Ethical kills?

[RevGeo]

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]

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]

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]

Great post, Rev.

 

[Steel Talon]

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.