PDA

View Full Version : Hunting Ethics


tahunua001
November 23, 2011, 10:31 AM
hello all.
so I've been hunting most of my life and I vaguely recall the hunting ethics portion of hunters safety though it wasn't an overly long chapter or very indepth discussion. I have on numerous occasions been called an unethical hunter and I'm just a little confused. from my understanding an ethical hunter must not only obey all hunting regulations and laws but must also respect the game he is hunting.


now these are just for matter of example but I have read numerous threads about guys/gals that have made clean kills with smaller caliber rounds(I'm going to keep this as generic as possible) and have been maligned and called unethical hunters because they have caused so much undue trauma to an animal by using an inadequate round while at the same time I read about guys shooting an animal in the rump with a howitzer and tracking it for hours before finding it still struggling to escape and after putting it out of it's misery was lauded and congratulated for a good kill.

how was the second an ethical kill while the first caused undue suffering and pain?

jgcoastie
November 23, 2011, 10:53 AM
- Obey and comply with all federal, state, and local hunting/game laws. Regardless if you agree with them or not. You can't really call yourself ethical if you hunt illegally.

- Comply with the landowner's rules for use of their land. Pay your lease fees on time. Don't trespass on other land, ask permission first.

- Use a caliber/gauge sufficient to quickly and cleanly kill the animals you pursue. Also use ammunition designed for hunting the game you pursue, this will aid in the quick and clean kill. I don't care if it's a .22-250 or a .416... As long as you can make quick, clean, ethical kills, I don't care (though you should comply with all caliber restrictions where you hunt).

- Practice, practice, practice. Shooting from a bench is not good field practice. Shoot from field positions, even if you hunt from a stand or shooting house with a rest. You have to walk in and walk out, and the animals might be en route.

- Make an ethical shot, you should be able to if you practice enough. Head shot, neck shot, high shoulder, behind the shoulder.... I'll leave it up to you to determine what constitutes ethical shot placement for the size and species of game you hunt with the caliber, bullet type, and range you will be hunting.

- Know when a (potential) shot is no good. Could be the range, angle, wind, visibility, or any number of other factors. Know when you should pass on a shot.

- Obviously, always follow the 4 Golden Rules of Gun Handling.

I'm sure others will add their opinions, all is welcome.

EDIT: Two more

- Once the kill is complete, use all the meat of your game. I'm tired of seeing dead deer in the woods with nothing but backstraps cut out. Use all four quarters, backstraps, tenderloin/sweet meat, ribs, there's some good cuts of neck meat too if you take the time to cut it out.

- Dispose of the carcass properly. There are local laws in many areas which dictate what you can/can't do. Burying the carcass is a widely accepted method, as is burning if you live out in the sticks. DO NOT carelessly toss the carcass in a ditch, stream/river/lake, or on someone else's land...

Wild Bill Bucks
November 23, 2011, 11:19 AM
I agree with jg.

I guess I'm kind of a throwback, but I'm a one shot, one kill, kind of hunter. I've had to let a lot of game walk because the shot just wasn't there. I've had guys hunt with me, that I sit next to at the range, and they can't get 3 shot groups in a 6" pie plate at 100 yards. These same guys will start blasting away at a deer running across a pasture at 300 yards, and if they hit it, will tell me about it, like I'm supposed to be impressed.

To me, that it unethical. But try to tell that to the guy that's taking the deer home.

rickyrick
November 23, 2011, 11:37 AM
I like wild bills answer.


We have a pit for Varmints and carcasses as well as other animals that had an unscheduled departure from living. It actually keeps most of the coyotes away from the farm animals and the pit stays pretty clean.

tahunua001
November 23, 2011, 11:48 AM
we cant burn without a permit from the EPA... it's one of the most idiotic laws that I find myself obeying. we do have dogs though and they usually eat quite well around hunting season. they get everything we don't use so they get a pretty solid diet of protien and fat and after they strip the bones they bury them so by springtime they have a nice soft chew toy.

603Country
November 23, 2011, 11:54 AM
I'm with Wild Bill and Rickyrick, though my final disposal of bones and scraps is not in a pit but is in my favorite Coyote hunting field. That brings the coyotes to me, so you might say that I'm getting full value from the deer or hog.

And this new thing that everyone mentions - hunting ethics - is just sportsmanship as we practiced it prior to new word usages for political correctness. I much prefer the use of the word "sportsmanship", since it can be used over such a wide range of endeavors and is a good word with deep meaning that was used by our grandfathers and their grandfathers.

taylorce1
November 23, 2011, 12:14 PM
I have a couple of thoughts on this one in regards to JG post. If it is illegal in the region that you hunt in then it is unethical and sometimes even if it is legal it can still be unethical. I'll give an example of the second it is something that I did that now that I think about it was probably on the unethical side.

First off the animal being hunted was a pronghorn and you need to understand the regulations a little bit. The CO hunting regulations state that I must us a minimum of 6mm/.243 bore and a 70 grain bullet. The cartridge must generate 1000 ft-lbs of energy at 100 yards as rated by manufacturer to hunt pronghorn.

I built a wildcat rifle that just met the minimum requirements to be legal for hunting in Colorado. My problem was bullet selection as I used a 6mm 70 grain Nosler BT varmint bullet to take my pronghorn. I was lucky enough to have a successful result using that bullet, but I feel that I wouldn’t be as lucky every time I’d hunt pronghorn with that round. I knowingly used a bullet that wasn’t designed for the task I asked it to do so even though I was legal I feel that what I did didn’t show the respect the game deserved and was unethical.

Simple decision for me is to stop using the rifle for game larger than varmints until I can find a hunting bullet that will work with it. Until then I just have an awesomely accurate varmint rifle and I’ll have to be satisfied with that. I’ll just use my .243 Win or larger with a heavier hunting bullet.

doofus47
November 23, 2011, 12:35 PM
I like jgcoastie's list, but it's a little long for me to remember easily.
I like to lump things together, so my list is a little shorter:
1. Don't break the law. Know the laws. Read the rules yourself.
2. Don't offend your neighbors. Respect other people's land, camp spots, etc.
3. Don't make anything suffer more than it has to. Don't waste what you kill.

It's always a volatile debate when you discuss ethics with a sport that involves killing.

Pahoo
November 23, 2011, 05:30 PM
I have on numerous occasions been called an unethical hunter and I'm just a little confused.
I occasionally am asked to teach the ethics portion of our Hunter Safety classes. My presentaion is fairly general and basic. Why ???

Because we all have our own personal hunting code that involves and whole bunch of Do's and Don'ts. Personal hunting codes are never identicle and the list is varied and sometimes rather complex. There are times when hunting codes conflict; still ethical and legal. :confused:

One excercise is situational and I hand out lists of situations where the students determine if it's ethical or not. We then go into why it is or is not. Its gets somewhat interesting. .... :rolleyes:

Now, given that, I would ask you to pose the specific situation that you might be referiing to. Don't be surprised when you get conflicting replies. In the end, you have to nake the important measure.

