1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Okay, new ethics thread that Art can close. :D

Discussion in 'Hunting' started by MCgunner, Feb 16, 2012.

  1. MCgunner

    MCgunner Well-Known Member

    So, that "ethical shot" thread and the "shotguns on carp" thread and the "shooting coyotes" thread all merged in my head just now. I'm thinkin' some folks who don't wanna kill fur seals might not see ANYTHING wrong with shooting carp and letting 'em rot.

    So, what's the difference here? Carp are animals, I spent four years at Texas A&M studying all about fish and how to manage fisheries. I owned an aquarium store for a while. I'm a fish guy or as one of my terrestrial professors used to say, an "aquatic type". :D They're not furry, nor "cute" to anyone except some species are to ME. I mean, ya gotta love a blue discus, right?

    Anyway, bow fishing for a guy like me that doesn't eat the meat would be considered a depredation of the resource if it were a game bird. You just shoot it for the fun of shooting it. I ain't going to eat a carp, don't wanna deal with the bones. I have shot buffalo suckers in the past for trotline bait. That's a legit use of the resource, but I don't see USING that resource as necessary. Buffalo suckers are not game fish, thus the laws on fishing do not apply to them, THAT is the reason bow fishing them in Texas is allowed in the first place! But, if they looked like little fur seals, would some of you guys be crying foul over shooting them for the fun of it?

    Just a thought to expand upon. I see predator hunting, even though I personally don't do it and don't think I'd get anything out of it, as no worse than bow fishing. And, well, those little prairie dogs are danged cute, ain't they? Guys can wipe out a whole prairie dog town in an afternoon, I'm told, shooting them at long range with .22 centerfires. Again, I'm not interested in it, but I don't think it's any worse than the bow fishing I've done, right?

    Think logically, now. Don't be a liberal democrat and think with emotion. :rolleyes:
  2. hogshead

    hogshead Well-Known Member

    Carp are an non-native invasive species.However I do see your point.
  3. MCgunner

    MCgunner Well-Known Member

    Okay, then, even though I do eat garfish, some don't. AND, buffalo suckers are native. Too many bones in that thing for ME to mess with.
  4. Loosedhorse

    Loosedhorse member

    Just me personally, but I don't shoot anything "just for the fun of shooting it."

    What I like about hunting is hunting: the challenge. If gets to be too routine, I can make it more challenging: switch from scoped rifle to handgun, or to black-powder, or bow; switch to a more difficult animal. The key is always going to be: finding the game, getting close (or getting it close to you), and then deciding whether or not you can take the shot. Heck, I can have a lot of challenge in VT hunting squirrels with an open-sighted .22 revolver.

    I guess a lot of things get called hunting that I don't consider hunting. You want to shoot invasive carp, or prarie dogs that are a hazard to cattle, or destructive feral pigs, fine. Heck, get a helicopter and shoot at them with a Ma Deuce. And don't forget the hand-grenades.

    But that's pest control, not hunting. The point of pest control is eliminating the pest. By definition, a pest animal is not wanted or respected.

    The point of sport hunting is the hunting, and we should respect the game we hunt and the traditions of hunting.

    If any of you are involved in commercial hunting or sustenance hunting, then the point of the hunt is for you is money or food, respectively--I don't think we're going to see a lot of wastage there. And I would think that respect for your quarry and for tradition would still come into play.
  5. Weedy

    Weedy Well-Known Member

    Hey MC

    I can totally see your point. Kind of similar to the guy who told me killing a coyote is like swatting a wasp, or whatever, on the "coyote" thread.

    I feel like (I think) you do...taking a life is taking a life, whether it's big or small or ugly or cute or whatever else. However, I do think that a coyote's life, or a wolf or bear or even a pig, is more significant to me because of the level of intelligence of the animal, and whether that animal has the brain capacity to possibly get some enjoyment from its life. When I see every day how my dogs behave, I swear that they can think and they have thoughts going through those little brains. So yeah shooting a dog-like animal would bother me a lot. I will never hunt bears (unless they're hunting me).

