCgunner
February 17, 2012, 09:25 PM
Great post, Rev.

Steel Talon
February 18, 2012, 01:01 AM
Can you do that with a snow goose?

I dont think I'd even attempt that it. I dont relish the idea of having my azz over tea kettle knocked into the dirt.:eek:

If you enjoyed reading about "Ethical kills?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!