Who's in charge of hunter ethics?

[MCgunner]

What simple questions, about child beating? That's not the point of this thread. On that subject, they put plates in the lips of children in some New Guinea tribes, or African, or somewhere near a National Geographic photographer because I've seen the pics. In the US, that would be regarded as child abuse. In their society it is a perfectly acceptable practice. Here, I'd call CPS to report it. In Africa, I'd take a picture of the plate lipped little fart to post on the internet about strange cultures.

 

[MCgunner]

ArmedBear, if I still hunted that west Texas ranch I was on, I'd give you an invite. It's about as close to you as it was for me. LOL! Great hunting and I didn't have to use a feeder out there. There were always tall tales around the campfire if not arguments.

 

[eliphalet]

) If it were legal in your area, would you have any problem with someone torturing animals to death?

2) Assuming there was no law prohibiting it, would you be OK with your neighbor torturing his child[ren]?

I don't see how these or questions like them have ONE thing to do with Ethics in a hunting situation, that is unless your a PETA kinda person and looking to stir a pot in a hunting forum.

I said before " Each hunter is responsible for his OWN ethic's". Beyond legal what is an ethical way to hunt in one area or to one hunter might not be for another in another area.
I have not hunted from a stand or over food. It seems foreign to me, but I would under the right circumstances, I have left bait for bear, and hunting with dogs in some situations seems fine to me, but not in others. Each person and area are diverse, different species plus habitat is/can be very different along with a host of things and different standards would apply IMHO.

Remember man is man and some of em are gonna "cheat" at what ever the situation is, from little kids playing marbles to heads of state involving world affairs. Unethical folks are part of life, and sadly hunting is not exempt.

No place does "torturer" play into "hunting ethics" at any time anywhere.

 

[D. Parker]

I don't see how these or questions like them have ONE thing to do with Ethics in a hunting situation, that is unless your a PETA kinda person and looking to stir a pot in a hunting forum.

Or someone trying to illustrate a basic concept by way of a hypothetical. The point of the questions is:

The recurring claim has been, "Ethics (which are a system of morals) are strictly up to the individual. If it's legal, it's OK."

The questions above test the validity of that assertion. It seems like it would be a lot easier to just answer them and see where that leads, rather than going through so much effort to avoid it. So, if those things were legal, would it be OK with you if other people did them? Answer that and we can move on.

 

[birddog]

The animal rights crowd did a big push some years ago to outlaw bow hunting (part of their grand scheme I'm sure). You could construe bows as cruel or inappropriate considering they kill by bleeding the animal and the animal takes hundreds of yards to die most times...

This boiled my blood.

If the animal is going hundreds of yards before falling "most times" then you're doing something wrong.

This cooled it.

I've spent my adult life writing about hunting ethics and have no desire to waste one breath on this discussion because it's headed nowhere, but I do have to step up and defend bowhunters. I'm a handgun, bow, rifle and shotgun hunter, and have seen far more animals wounded with firearms. Bow hunters tend to take their sport pretty seriously and also practice a disproportionate amount (out of necessity) compared to most of their firearm toting counterparts.

*sitting back down to watch the thread grow and grow and grow*

 

[MCgunner]

Yeah, I'd bow hunt if I could. I tried it, well, tried to get accurate enough to try it. Never could shoot a bow well enough due to my eye dominance problem and gave up. But, I do handgun hunt for the same reasons people bow hunt, the challenge of having to get closer. And, I practice like bow hunters practice for the same reason, being accurate is not as easy with a handgun in the field as it is with a rifle. I never tried to bow hunt because I couldn't get accurate enough. I just had a recurve, didn't invest in a bunch of expensive equipment. But, I realized my physical limitations were not going to let me master the bow with enough skill to use it on an animal.

The one thing I did get into for a while was bowfishing. It's more of an instinctive style of shooting a bow, no time for sights, and it's at very short ranges. I don't much care for gar meat, but it was kinda fun.