    I know that if you look at it from a purely logical standpoint, in the grand scheme of the universe, a human being's existence is really no more significant than that of a single bacteria. That may be a contoversial statement depending on your religious beliefs and whatnot, but it's what I believe and that can't be changed. And I do respect people who have different beliefs than I do.

    I'm a fish guy as well, and I tend to pretty much release all fish I catch as well. Suffering has a lot to do with it too...I can't stand to even see a nightcrawler writhing on a hot sidewalk, I either put it in the grass or, if that's not possible, step on it to put it out of its misery. I have a hard time impaling one on a hook so I use artificial bait. So that's me I guess. Unfortunately its pretty hard to convince people to be nicer to animals without seeming like a big hypocrite, since I do eat them. And swat them when they bite me.

    Anyway sorry for the long post. I firmly believe in treating animals humanely, and I sure as HELL am not a liberal. Having some compassion for life has nothing to do with politics. :)
  6. Loosedhorse

    Loosedhorse member

    Not hypocritical at all, IMHO.
  7. Mike1234567

    Mike1234567 member

    Killing to harvest the meat or to minimize damage to one's property and livestock or to decrease invasive species is one thing... okay, it's three things.:) But to intentionally choose a method which allows or causes unnecessary suffering when other viable options are available is an entirely different thing and is simple cruelty.

    Okay... time for my tree hugging session followed by my granola and milk snack. Where's my huggy bear?!?:D
  8. Ankeny

    Ankeny Well-Known Member

    The thing about ethics threads is they almost always get closed on any hunting forum. FWIW, I used to shoot carp with a bow...it's a lot of fun. I have shot literally thousands of p-dogs through the decades. I stack coyotes up like cord wood, and I used to sell dead jack rabbits that I "spotlighted" by the hordes to a mink farm. But I try to avoid head and neck shots on big game animals.

    Did I mention I have ripped the lips on a bazzilion fish then winched them along behind the boat? ;)
  9. MCgunner

    MCgunner Well-Known Member


    Now, I used to feed earth worms to my Oscars in the aquarium store. Those things are neat, very aggressive, and one can almost bond with them. BUT, just like with my cats or dog, this is anthropomorphizing. But, I've always figured that ALL cephalic organisms (eliminates the cnidarians and such) could "think" or even have emotion in one form or another. Just because we as humans can't recognize it means nothing.

    Shooting a fish with a bow is done in an area of the fishes body that is not immediately lethal. Even catching a fish on rod and real, I toss 'em on ice to die a cold death without thinkin' about it. If you are such a carrying person (any of you, not being specific), can you do that to a living organism that does have a cephalic nervous system and CAN feel pain? Do you freak when the frog legs you're frying jump out of the pan? All these human emotions are illogical IMHO. They're total emotion brought upon by a human's tendency to anthropomorphize. Heck, I do that with motorcycles. My motorcycles have names, "Red" (a red 01 SV650S) and Booger (a booger colored faded green 2000 KLR 650). I often come home telling the wife how Booger enjoyed the ride. :rolleyes: Of course, that's all joking, but it's human nature. Heck, Davy Crockett called his rifle "Ol' Betsy". This tendency gets muddled into reality when humans think of animals, though, animals where they can SEE some sign of intelligence, mammals in particular. BUt, it's my contention that just because you cannot SEE signs that an animal such as a fish has any sort of thought or feeling, doesn't mean it's not there. How could one tell? Animal behaviorists have been wrong many times on these things and they're the so called "experts".

    How many here have taken racoons in a trap? How many have known a pet racoon? Those are one "smart" critter, cuter than a dog or cat IMHO. Yet, I've trapped 'em for the pelts back when the pelts were bringing 40 bucks a pop in top shape. That was late '70s, early '80s. I used spring traps on 'em. Could YOU do that? Is that unethical?