Do your your best, in your own best ways and;
Be Safe !!!

hooligan1
November 23, 2011, 06:27 PM
Wild Bill, I like your demeanor..:cool: Most hunters, or let's just say the majority of hunters, are weekenders or just seasonal type sportsman. I like to think of myself and my family as a functioning-hunting family, that hunts every thing the year out. Most of all we practice, Safety and Marksmanship, and when I became a responsible hunter, and then passed it down to my children,(4 of 5 hunt) we practice ethics to a fault almost. I'm pleased to say that mostly we take deer with clean "one-shot" kills, and my kids know this to be important and do their best each and every time we hunt.:

I really think that the "status symbol" of the true hunter is what is highly coveted,,,, and I think people will try to attain it by any means (sadly).

Teach your children to be responsible humans first and to be responsible hunters secondly,, and then it all fits together naturally, I believe.:)

Pahoo said it best "Do your best, in your own best ways, and then be safe!!!;)

JimPage
November 23, 2011, 07:36 PM
A couple of thoughts: I think it is unethical to shoot birds feeding on the ground... They should be flushed then shot at. Except of course for Turkeys.


An eithical dilemma I frequently ponder and even Conservation Officers differ on the answer. And I find in slightly different circumstances my own answer varies. If you're out in the woods without access to the authorities and you see a maimed animal obviously dying a painful, prolonged death, would you shoot it to end its misery?

I once saw a gutshot doe walk up by my watch and lie down to rest before moving on. It was obvious she would not survive. To this day I have felt guilty about not ending her misery, but it would have been illegal to do it. In this case I honestly feel that obeying the law was unethical.

Pahoo
November 23, 2011, 07:48 PM
If you're out in the woods without access to the authorities and you see a maimed animal obviously dying a painful, prolonged death, would you shoot it to end its misery?
Jim,
Excellent example of a situational question that would challenge one's hunting code. Keep in mind that conservation officers have to follow the letter of the law as apposed to the sprit of the law. They usually deal in black and white but sometimes in grey areas. Personally, I would put the animal out of it's misery and live with the consequences. .... ;)

Be Safe !!!

Art Eatman
November 23, 2011, 08:47 PM
I pretty much understand the reason for most of the Texas regulations, so I don't have any problem with staying legal. But I'd never refrain from ending the misery of a previously-wounded animal, no matter what the law says. If the regs say not to, the regs are unethical and I'll stick with what I believe is right. My own code says that suffering is Not Good.

My own hunting ethic is for a clean kill. If my shot is not likely to be that, I just won't take the shot. That's easy. I'm not into shoot-and-hope.

As far as birds on the ground? If you only shoot at flying blue quail in the desert, you're gonna have to be good at 50-yard shots. Or buy chicken at the grocery. I don't call them "run-run birds" for no good reason. :D

Daekar
November 23, 2011, 09:46 PM
I agree with pretty much everything that has been said except those statements that equated the law with morality. In my point of view, the law ceased long ago to coincide with what is right. By all means, follow the game laws, but not because right and wrong are somehow part of them ... follow them because it's not worth suffering the consequences of doing otherwise.

I have a hard time with the idea that the decree of some government employee hundreds of miles away in an office has anything to do with the morality of my actions during hunting or, in fact, any other time. Witness the law that makes modifying an SKS with a springloaded firing pin (to prevent slamfires!) a felony. There are plenty more examples if you pay attention. I will reconsider the idea that breaking the law is immoral when they send around contracts for each person to agree voluntarily under no duress or penalty to abide by a new law. At that point, your personal honor and integrity enter the picture. Until that time, many laws are just arbitrary rules we are coerced into following whether we agree with them or not.

I mean honestly... do you think that killing a deer after sunset is morally wrong? What about shooting geese with a 22 or using a 30.06 for deer in Indiana? Game laws are so far from being linked with morality that it's not even funny.

Kill em clean, kill em quick and kindly, and don't kill em if there aren't too many around. Really, if everyone followed those rules the whole game regs book could be chucked and there would be a lot of sad game wardens.

BIG P
November 23, 2011, 09:50 PM
I think a little common sence goes a long way.Slow down think about your shot instead of going Rambo.Most of us know the difference in right & wrong its just making the right decison gets in the way. Safety,common sence,respect for others & game will keep you out of trouble most of the time.Ethic's are like opinions everyone has one They're never going to be the same for ALL!!!:D

Cowboy_mo
November 23, 2011, 09:51 PM
+1 for Art. I don't have any experience with run-run birds but I would definitely end the life of any suffering animal.

rickyrick
November 24, 2011, 07:49 AM
Besides, most hunting ammo cost to much just to be sending rounds on the general direction of an animal, but, if a second shot were to be needed to speed things along, I wouldn't hesitate.

Most people should know and recognize the signs of impending death, and be ready to react if they think the animal is still aware in the least bit.

You have to have the discipline to pass on the shot if needed, that's number one. Number two, if you get "buck fever" or whatever you choose to call it, you need discipline to pause and wait for it to calm down.


Don't forget to put the safety back on and check your rifle before heading out to collect your prize. That's an exciting time so becareful.

RevGeo
November 30, 2011, 08:19 AM
Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist - or maybe just a fool - but I think that most who go afield know the difference between right and wrong.
But how they act on that knowledge is perhaps a different thing.

George

buck460XVR
November 30, 2011, 07:26 PM
I help teach hunter safety and the definition of ethical we give to new hunters is "doing the right thing when no one else is around". Following game laws is not being ethical.....it's being responsible and legal. Ethics are subjective and are a matter of opinion, where in most cases laws and regulations are objective and are not open to discretion. In many cases, just because something is legal does not make it ethical for the area or to those doing the hunting. Baiting and the shooting of animals within an enclosure are examples. While legal in many areas, most "ethical" hunters refrain or do not practice these techniques. Needless to say, the topic of ethics is as volatile as politics or religion. Staying within a states bag limit is not being ethical, it being legal. Stopping your hunt before reaching a states bag limit because you don't think that particular game species in that area can take the pressure is ethics. Taking poor and low percentage shots at game animals is still legal in most states as long as one still makes every attempt to retrieve the animal. Using one's discretion and limiting one's self to only good and high percentage shots is ethics. Sometimes, as in the case of putting down an injured or previously wounded animal outside of hunting hours or without the proper license or tag may be ethical, unfortunately in most cases, it is illegal.

deepforks
December 4, 2011, 12:58 PM
the sad part is, the dirtbag unethical poacher does not care about any game laws anyway! they are going to continue to do what they do, regardless. that goes for any criminal and any law...they dont care.

Gunplummer
December 5, 2011, 12:47 AM
Lot of good comments here. Makes you think a little. I'm pretty much with PaHoo's ideas. When it comes to ethics you have to make your own rules and live by them. Talk about wasting ammo, I really could not get out for deer season the first day and went out about 2 hours the first day around home. It is a shotgun area and I have never hunted in one before. I don't believe anybody I heard shoot let loose with less than 5 rounds. I am thinking a lot of wounded deer running now, but I hope I am wrong.

hogdogs
December 5, 2011, 02:06 AM
During game seasons and/or good times where survival does not require game meat...

1)obey all game laws
2)afford the critter on the other end of the rifle the same respect I would like if I were about to be "dispatched" by gun fire...
3)treat the dead animal with the utmost care to insure fresh meat for my family...

4)don't disrespect the life of the animal capable of providing sustenance and life to me and mine...