 

[john1911]

Quote:
So then, if there were no law against torturing an animal to death you'd be A-OK with it?

That type of activity is illegal where I hunt. It's illegal because sportsmen have acted to make it illegal.

You want to see animals being "tortured to death", visit your local slaughterhouse.
Perhaps you should take just a second to read what you're responding to. I posed a hypothetical that asked, if there was no law against it, would you be OK with it. You either didn't catch that, or are copping out on the question with the "but it's illegal".

I'm gonna need your definition of "tortured to death". Do you consider a poorly placed shot resulting in a span of several hours before death torture? Or, do you mean catching a deer (live) and feeding it into a wood chipper? To me, the first isn't unethical. The second I would not consider ethical. Some one who has used the wood chipper method for years, as has generations before might.

If it was legal, would it be OK? That's what the question of ethics is all about, not this "if it's legal it's alright" nonsense.

Ethics and legality are too intertwined to discuss each separately of the other. Most laws are based on ethical mores and ethics, in large part, are guided by legality.

The animal torture/child abuse question is really just too bizarre to get into. Humans do not equal animals, to say otherwise is just foolish. What is the ethical thing to do to a severely injured animal? Put it down and end it's suffering. I wouldn't say the same about a similarly injured child. It's asinine to compare the two.

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I'm with Birddog, as a bowhunter and as a writer.

I'll only add that practices like timed feeder hunting seem to echo the same ethical values that shooting buffalo from moving trains did. And, we're still shamed in that unfortunate series of choices because we still don't have much of a buffalo herd.
And a lot of guys back then would have said "It's just what we do."

Do I have the right to tell you and all the other Texans doing this that you're doing something wrong? You bet.
Do you have to listen? Nope.

 

[D. Parker]

I'm gonna need your definition of "tortured to death". Do you consider a poorly placed shot resulting in a span of several hours before death torture?

The deer might, but....no, that's clearly not what I'm referring to. I'm obviously talking about intentional, drawn-out infliction of unnecessary and extreme pain.

Or, do you mean catching a deer (live) and feeding it into a wood chipper? To me, the first isn't unethical. The second I would not consider ethical.

That wasn't the question. The question was, "Would you be OK with it?" In other words, would you consider it inherently wrong for an individual to be committing such an act? Not you, but someone else.

Some one who has used the wood chipper method for years, as has generations before might.

Many psychotic murderers actually believe that the killings they carry out are justified. But we're not talking about what someone else thinks about their actions. We're talking about what YOU think about them.

Ethics and legality are too intertwined to discuss each separately of the other.

Nonsense. You're just resisting separating the two in this discussion because you're desperately trying to avoid dealing with the point being made.

Most laws are based on ethical mores and ethics, in large part, are guided by legality.

Yes, but they are not one and the same. Really, this stuff isn't that difficult to understand, so I don't know why you and McGunner are having such a hard time wrapping your minds around it. The basic concept is:

"X" may currently be legal. Does that mean it is automatically ethical too?

Of course not. That is, unless you've abandoned all independant thought and are allowing your governments' legislatures do all of your thinking for you.

The animal torture/child abuse question is really just too bizarre to get into.

No it isn't. You just don't want to answer them because then you'll have to admit that your whole "everyone should decide ethics/morals for themselves" mantra is hogwash. That brand of value-relativism is the foundation of just about every extreme left-wing idealistic position there is.

Humans do not equal animals, to say otherwise is just foolish.

Uh, no. To say that humans are animals is to acknowledge biological reality.

What is the ethical thing to do to a severely injured animal? Put it down and end it's suffering. I wouldn't say the same about a similarly injured child. It's asinine to compare the two.

Since I never compared the two, the one being asinine is you. I asked two completely separate questions that are quite answerable separately. There's no reason to try and confuse them. That is, unless you just don't have the intestinal fortitude (or intellectual honesty) to man-up and answer them. Do you?

 

[eliphalet]

You can ask that kinda question all you want but it has nothing to do with hunter ethic's, which was what was asks in the first place.
Torture or extreme cruelty to any living creature and hunting have nothing in common unless you see the activity from A PETA type of view.