    Just trying to get people to think with their minds, that's all. Seems to me there might be a bit of hypocrisy going around on all this ethics of hunting stuff.
  10. Mike1234567

    Mike1234567 member

    Where's the hypocrisy you speak of? I don't eat much meat and what I do consume is from a kosher butcher... much more humane kills than a typical slaughter house. I don't wear fur of any kind. I don't hunt nor fish. Don't get me wrong... if I had to I would. All I'm saying is that I'd use every viable humane tactic at my disposal before I would resort to other options because I very strongly believe that intentionally choosing methods with increased suffering is cruel. What's hypocritical about that?

    I agree that just because we can't always see a certain degree of intelligence or emotion it doesn't mean it's not there. The real conundrum here, and what really troubles my mind, is why would you or anyone else realize this and still choose crueler methods of animal dispatchment?
  11. MCgunner

    MCgunner Well-Known Member

    So, you're a PETA troll? I'm confused. You're on a hunting board, you don't hunt. Hmmmmm.....

    How do they kill FISH to make it Kosher?
  12. Wes Mantooth

    Wes Mantooth Well-Known Member

    Feral pigs, p-dogs and Asian carp and some other species need population control.

    So your telling me that there are invasive species that are threatening to destroy your way of life and ecosystem and you do not take up arms to defeat them?:scrutiny:

    Why are some species of animals extinct but not these? Because we haven't madethem extinct...yet.:neener:
  13. MCgunner

    MCgunner Well-Known Member

    There's a cowbird control program in TP&W. They try to control invasive species even in non-game birds! Hey, it ain't ME. Also, european collard doves are an invasive species that are taking on like gang busters, no limit or season on 'em I'm told, but haven't looked the season thing up. They're all over my place. They're fun to shoot, bigger than mourning or white wing doves. Hell, I'm hoping they take over like the hogs have. ROFL! That right there is not very PC with the wildlife biologists, but I like hogs and ringneck doves.
  14. jmr40

    jmr40 Well-Known Member

    I don't have any problems killing mice or roaches in my home to prevent them from causing damage or harming my family. I feel the same about shooting some larger animals such as rabid racoon's crow's, coyotes, feral hogs, dogs, or cats. They cause crop damage, kill wildlife and domestic pets and could harm my family either by spreading disease or attacking my grandkids.

    No one seems to mind paying someone else to exterminate pests, but take offense when others shoot them.
  15. Weedy

    Weedy Well-Known Member

    I agree with population control, or complete elimination of, invasive species. Feral hogs, asian carp, snakeheads, etc. I would try to be as humane as possible but if it threatens the native species, yeah, take out as many as you can! Then again, when the Bering land bridge was exposed during the ice age, I guess all the animals that came here from Asia were invasive....not trying to start another THING, but man this could go on and on (and it has, and it will). We all have different opinions, we all like guns, I value ALL you guys opinions on everything I ask about on this site!

    You know, speaking of animals that that could not show emotions...whales/dolphins are some of the very smartest mammals and can't show emotions, at least via facial expressions.
  16. Loosedhorse

    Loosedhorse member

    What would be the problem with that? And what's with calling everyone a PETA troll?
    I think it is easy to WAY over-anthropomorphize animals.
    I think we should be careful about assigning a "cruelness" scale to culling methods. No one has suggested a method intended to cause pain--to me, cruelness is mostly a question of intent.

    I have in general been more concerned that incompetent or careless attempts to kill an animal (by whatever method) can result in a prolonged death. I'd consider that result always undesirable.
  17. 12gaugeTim

    12gaugeTim Well-Known Member

    I try to see everything as God's test of my moral integrity, and congratulations, my sir, for you have proved yourself to be one of the most grueling assessments yet. For those of you just tuning in, this MCGunner character recently incited a debate in another thread with a similar topic by twisting the subject matter into an opportunity to display his controversial opinions on how, as he mentions here, his "ethics" extend only to the point of saving him the trouble of blood-trails and other such inconveniences, and he further mentions here that evidently he sees the lives of animals as objects of his amusement, which exist only to the point of a notion of boredom, at which point he ends in a manner that entertains him.