Oh yeah... know what lies beyond the critter when I free the sear...

brent

Gbro
December 5, 2011, 12:29 PM
Questioning Public safety laws is in itself unethical.
In MN Firearms safety, Ethics are now taught by the conservation officer.
There are too many personal Codes that people live by and feel anyone not walking by that code to be unethical.
One that gets me all the time is in the training films the ethical hunter always looks the part. Always dressed in the latest field dress Bass Pro and cabelas sells and the slob hunter, (read; road hunter, shooting ducks on the water, shooting onto private land and such are dressed like labors/farm boys! :confused:

PawPaw
December 5, 2011, 02:15 PM
Questioning Public safety laws is in itself unethical.

Respectfully, I disagree. To the contrary, I think that it is the duty of every citizen to question the law, whether it may be pubic safety or not. We are not free to ignore the law, but we are certainly have a duty to question the law. We also have a duty to write, call, email, and generally raise hell at our elected officials to change laws that might be inimical to the freedoms we all share.

shortwave
December 5, 2011, 02:30 PM
PawPaw,

:confused:

With respect...When its comes to 'pubic safety' you can bet I'll question most laws. :D

Guess you knew that one wasn't gonna be left alone...

...but most public safety hunting laws that are written around here are written with the benefit of the majority in mind. I would also wish the trespassing laws and the proof of written permission to be hunting said property would be more forcefully enforced.

tahunua001
December 5, 2011, 02:38 PM
not exactly the answers I was looking for but interesting dicussion non the less.


I was just wondering how a clean kill with a small caliber is considered unethical while an unclean kill with a large magnum round is considered good sport.

briandg
December 5, 2011, 02:43 PM
Who in the world ever said that shooting an elk in the butt with a howitzer and letting it wander for miles was ethical?

If you have a clean shot, and fire with reasonable certainty that you'll connect and leave a lethal wound, that was an ethical shot. If you don't make a lethal hit and leave a wounded animal, that puts you in the gray area of either you just had a bit of bad luck, or you badly misjudged your abilities and the lethality of your weapon.

Taking a gun out into the field that can only kill by a direct head or heart shot, and then taking shots that you are only 10% sure of a lethal hit is unethical. There is no other way to describe it, and yes, it applies to a lot of people here. Taking a 600 yard shot at a mountain goat without even knowing if you'll hit the bloody mountain that he's standing on, then shooting until a round accidentally connects is not particularly ethical in my opinion, nor is taking a 600 yard shot at an antelope.

That is all there is to it. If you pull that trigger without being almost certain of a hit, you're in a gray area. If you pull that trigger knowing that only an act of god will make that thing drop you've crossed the line.

If you were hunting to keep yourself alive, it would be a slightly different issue. I'd be willing to say that every hunter has the ability to know whether he is an ethical hunter, but I've very rarely seen genuinely ethical and responsible behaviors in real life.

Shooting at a deer's head at 250 yards may be seen as ethical by some people, because a head shot is almost certainly going to kill. You either hit, or you miss. But, not even half of that head is even remotely going to create a lethal hit. You could blow that thing's muzzle completely off, blind it, and leave it incapable of staying alive, but still able to escape you.

This is just like ripping through a red light. Sooner or later, the odds will catch up with you, and you'll cause an accident, and it would be your fault.

PawPaw
December 5, 2011, 02:56 PM
...but most public safety hunting laws that are written around here are written with the benefit of the majority in mind. I would also wish the trespassing laws and the proof of written permission to be hunting said property would be more forcefully enforced.

Just one example where enough people raising cane made a difference. Louisiana's trespass laws were woefully poor for a number of years, but a bunch of people got together and made enough legislators uncomfortable until the law was changed. Now we have an extremely workable trespass law that seems to be working just fine.

briandg
December 5, 2011, 02:56 PM
I was just wondering how a clean kill with a small caliber is considered unethical while an unclean kill with a large magnum round is considered good sport.

It's not. The issue is not, and never has been, about the kill. dead is dead, and there's nothing about it. That entire statement is just ridiculous.

The issue is, whether the shot taken was an ethical decision.

A lucky shot with a small OR large caliber that had only a remote chance of killing, taken by a person who deliberately took a shot that he wasn't at least reasonably certain of a kill is unethical. I've passed up shots at deer that I wasn't absolutely certain of.

If you have ever completely missed an animal because you either lacked the skill or your equipment was not up to the demands, you probably shouldn't have taken that shot. That's all there is to the question.


Every thread on this board, for the most part, is a learning opportunity. All you seem to be taking away from the numerous threads on hunting ethics is that lot's of people think you're wrong. You said that in your initial post.

take a moment and look at that, and maybe you'll find out that you are, in fact, wrong.

rickyrick
December 5, 2011, 03:16 PM
was just wondering how a clean kill with a small caliber is considered unethical while an unclean kill with a large magnum round is considered good sport.______________

If you are capable of taking the animal with the caliber chosen, within a range that it performs as intended and its legal in your area ...then its not unethical at all.

cnimrod
December 6, 2011, 04:55 PM
for your game, for your fellow hunters and for the non-hunting public as well. (don't dump carcasses right in the parking lot:mad:)
and thank you _____ for pointing out the difference between legal and ethical. There are many examples, some already mentioned, of legal behavior one might find unethical and ethical behavior that is illegal. (antler restrictions:confused:)
I think one must also factor in immature behavior, freezing cold, shaking like a leaf and taking a 100yd neck shot, or flat out mistakes, forgot to exhale and squeeze jerked the trigger and made a bad shot I don't think that's unethical. I beat myself up enough when I do it. Also agree much is personal and a matter of attitude, knew a hunter once who prided himself on never taking a rest I don't care if you kill every deer you ever shoot at clean, if you have the opportunity to take a solid rest and you don't that's unethical in my book.

Double Naught Spy
December 6, 2011, 06:27 PM
The issue is, whether the shot taken was an ethical decision.

A lucky shot with a small OR large caliber that had only a remote chance of killing, taken by a person who deliberately took a shot that he wasn't at least reasonably certain of a kill is unethical. I've passed up shots at deer that I wasn't absolutely certain of.

If you have ever completely missed an animal because you either lacked the skill or your equipment was not up to the demands, you probably shouldn't have taken that shot. That's all there is to the question.

+1

Sadly, many hunters are just so darned happy/naive/excited/pressured to have the opportunity to shoot, that they will shoot even though the shot isn't proper, or they haven't properly sighted in their guns, haven't properly identified their target, etc.

Gunplummer
December 6, 2011, 09:41 PM
What is with the "Shooting birds on the ground" and "Shooting Ducks on the water"? I have been called unethical for shooting running deer, even for shooting a deer that was walking. Why is it ethical to shoot at birds and rabbits that are moving , but not deer? I rarely miss but admit the first shot usually knocks them down and then maybe 50% of the time I need a finisher. I have been deer hunting for a long time and believe me, I look and look to make sure I missed, even with a standing shots. More hunters should check harder after a miss.

Don't even start on head shots.

briandg
December 7, 2011, 12:28 AM
My dad used to hunt with a crew from his company, and one year, they took "Ed."

Ed bagged a spike. Broke one of the legs completely. Totally missed the entire body, but crippled it completely. it couldn't do anything but hobble. so, he herded it back to camp and shot it when he got there.

you know, you don't have to be a card carrying member of peta to know that just isn't right.

Ed never went back to deer camp. Can I hear an amen?

2damnold4this
December 7, 2011, 07:54 AM
Ed should have immediately tried to put that animal down.