I do have a question of my own "are you a hunter"?
If so how long, where, what, when, Tell us some of your experiences as such.

 

[MCgunner]

I'll only add that practices like timed feeder hunting seem to echo the same ethical values that shooting buffalo from moving trains did. And, we're still shamed in that unfortunate series of choices because we still don't have much of a buffalo herd.
And a lot of guys back then would have said "It's just what we do."

Do I have the right to tell you and all the other Texans doing this that you're doing something wrong? You bet.
Do you have to listen? Nope.

One rather large difference here. The buffalo herd was decimated in a decade or two. Texas has 1/5 of all the whitetail deer in north America and if anything, it's growing. There is no chance of extinction of Texas whitetail. They are well managed. You can only take five total in Calhoun county and most of east Texas is one buck counties. We limit the take here.

I see absolutely NO correlation between feeder hunting and the decimation of the buffalo herds for market in the 19th century, none what so ever.

 

[john1911]

That is, unless you just don't have the intestinal fortitude (or intellectual honesty) to man-up and answer them. Do you?

I've answered your questions repeatedly. You don't like my answers, so you choose to ignore them.

I hold a very strict sense of hunting ethics. I believe all game laws should be obeyed. I believe the harvest of all animals should be as quick and painless as possible. I believe all possible parts of a harvested animal should be used. I will not condone intentional mistreatment of animals. I choose the weapons and methods of harvest that I feel are the most humane and efficient.

OTOH, I'm not so full of myself as to cast aspersions on others who may not make the same choices as I do regarding weapons and methods. As long as other hunters are hunting inside the boundary of the law, I feel no need to force my ethics on them. I may not like what they are doing, but I will not infringe another's freedoms because I don't like what they are doing.

I do have a question of my own "are you a hunter"?
If so how long, where, what, when, Tell us some of your experiences as such.

I would like to hear this answered as well.

And, on a final note, I find your changing of screen name in the middle of the thread suspect. I'm led to believe you are a (at least) once banned troll.

 

[D. Parker]

You can ask that kinda question all you want but it has nothing to do with hunter ethic's...

It has to do with identifying an underlying principle. Your thought processes are amazingly simple and shallow. You're either incapable of understanding relatively simple concepts, or are so dishonest that you're pretending not to.

Torture or extreme cruelty to any living creature and hunting have nothing in common...

No one said they did.

unless you see the activity from A PETA type of view.

See above...and give the PETA crap a rest.

I do have a question of my own...

Really? So you don't feel obligated to answer questions posed to you in a debate, but think the asker should answer yours? Well, being more honest and courageous about these things than you, I'll actually answer.

"are you a hunter"?

Of course I am. My posting history here makes that clear. If you were more interested in honest dialog than you are in silly accusation-based attempts at misdirection you'd realize that.

If so how long, where, what, when, Tell us some of your experiences as such.

You ask a lot of irrelevant questions for someone claiming that the questoins asked of him are irrelevant (simply becase you don't understand the point being made.) This "shoot the messenger" crap is pretty ridiculous, don't you think? Well, no matter....

I've been hunting off and on since my senior year of highschool (1978-79.) Until a few years ago that included only small game like rabbits, squirrels and doves. Since my son became interested in shooting and hunting I've expanded to deer, hogs and waterfowl.

See. Directly and honestly answering a question isn't so hard.

I've answered your questions repeatedly. You don't like my answers, so you choose to ignore them.

That's a lie. At no point did you provide an answer to any of the questions I asked. The one answer you did give was to a form of the question that was never asked of you, which was just a way of avoiding it.

I would like to hear this answered as well.

Answered...even though you and your buddy aren't honest enough to do the same.

And, on a final note, I find your changing of screen name in the middle of the thread suspect. I'm led to believe you are a (at least) once banned troll.

More misdirection. Would that make your position, and your cowardly refusal to answer a couple of simple questions any more defensible?