    In an attempt to put a premature end to the inevitable calamity I, in a somewhat admittedly sarcastic tone, make a mention of how clubbing seals and skinning them alive for their fur is reproachable. This effort to unite the thread's participants behind a common agreement was in vain, for MCEristicGunner makes the bold claim that he would participate in the seasonly slaughter if he could, and he further notes that it would be with a club, even though his membership in this forum indicates that he almost assuredly owns firearms, which would prove a more humane way of dispatching the seal. I give my opinions and abort all attempts to save the thread. I check up on it, but stay true to my word and post no more. MC makes the same claim as me, but later rejoins the thread.

    Now, in this thread MCGunner makes a direct stab at me, probably hoping I will take the bait, which I so weakly have. I cannot sit by and have myself ridiculed by this man so void of passion. I make my case starting with the first notable quote.

    Yes, as a matter of fact, I would, likely along with anybody else who can see how killing something for kicks is wrong. When you're out shooting, if some animal walks out in front of you, do you just kill it there because it's more interesting to watch animals die than it is to watch a can bounce? What for, stress relief? Maybe something happened to you in your past that makes you feel wholesome every time you injure something lower than you. You accosted me on my point of clubbing baby seals and I expect you to respond to my inquiry as well. Quote two.

    So you're saying that anyone who thinks with emotion is a "liberal democrat"? That's the most blatant bifurcation I've ever heard. Either you're a liberal democrat or you don't have emotion. Yeah, we're thinking logically now. Emotion is one of the many wonderful things that set us apart from the insuperior species, whom we are supposed to be good stewards of, as ordained in Genesis. Are you saying that when we make decisions about humane aspects of hunting (or killing for fun) we are supposed to remove the "human" part from it? But I guess since I don't have the compassion of a stone I belong in PETA, as you told anyone who disagreed with you in the conflagration of a thread that started this nonsense.

    I realize this is probably forum suicide and I'll be banned for this post. But to be honest, I got my point across, so I don't care. Requiescat in pax, 12gaugeTim.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2012
  18. Loosedhorse

    Loosedhorse member

    Well, Tim, that's a lot of style to lavish on this thread, and it may be wasted...

    But I sure liked it. :)

    There is a very viable branch of ethics that claims that our beliefs about what is "right" start with an emotion, a feeling that some action is good or bad; just or unjust. And then we attempt to use logic to figure out why we feel that way.

    In other words, it may be that thinking with emotion is the very heart of ethics.
  19. Hunterdad

    Hunterdad Well-Known Member

    I used to fish for carp professionally and I always cringed at the thought of bow fishing. During my outings on the water banks, I have seen thousands of dead carp with holes through them just dumped on the shore to rot.

    Carp have gotten blamed for a lot of things due to misinformation. For example, less than a mile from my house is one of the most polluted lakes (Onondaga Lake) in the country. For a while, there were only 3-4 surviving species of fish in the lake and carp was one of them. People were convinced that the carp killed all the other fish since carp can and do thrive in some of the worse water conditions. The bow "fisherman" were cruzing and killing hundreds of them in a single outing. Its just a waste and unethical too me. I asked a bow fisherman why he did it and he told me "its good practice. I'm tired of shooting at targets in my backyard." That just rubbed me the wrong way.

    Anyways, for anyone going out to shoot these, try hooking up with a 40# carp and go for the ride. It really is some of the best fishing anyone could ask for. The fight they give is truly impressive.

    EDIT: Apparently I should have read the post about shooting carp with a shotgun before posting this. I was referring to the "common carp" not the "Asian carp". I am all for eradicating the Asian carp. If they get into our great lakes, the entire fishery is as good as gone.
  20. sugarmaker

    sugarmaker Well-Known Member

    I'm comfortable with my position near the top of the food chain. I try not to have animals suffer more than necessary. I feel kinda sorry for the worm I break in half to go fishing and probably the mice I feed D-con to die a miserable death. Things I consider pests die and get thrown inrto a hole. I am at least as compassionate as any other carnivore, and my thoughts stop there.

Share This Page