Gunplummer
December 7, 2011, 09:07 AM
Ed should stop telling tall tales. A deer with 3 legs can keep up with a four legged deer with ease. You can't even tell it has only 3 legs until it slows to walk and then has a weird gait. You can see something is wrong but have to look close to see it is missing a leg. I have shot one doe that had a front leg missing below the elbow and it was healed over, may be for years. Doubtless someone's Uncle George saw a deer chew it's front leg off after it stepped in a fox trap, so that is probably what happened. Two years ago I shot a buck that was missing about 12" of a back leg. It was a fresh wound and I don't see how the deer could reach around to chew it off, so I am guessing it was shot off. My Buddy is a Butcher and every year they get what he calls "Stumpies", deer missing legs that are healed over. Point is, it is not a perfect world and things do go wrong whether you shoot at a moving animal or a standing animal. Sometimes we all forget we were young and dumb once. Us older guys had small game to make mistakes on when we grew up. Now most kids go right to deer hunting because there is not much small game hunting in my state.

This may come up twice, I had a power out.

briandg
December 7, 2011, 09:50 AM
I wasn't there. three of the men at the camp, my father, and two others told the story about him finishing it right outside of camp, but I'm not sure if there were actually any eyewitnesses.

Has anyone ever seen a deer with a freshly broken femur, and maybe injury to the offside leg or other possible injury?

I was a kid at the time, so I won't vouch for it other than to say that Ed was a jackass of a whole different order, that was easy to see for me, and i don't doubt he would have done thies very thing. I also can't imagine why my father would have told the story if it wasn't true, or wasn't pretty certain it was true. He never, to my knowledge, told fish stories.

So, everyone, take it at face value. Either it's a lie told by a handful of men, or a true history. I don't know.

I've withheld the last name, just in case an 80 year old ed **** is reading this.


Btw, a friend of mine had a dog named brutus, who had an amputated rear leg. Yes, he functioned quite well, but I don't figure he did for the first few months.

rickyrick
December 7, 2011, 11:10 AM
I gave some trapped pigs away in the spring and I was there to insure that they were killed before they left the property, that's our policy, none leave alive.

The guys that came to get them brought a 22 and shot them all in the head. I pointed out that one was still alert, and they replied "awe he will die eventually"

After what seemed like a minute, I pulled out my 9mm and finished it. They kinda had a shocked look on their faces.

L_Killkenny
December 7, 2011, 11:34 AM
First off, I think the word "ethics" has no business in a hunters safety coarse. Ethics vary far and wide and the only thing the class should teach is legal not moral issues. A buddy of mine, a 4H firearms instructor, got into a heated debate at his daughters hunters coarse because the instructor was spewing personal, sometimes extreme, opinions about ethics. Can't remember the exact subject matter but it was pretty out there from what I recall.

IMO, a great shot from a "too small" of gun is way better than a **** poor shot from the perfect gun. But I'll be a proponent of the "use enough gun" mantra till the day I die. Most hunters (and I may very well be one) don't have the patience, discipline and to be frank, the time required to only take perfect shots. The facts are that if I had only waited for perfect shots on coyotes my number of coyote kills would be exactly 1. As it is I've killed a couple dozen and never had one escape and only a couple that required a follow up shot. None lived longer than a minute or 2 after the first hit. As it is, some of these coyotes I could of hit with lesser guns but I would be less confident that all would of been recovered. Everybody knows that a .22lr will kill any deer that walks but a person would have to be a moron to recommend one for deer hunting even to a very patient person with all the time in the world.

Basically, more power and bigger, well designed bullets lead to more damage that can save the day when we fail to make that perfect shot. And anyone who says they make the perfect shot every time is a liar.

LK

Gbro
December 7, 2011, 12:40 PM
Pawpaw posted;
Respectfully, I disagree. To the contrary, I think that it is the duty of every citizen to question the law, whether it may be pubic safety or not. We are not free to ignore the law, but we are certainly have a duty to question the law. We also have a duty to write, call, email, and generally raise hell at our elected officials to change laws that might be inimical to the freedoms we all share.

Respectfully back,
I agree with you that as an individual we have every right, thankfully to complain about anything we don't like, however as a hunter, we as a group need to use our very best judgments and morals to be the safest and knowledgeable group of people there is.
We owe it to our children(hunters of the future) to do the right thing at all times.
I posted my opinion after reading this post by Daekar;
I mean honestly... do you think that killing a deer after sunset is morally wrong? What about shooting geese with a 22 or using a 30.06 for deer in Indiana? Game laws are so far from being linked with morality that it's not even funny.

1.Shooting a deer after sunset is illegal. Why would this even be questioned?
What good do we bring to our brother and sister hunters to debate this??

2.Shooting Geese with a 22 (I will read that to mean a .22 rim-fire for no better reason than i assume that is what you are referring to.
Federal waterfowl regulations control this across the nation and shooting a bullet at water is so wrong we need not go on, and of course Geese are also hunted on land and a .22 bullet will travel 1.5 miles or more. How long before you end up killing someone because of your desires?

3.MN also has rifle free zones below the tree line of the state. That rule I am positive is written in the blood of innocent members of our great country both hunters and non-hunters alike.

So I will again state, "Questioning Public safety laws is in itself unethical"
Not that I haven't done just that. My 1st year Elk hunting in the Great State of Colorado I was upset because the regulations forbid the wearing of camouflage safety apparel. I had just bought a big Blaze cammo hunting parka and I couldn't wear it in Colorado, however I could legaly wear a blaze orange mesh vest although it was recommended against, but I attached that mesh vest to the parka with snaps and wore it like that.
Then during that 3rd rifle season I heard several hunters moving through the area I was in and from an elevated position I had a very hard time spotting them because there 10-20 year old solid colored vest was not seen at all from the side and my full sleeve cammo parka was much more visible.

2damnold4this
December 7, 2011, 12:52 PM
1.Shooting a deer after sunset is illegal. Why would this even be questioned?

In some locals, it is legal to shoot a deer up to thirty minutes after sunset. I don't see an ethical difference between shooting a deer after sunset where it is legal and where it isn't. There is a legal difference but not an ethical one.

I also don't think that shooting a deer well after dark is unethical if someone must do so to put down a wounded animal that has been tracked. It may well be illegal to shoot the wounded animal after dark.

Pahoo
December 7, 2011, 01:06 PM
We teach that the foundation of an individual's hunting code, should be the the hunting laws of our state. These are based on ethical and moral principals. Hardly ever perfect but certainly fair, good and equitable. What happens in the field after our classes can only be controlled by individual's conduct. If a any hunter can't even get past that, then there is really something wrong. ..... :eek:

Of course we question some of these laws but we should still do our best to follow them and I really mean; Do your best in your own best ways. ... :)

Important to keep in mind that as Hunters, we are all connected and;
Be Safe !!!

Gbro
December 7, 2011, 01:15 PM
Yes Here in MN the legal shooting hours are 1/2 hour before S-R and 1/2 hour after sunset.
I took the poster to mean dark/night time hunting.
Now there is an ethical value in that legal shooting time.
There is going to be a difference in our ability to see out target and what is beyond 1/2 hour before or after even on clear mornings now factor in heavy overcast, how well will be able to see our target and what is beyond?
Having a loaded firearm afield before or after shooting hours will get us a ticket here in MN.

