Ethical vs Unethical Hunting?

[itgoesboom]

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

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

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

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

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

Any other pet peeves about unethical hunting?

Thanks in advance.

I.G.B.

 

[rwc]

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

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

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

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

 

[birddog]

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

Good luck with this thread, lol.

 

[Rem700SD]

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

 

[AnthonyRSS]

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

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

There is a such thing as 'situational ethics'.

Anthony

 

[rbernie]

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

 

[Malfader13]

None ethical hunting is easier for me to define.

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

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

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

I think that about covers it.

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

 

[LAK]

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

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

"What is Stalking?

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

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

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

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

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

All in all a pretty fair summary IMO.

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

 

[shermacman]

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

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

Immoral? Illegal?

 

[roo_ster]

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

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

Immoral? Illegal?

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

 

[Art Eatman]

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

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

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

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

Art

 

[itgoesboom]

Thanks everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I.G.B.

 

[rbernie]

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

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

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

 

[MNgoldenbear]

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

 

[svtruth]

I'm not a hunter, but

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

 

[Art Eatman]

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

, Art

 

[itgoesboom]

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

, Art

Exactly.

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

I.G.B.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[JollyWhiteGiant]

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

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

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

 

[birddog]

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

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

 

[Art Eatman]

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

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

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

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

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

He passed the deal...

Art

 

[Highland Ranger]

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

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

That's your definition.

State rules and regulations have nothing to do with ethics.

 

[pax]

Road hunting ...

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

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

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

To me, that would be unethical.

pax

 

[Stand_Watie]

Road hunting ...

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

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

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

To me, that would be unethical.

pax

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

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

 

[pax]

Stand_Watie ~

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

pax