 

[eliphalet]

Deleted it isn't worth it.

 

[MCgunner]

The personal attacks are not what I was looking for in this thread. I think it should be locked if this continues and, no doubt, it will be. Hell, sorry I brought it up. I thought it could be cussed and discussed in a civil manor without all the vitriol. Guess I was wrong.

 

[D. Parker]

Deleted it isn't worth it.

So far, none of your posts in this thread have been worth much.

The personal attacks are not what I was looking for in this thread. I think it should be locked if this continues and, no doubt, it will be. Hell, sorry I brought it up. I thought it could be cussed and discussed in a civil manor without all the vitriol. Guess I was wrong.

It's a bit disingenuous to engage in cowardly and dishonest rhetorical tactics, and then whine when someone calls you on them, don't you think?

 

[MCgunner]

It's a bit disingenuous to engage in cowardly and dishonest rhetorical tactics, and then whine when someone calls you on them, don't you think?

Well, I like to be as nice a guy when discussing things on the net as I am when facing you, but you make it real hard to do with name calling and calling people ignorant or whatever. If I were face to face with you, you'd probably be in the hospital just waking up by now. You're not calling anyone out on anything. You're just name calling and acting like a general horses ass. I don't mind the general debate, but I sure like to keep it civil as possible, name calling not being civil. Stuff like ....

It has to do with identifying an underlying principle. Your thought processes are amazingly simple and shallow. You're either incapable of understanding relatively simple concepts, or are so dishonest that you're pretending not to.

That's not debating, that's a personal attack.

 

[D. Parker]

Well, I like to be as nice a guy when discussing things on the net as I am when facing you, but you make it real hard to do with name calling and calling people ignorant or whatever.

What about *behaving* ignorant? How easy do you think that makes a discussion?

If I were face to face with you, you'd probably be in the hospital just waking up by now.

Ahhh. Internet tough guy. Perhaps if you exercised your brain a little more you wouldn't feel the need to deal with conversations you can't handle by issuing schoolyard threats.

You're not calling anyone out on anything.

Your inability to grasp what's been pointed out - in spite of how obvious it is - doesn't mean it hasn't been pointed out.

You're just name calling and acting like a general horses ass.

This coming from the guy who just said he deals with tough conversations by putting someone in the hospital.

I don't mind the general debate...

What you and the other two have done doesn't even remotely rise to the level of "debate". You just toss out confused statements and, when someone challenges you on them, you stick your fingers in your ears and shout, "La-la-la-la! I can't HEAR you!"

, but I sure like to keep it civil as possible, name calling not being civil. Stuff like ....


Quote:
It has to do with identifying an underlying principle. Your thought processes are amazingly simple and shallow. You're either incapable of understanding relatively simple concepts, or are so dishonest that you're pretending not to.

That's not debating, that's a personal attack.

No. That's calling a spade a spade. Everything I said was true, and pertinent to the fact that the receiver of the comment is guilty of what I've accused him of. Some people just don't have what it takes to deal with the truth.

 

[MCgunner]

moderators please close this thread

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I see absolutely NO correlation between feeder hunting and the decimation of the buffalo herds for market in the 19th century, none what so ever.

Neither can honestly be called hunting.
In both, there's a lack of respect for the animals and cycle of life. In both, there's an obvious move toward convenience and results. One being capping a buff for fun to show your buddies what a great shot you are from a moving train, and the other shooting deer at the feet of a feeder from 75 yards with a short, long, or belted magnum in the comfort and safety of a tower stand.

There is no honor in this pursuit, as there was no honor in killing buffalo from a train.
People are leaving hunting every year never to return. They are not doing so because hunting is becoming a more noble pursuit as time goes on.

 

[D. Parker]

People are leaving hunting every year never to return. They are not doing so because hunting is becoming a more noble pursuit as time goes on.

Bingo.

 

[Art Eatman]

I generally don't lock a thread where I've been involved, but this one has gotten well away from my postings. And it's gotten just way too personal...

Art