2damnold4this
December 7, 2011, 01:24 PM
What is the ethical difference between shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that allows shooting for thirty minutes after and shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that prohibits shooting after sunset?

briandg
December 7, 2011, 03:43 PM
What is the ethical difference between shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that allows shooting for thirty minutes after and shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that prohibits shooting after sunset? There is none. you're throwing out ridiculous straw man arguments to derail the main course.

Sunset to sundown is a law. It's a law, because you have to have laws to keep people from shooting 24 hours a day. The state draws a line, whatever time that might be, and creates legal controls. Unfortunately, setting a 5:00 pm cut off isn't going to work, so, they set it at the time that the sun disappears below the horizon, as anyone ought to be able to tell if there is a sun present.

There is nothing immoral about shooting after the sun has set, but it is illegal in some jurisdictions, and breaking the law is unethical.

It places the position of legal control in dire jeopardy when numerous people flout the law. It creates the slick slope of shooting a half hour late, an hour late, maybe even with a flashlight on the muzzle, then out of season, and so forth.

It is the duty of all good citizens to obey the law. they have been written (mostly) for the good of all. I'm not talking about BS laws like no smoking on the sidewalk or not eating ice cream on the sabbath, I'm talking about laws of substance that regulate important issues. It is important that you even obey laws that you don't agree with, as shown very clearly by the legal and moral crisis brought about by prohibition. Al capone and the entire organized crime system came to be only because of the millions of dollars that could be made selling booze to people who would rather hand money to criminals than go without liquor.

When the good citizens ignore the laws that they disagree with, and give their blessings to ignoring the laws that don't fit personal belief systems, you have the beginning of the sort of anarchy you see scattered around the world, and around our nation.

2damnold4this
December 7, 2011, 05:20 PM
It is the duty of all good citizens to obey the law. they have been written (mostly) for the good of all. I'm not talking about BS laws like no smoking on the sidewalk or not eating ice cream on the sabbath, I'm talking about laws of substance that regulate important issues. It is important that you even obey laws that you don't agree with, as shown very clearly by the legal and moral crisis brought about by prohibition.

How do we decide which laws are bs and which laws are not? Do we contact you before we decide to eat ice cream on the Sabbath?

you're throwing out ridiculous straw man arguments to derail the main course.

The main course is hunting ethics. Hunting ethics are not necessarily the same as hunting laws. Pointing this out is important.

It is the duty of all good citizens to obey the law. they have been written (mostly) for the good of all.

Sometimes doing the ethical thing is illegal. I won't let a wounded animal I find after legal shooting hours suffer until legal shooting light the next day. Whether it is dispatching a wounded animal after legal hours with a gun or bow, using a knife to dispatch a wounded animal or popping the head off a wounded bird, doing right by the animal outweighs the technical legality. Most COs would agree but some might enforce the letter of the law. Doing the ethical thing doesn't lead to anarchy even if it violates a law.

briandg
December 7, 2011, 07:05 PM
What is the ethical difference between shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that allows shooting for thirty minutes after and shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that prohibits shooting after sunset?

If you will read the post that you just got through putting on earlier, you will note that you are asking what is unethical about shooting a deer 5 minutes after closing time, when you are clearly and consciously violating a law.

That is it. Period. If you shoot a deer after closing, you have deliberately broken the law. there is nothing ethical about breaking a law for no better reason than you think it's stupid.

Don't compare it to a mercy killing of a previously wounded deer, it's not the same.

Shooting a deer after legal hours is illegal, that's all there is to it. And don't kid yourself. Once you start violating laws, showing your kids, friends and neighbors that laws are made to be broken if you disagree with them, you start spreading disrespect for the law, and create a group of people who think the laws are only for people who agree with them.

Right now, we have tens of thousands of people who are pushing the limits of trespass and other laws, violating them in a lot of cases, because they think it's a just cause and laws don't apply to just causes.

The mexican drug wars are all about one thing. Millions of people who decided that drug laws are stupid and should be broken.

Ethics is about doing the right thing for the group, (this includes the deer).

Daekar
December 7, 2011, 09:01 PM
I'm still trying to figure out where people get the idea that most laws are written for the good of everyone. I can guarantee that we could take 90% of existing laws and regulations off the books, and life would do nothing but get better.

What gives anyone so much confidence in the ability of a corrupt and bankrupt government to decide correctly what everyone should do under any circumstances? And what makes people think that they are in any way obligated to follow orders given by those who they do not support or whose authority they strove to prevent? Especially when the authority is exercised unConstitutionally?

It sounds like people believe that the system still works and that their vote really matters despite evidence to the contrary. I will voluntarily and willingly comply with all laws the day all unConstitutional laws are taken off the books and the lawyers are thrown out of power to be replaced by true representatives of the people. Until that day I follow the law because it is ultimately backed up by the muzzle of a gun, not because it is right to subordinate my own will to that of another simply because they say I should.

I think people need to remember that about laws: they are ultimately backed up by violence. If you stubbornly refuse to obey, they will make you, or you'll be locked up or killed. What that means is this: if you're not willing to kill someone who refuses to submit to punishment for breaking a law, you have no business supporting that law.

Brian, I think people would agree with you more if there weren't so many unnecessary and stupid laws. The problem is, it is actually difficult to EXIST without breaking laws now. I can guarantee that every person who is reading this thread has broken the law this week. If these laws mattered, if they had merit, it would be different... but they don't and it isn't. What you're proposing is that personal judgement be discarded in favor of an ever-growing stack of commands that might as well start with "Thou Shalt Not - "

It's not that I believe in NO laws, but I darn sure don't believe in what we have now, a society dedicated to telling people what to do, and sheep perfectly willing to go along with it. If you need more confirmation that linking legality with morality is a path to disaster, take a look at history and examine what has been done with full sanction of law. If you have trouble finding anything that disturbs you here, Google "Trail of Tears," or look abroad and consider that neither ethics nor legalities are constant. Me, I think there's plenty to disgust simply in the last 100 years, and more than enough to discredit the idea that the law equals morality. The fact is, the fact that a law forbids an act has no bearing on its moral ramifications, and conversely the endorsement of law does not make it right.

Another good example is the annexation of Hawaii... not our best moment.

Or better still, the upcoming ban on 100 watt incandescent bulbs. Anybody here want to claim that making a 100W bulb will be immoral because it will be illegal? But the very same act isn't immoral now, when the setting is exactly the same and the environmental impact difference is negligible compared to practically anything else you care to name?

There are plenty of examples... but you don't need me to list them for you.

rickyrick
December 7, 2011, 09:06 PM
Sorry, changed my mind about posting a reply.

shortwave
December 7, 2011, 11:05 PM
Daekar,

I think there may be more here that agree with Brian than you think.

While there are some, IMO, valid points in your post regarding laws of our society as a whole, when it comes to the State of Ohio's conservation laws, I don't agree there are to many, are not unConstitutional in any way and wished the penalties for many of them were greatly increased....too, I've not knowingly broken any of Ohio's conservation laws for as long as I can remember....but I promise you, since we just had our deer shotgun season and a wounded,suffering deer staggers through my yard, he/she won't leave, day or night.

Will that be breaking the law, yep...but I'll take my chances. Why, cause it's morally right to not let that animal suffer.

I've sit in meetings held by ODNR and know for a fact that our conservation laws are based for the well being of all.
Safety being the number one ruling factor. I don't agree with every law on our books, but I understand why they're there. Many are there due to the fact they are needed. Sadly, cause to many people took advantage. Many are there cause more than a few showed they didn't have enough common sense not to have some of the laws we may consider stupid. I.E. In Ohio, during deer shotgun season, we have to plug our shotguns as to not hold more than 3 shells. Why? Cause many morons think if you pull the trigger once, you have to empty your gun rapid fire style.

Opening morning just a week ago last Monday, I was watching a neighbor in his stand. He had five does at 140-150 away, nibbling on some tree tops. He pulled up and started shooting. When he was done, he had shot eleven times @ 140-150yds with a smooth bore 12 ga. None of the deer fell but they scattered and he doesn't know if he hit any of them or not cause he never came down out of his stand. Furthermore, that was 11ozs. of lead that went somewhere and at the rate he was firing, I guarantee you he didn't know for sure where they all went or if he even had a backstop. This guy has a 16yr old son that hunts just like him cause he's never been taught any different. So in theory, the 16 yr old will be the 'next generation' moron.

Morons like this doing stupid things is what usually creates what some consider to be stupid laws. :mad:

Daekar
December 7, 2011, 11:41 PM
Shortwave,

I see that we are fundamentally in agreement, since you acknowledge that ethics and legality might diverge. You're prepared to knowingly violate the law for what you consider to be a good reason. That's exactly the kind of behavior that we need never to lose.

I can't speak for the laws of Ohio, but I will say that I can see the logic behind most game laws I've heard, even if I don't agree with them. In general, they are there because some idiot at some point did something stupid, and the rest of us have to suffer with restrictions because of it. They're hard to argue with, because they're so well-intentioned... kind of like laws that are "for the children." The fact that policing and enforcing many laws may take more resources from society than simply letting the accidents happen (possible but unlikely for game laws, I think), or that actually enforcing the laws requires unconstitutional powers (game wardens don't need warrants or anything else, at least around here) are frequently overlooked. I find it interesting that the rules vary so widely state-to-state, but you never really hear much about the things some state's residents are "protected" from.

I should qualify that last statement - it is rare that I ever read about hunting accidents. Is there a place that tabulates statistics about accidents per hunter per hour or similar metrics?

Edit: A note about drug wars. They exist because the government decided to outlaw certain drugs (I'm looking a marijuana here, for the most part) without considering the lessons learned during Prohibition. The South American cartels are funded largely by sales of marijuana, a non-addictive drug that is similar to tobacco in its carcinogenic properties, and high in demand. By outlawing this substance (which literally is a weed south of the border, and grows out of control unless intentionally kept down), the government has created vastly increased prices which keep the crime rings in business, while doing little to prevent the sale of the drug in the states. Essentially, the illegal nature of the drug CREATED the cartels, because if it were legal the value would drop like a stone. Without inflated prices, the cartels would lose their financial power, and the "drug wars" would be over. The fact that marijuana was outlawed and tobacco was not is one of the more bizarre bits of the whole story, and is likely economic in nature... too many farmers depended on tobacco for income, and the more visible effects of "reefer" made it an easier target. There are some great propaganda ads from the 50s, I think it was, warning people about how bad marijuana was... they didn't KNOW that this dangerous leaf was making their children delinquent and destroying their communities, the government had to tell them. Sounds odd, doesn't it?

briandg
December 8, 2011, 12:24 AM
I will never disagree that this system is a messed up and cumbersome leviathon of corruption, nannyism, and protectionism. Every yahoo in the land believes that he knows what is best for everyone else, and most of those ideas are actually centered on what is best for themselves.

For example, up until the late 1980s, missouri still had blue laws. On sunday, you could only buy absolute life essentials, such as food. You could not buy a hammer. You could not buy clothing. Up until the late 1980s, in purdy missouri, you could not dance. How did this happen? this is a bible belt community, and they jealously guarded their control over everyone's moral behavior.

The problem is that we write laws based on every idiot's whim.

Not meaning to drag another controversy in, but didn't the ten commandments pretty much cover every kind of possible sin? you will not kill, steal, philander, beat your neighbor or wife, even run through red lights? "live considerately" is what the very first one said.

Unfortunately, we are a civilization of people who don't know how to live considerately, so every waking moment has to be controlled, so you won't step on someone else's toes. (or rape them, shoot their dog, or burn down their house)

Laws, and the ability to enforce them, is the only thing separating us from complete anarchy. When we lose the ability to enforce them, we have riots and looting like in new orleans. wholesale crime is engulfing certain areas of the country, (Juarez mexico is another great example) because we have lost the ability to police those regions.

The reason that this happens, is because we as a people choose to do as we please. People grew up lacking the moral/ethical compass that their parents should have taught them. Then, they make up their own morality. In that one action, they completely discard the one prime directive, "live considerately."

This is why we have swat units. This is why a person's car will be impounded for parking violations. This is why kids can't drink, and parents can't give them the booze. Because all over the world, there are billions of little things that people do on a routine basis that harm other people, and the only way we can make them stop is to first make a law, and second, punish them for breaking it.

Without our tendency to crap on everyone else on the planet, we wouldn't need laws. All we'd need are guidelines.

But we're at this point beginning to really digress from the question of why it is unethical to cleanly kill a critter with a small bore rifle, but perfectly ethical to wound one badly with a howitzer.

briandg
December 8, 2011, 12:28 AM
BTW, mj has been illegal for generations. Nobody alive has been able to buy mj legally. Every ounce of mj sold in america in most of the past century was illegally bought.

Equating this drug problem, which involves people raised to know that it was illegal and doing it anyway, with the sudden banning of a theretofore legal product isn't correct.

You could make that argument work if the drugs were banned 20 years ago. But, as it is, there aren't a whole lot of people in this country who habitually use illegal drugs that were ever able to legally buy them. the whole situation from beginning until now has been generations of people saying "to hell with the law. I wanna get high."

Legalizing them won't solve anything, either. It's too late for that, and all it will do is create an even more attractive situation for the stoners.

Daekar
December 8, 2011, 12:30 AM
Yes, we have wandered a bit, haven't we?

One last observation: There was a point in time where we didn't have so many laws, and people didn't act like idiots nearly as often even without them. Why?

To answer the OP's question: a poor shot with a big rifle is just as bad as a poor shot with a little one. Anybody who says otherwise needs to watch a deer that's been gutshot with a 300 WinMag.

Big Yac
December 8, 2011, 12:39 AM
I'll tell you something about ethics. I live in Ohio, Tuscarawas County infact which is usually number one or atleast in the top 3 in deer kills every year. I went deer hunting 4 years in row, got married then went hunting again this year for the first time in 5 years. I shoot all the time, have a good load which I've tailored to my gun. I have no doubts about my ability to make a clean shot out to a certain point. Anyways, from all these times of going hunting I have yet to get a deer. I have passed up many shots where a bullet could have gone towards a house or in a dangerous direction, the deer was too small, range was too great, or the deer just didnt present itself, was behind cover, etc. Point is, sure it sucks when your buddies all get deer and you're the only one that doesnt. I'm just not going to spray and pray and maybe wound something. Even though I've not got a deer yet yeah its fun to be out in the woods and all, I figure though my day for a good deer is coming and all of this patience will pay off. Doing something stupid just for some meat isnt really worth it.

Edward429451
December 8, 2011, 01:30 AM
Aww, why take a perfectly good thread about hunting ethics, and introduce Law into it?

briandg
December 8, 2011, 01:59 AM
Big yac, what you are saying there is the one universal fact about being the good guy. Sometimes you go hungry, while the guys eat steak.

I've committed a lot of sins in my lifetime and broken a few laws. Obviously,everyone has broken a few laws, I figure. not any longer.

I'm never going to say that you can't pull the trigger with a little uncertainty, because there is no certainty once you do.

but IMO, when you have a slim chance of a miss or a poor hit, I'm with you, take that shot.

When the situation has turned into having a "slim chance that I just might hit some part of it and cripple it till I can shoot it a couple more times" it's kind of out of the gray area.

briandg
December 8, 2011, 02:02 AM
One last observation: There was a point in time where we didn't have so many laws, and people didn't act like idiots nearly as often even without them. Why?



That's an entirely different can of worms there. I think that up until the past 50 years or so, people actually grew up as they grew older.

buck460XVR
December 8, 2011, 07:40 AM
First off, I think the word "ethics" has no business in a hunters safety coarse. Ethics vary far and wide and the only thing the class should teach is legal not moral issues. A buddy of mine, a 4H firearms instructor, got into a heated debate at his daughters hunters coarse because the instructor was spewing personal, sometimes extreme, opinions about ethics. Can't remember the exact subject matter but it was pretty out there from what I recall.

I never said anything about teaching ethics in our Hunter's safety course. I said
the definition of ethical we give to new hunters is "doing the right thing when no one else is around".

One should read posts thoroughly before they start to criticize. Ethics are a personal choice and generally have more to do with location and influence of family, friends and peers. We don't have the time to try and influence other's judgement and morals, we spend most of our time teaching "hunter safety" in our hunter safety classes.

2damnold4this
December 8, 2011, 07:52 AM
If you will read the post that you just got through putting on earlier, you will note that you are asking what is unethical about shooting a deer 5 minutes after closing time, when you are clearly and consciously violating a law.

I asked what the ethical difference is between shooting deer at the same time after sunset in states that have different laws and your reply was "There is none." Either there is an ethical difference or there isn't one. I think there is and you think there isn't.

Don't compare it to a mercy killing of a previously wounded deer, it's not the same.
Shooting a deer after legal hours is illegal, that's all there is to it.

Shooting a deer after legal hours is indeed illegal but that's not all there is to it. It may or may not be ethical to shoot a deer after hours. Shooting a healthy deer after hours is unethical because it is unfair to other hunters that abide by the law. Shooting a mortally wounded deer after hours to put it down is ethical because our primary obligation is to the wounded animal and other hunters are not loosing anything. Both actions are illegal in my state. One is clearly unethical and the other is not. A person that puts down a wounded animal after legal shooting hours might get a fine but that is the ethical thing to do.

Laws are not ethics. A hunter can follow all game laws and not be ethical and a hunter that violates a game law can be ethical.

shortwave
December 8, 2011, 09:08 AM
Big Yac,

Glad to see a fellow Ohioan here.

Especially one with some apparent great hunting values.

Kudo's to you for setting your standards and sticking by them. Hunting in Tuscarawus Co., your day for your trophy will surely come. Hopefully sooner then you think. ;)

You'd be welcome at my camp anytime.

I think my good friend Pahoo said it wisely in his post and is worth repeating:

We teach that the foundation of an individuals hunting code, should be the hunting laws of our state. These are based on ethical and moral principles. Hardly ever perfect but certainly fair,good and equitable. What happens in the field after our classes can only be controlled by individuals conduct. If any hunter can't even get passed that, then there is really something wrong....:eek:

Pahoo, Hope you don't mind I emboldened a few sentences.

Here's another 'law versus ethical' situation I was personally involved in.
I'll keep it short:
A fella we'll call 'Bud' was turkey hunting. He had one turkey tag. He let out a few purrs from his call standing on top of a ridge overlooking a very densely,thicket covered hillside that went into a deep ravine. A gobbler answered back. Gobbler was halfway down the hill and Bud knew gobbler was traveling on a major deer trail going towards a powerline which crossed the ravine.
Bud runs and sits up on the powerline, continuing to call and lure the gobbler to him. Worked like a charm. The gobbler got to the powerline and was following a deer trail up the powerline towards Bud. Bud still couldn't see him cause there was a small 3ft. tall mound of dirt between Bud and gobbler. Bud called tom up the hill and when toms head and neck cleared the top of the mound, Bud shot. Dead bird.
The problem was, directly behind Buds tom was another tom that Bud didn't see or know was there. This second toms head/neck was directly behind the first and was killed also. :eek:

Now legally, Ohio's law does not permit Bud to keep the 2nd tom as he's only got one tag.

I know what Bud did, but I ask you...

...does Bud illegally keep and eat the second gobbler or let it rot in the field?

Big Yac
December 8, 2011, 12:07 PM
shortwave,

Thanks, like I said sometimes I feel alittle embarrassed that I havent got anything yet but I'm sure it'll happen. Actually I've been practicing with a bow so by next season my chances should go up since I'll do both gun and bow hunting. I see you're in SE Ohio, where abouts? How are the deer down that way? My deer shortfall has more than been made up with by turkeys, we have a good turkey population up here too.

shortwave
December 8, 2011, 01:52 PM
Big Yac,

Don't be embarrassed. With proper scouting, your day will come. Especially during bow season.;)

Actually not that far SE.

I'm right on the Fairfield, Hocking Co. line not far from Old Man's Cave area.

The deer population in this area is great. Unfortunately, being so close to Cols.O, so is the hunter population.:rolleyes: I refuse to gun hunt public land down this way cause its more like a war zone.

Major Dave (retired)
December 8, 2011, 03:10 PM
In Texas, legal shooting hours go to 1/2 hour after sunset.

Legally.

But, in my opinion, in the thick piney woods of East Texas, the "gloom of night" begins about sunset, if not 1/2 hour earlier. Depends on cloud cover.

So, when I am hunting public land, I start back toward my parked truck no later than sunset - because - I don't trust other hunters to be sure they don't shoot me, thinking I am a deer. Even though I am (legally) dressed in a blaze orange hat and vest.

Once, I was headed back along a power line right of way (kept mowed down to ankle level) at sunset, and came upon a man and his young son sitting on the power line, watching for deer. He scolded me for ruining their hunt. He told me the last half hour was the best shooting time. I told him the light was too dim to clearly be sure of your target. He disagreed. I went on to my truck. He and his son stayed put.

I shutter to think that that fool would have my life in his hands right up to 1/2 hour after sunset!

I was legal - he was legal, but I think ONE of us was unethical.

What say YOU? Opinions, please.

shortwave
December 8, 2011, 03:22 PM
IMO, if it's to dark to clearly make out your target and the background behind target, it's just unethical to keep hunting.

MD,

I know what you mean about going to/coming from your stand.

FWIW... when I enter or leave the woods, even on my own property, I always turn a light on. Usually the kind that clips onto the bill of my hat. There's been times when I used to hunt public land that I wished I had a boom box blasting on my shoulder. :D

I was very proud of my brother this shotgun season as he had a 45yd. broadside shot on the wall hanger I've been bow hunting. But it was to early and he couldn't clearly make out his front site. Brother was mad but he restrained himself and didn't sling any lead. Deer walked off. Brother was so upset he came back to the house about 0900. :D

I don't blame him for being upset as this deer has an enormous,heavy rack in the high teens and the deer weighs every bit of 300lbs. Could brother have hit the deer, most likely. Would it have been a humane,ethical shot...not in my opinion and proudly to say, my brothers either.

Gbro
December 8, 2011, 06:18 PM
For M-D,
What say YOU? Opinions, please.
I fully agree with you, however being it is an ethical issue we can just politely excuse ourselves in a situation like this and taking this situation you relate, that adult with his youngster wasn't going to take any suggestion no matter how well intended or needed.
No matter how hard it is to bite our tongue and keep our advise to ourselves in the field unless invited, a sorry about that is all I myself say.
Edit;
The title of your post is misleading. ;)

tahunua001
December 8, 2011, 09:04 PM
ok somewhere down the line we hit a detour... I fail to see where pot sales coincide with hunting ethics... this discussion, which never did seem to steer towards the question I asked, has sadly degenerated.

here's my take on it.
1. a law is a law, not a guideline, not a suggestion, but a law. breaking it does not necessarily make you unethical, it makes you a criminal.

2. many laws are arbitrary, it does not mean that you should be encouraged to break it but you should be encouraged to fight it if it does not serve any real purpose.

3. cannabis is legal in certain regions with a prescription, not that it ever had anything to do with this thread in the first place.

4. hunters safety should not teach hunting laws. that is the responsibility of the individual hunter to educate himself on. laws change every year and differ from region to region, hunters safety/education curriculum should not. the whole reason of hunters education is to teach proper firearms handling, tracking, game identification and differentiation, navigation and survival, and proper game handling. hunting ethics, hunting laws and little arbitrary and subjective terms and discussions should be left out IMHO. those are all things that need to be left up to the individual hunter.

5. this thread is slipping dangerously into the realm of political. it's been a while since I read the terms and conditions here on TFL but I could swear that those type of topics are off limits. can we please try to steer back to the difference between...ah....I give up!

briandg
December 8, 2011, 10:18 PM
1. a law is a law, not a guideline, not a suggestion, but a law. breaking it does not necessarily make you unethical, it makes you a criminal.



Law was created to benefit group happiness and prosperity.
Therefore, laws must be presumed to have been created to benefit society as a whole.
Nobody is capable of choosing which laws are improper or unjust, unnecessary, or simply not meant for himself, and should be disobeyed.
one cannot break laws with impunity simply because it is thought to be an unjust law.
Breaking any law, in that situation, is a clear case of setting one's own personal desires above the needs of society.
To do so goes against common definitions of ethical behavior.

We could dissect all of the common systems of philosophy, but this is an accurate chain of reason, showing that breach of social contract by breaking a law is, in fact, unethical behavior.

When an individual doubts a law, he has a moral obligation to protest that law. protesting is ethical. violation, even as a source of protest, is still setting one's own beliefs, desires and actions against the needs of society.


2. many laws are arbitrary, it does not mean that you should be encouraged to break it but you should be encouraged to fight it if it does not serve any real purpose.



I honestly haven't seen what I could declare an "arbitrary" law, defined as a law that was written with no purpose, benefit, or proper, logical consideration given to the regulation. If a speed limit seems arbitrary, it probably isn't, much information was gathered and considered before that school zone was posted at 20 mph. Shooting after sun goes under the horizon, 15 minute later, a half hour, or even 24/7? These laws were all written after considering hunting conditions. The fact that different states use different laws is not at all proof that it was an arbitrary decision, it is only evidence that many different groups studied the same problem and came up with different answers.

It would be nice if we could just create a no-shoot time chart, and require every hunter to wear an accurate watch, then arrest anyone with a loaded weapon after that no-shoot time comes around. instead, hunters are put on a system of honorable behavior, and expected to behave ethically. Rather than setting hard fast rules, generally, you have a period of hunting shutdown that will allow benefit of doubt. Really, when a matter of 50 feet north or south may decide whether or not the sun has set behind that rise, is it better to have a solid restriction, or a little flex?

Gunplummer
December 8, 2011, 11:03 PM
I never hunted in Ohio, but I thought there was quite a bit of open land to hunt. Am I wrong? Maybe you should get away from the roads and try farther in. I hunt public land and not until the end of the first week because of my schedule. I have good years and bad years, but I don't make up crap about other hunters to cover my laziness. I don't need a lesson in hunting manners from someone that probably does not even know what a deer looks like except from the T.V. You want to go wound a bunch of deer with a bow because you can't get one with a rifle? Yeah, that is real ethical. A couple of us do a cheap hunt in West Virginia every year. Camp out in tents no matter what the weather. The first day I went out in the morning and moved around most of the day. Did not see one hunter till I went back to camp. There is so much open land out there it is unbelievable. Learn how to use a compass and hit the slopes.

shortwave
December 9, 2011, 05:27 AM
Gunplummer,


I never hunted in Ohio, but I thought there was quite a bit of open land to hunt. Am I wrong?

Yep...
...now, you mind elaborating on the rest of your post?

Don't understand the unwarranted accusations or the hostile,somewhat offensive tone of your post towards Ohio hunters in general....
.... Or, am I wrong about your post title, Hey Ohio, and you were directing your hostile post in response to something an Ohio poster here stated that may have offended you? If so, who? :confused: :confused::confused:

briandg
December 9, 2011, 07:47 AM
Oh, shortwave?

isn't ohio full of private farms full of corn? private farms that keep hunters out, maybe? That's what I would guess, it's not like there are thousands of acres of public land just sitting around all over the state, at least looking at the maps...

Regarding the turkey? I haven't a clue. would he take the second hit in to the checkin station (if they have them in his state) and then hand it over? That'd get him totally off the hook here. Accidental kills are forgiven here if you turn them in, but I have no idea what'll happen to him between the scene of the crime and the check in station.

Accidents aren't immoral. I can't say what the "moral and ethical" thing would be to do with the extra bird. I don't think leaving it there would be the right thing to do, unless that is what the law states that he has to do. Then, there really isn't a decision to make. I'd follow the letter of the law, would be my answer, even if it isn't what I want to do. It'd make me mad, and I'd probably complain about it.

I don't really have anything left to say. Writing papers on this sort of stuff gave me headaches for 3 or 4 years at MSSU. I at least got paid when I was tutoring students on the subjects.

2damnold4this
December 9, 2011, 07:59 AM
It would be nice if we could just create a no-shoot time chart, and require every hunter to wear an accurate watch, then arrest anyone with a loaded weapon after that no-shoot time comes around.

Why don't we just charge people who actually shoot after legal hours?

There are two different types of criminal offenses. Malum in se and malum prohibitum. Malum in se refers to offenses that are wrong by their very nature and malum prohibitum refers to something that is wrong because it is prohibited.

2damnold4this
December 9, 2011, 08:00 AM
Oh, shortwave? I haven't a clue. would he take the second hit in to the checkin station (if they have them in his state) and then hand it over? That'd get him totally off the hook here. Accidental kills are forgiven here if you turn them in, but I have no idea what'll happen to him between the scene of the crime and the check in station.

That's a good point. If you break a law because you think ethics requires it, you'd better be prepared to take your punishment.

shortwave
December 9, 2011, 08:49 AM
...would he take the second hit in to the checkin station...

No. Ohio's game check stations are primarily all private owned business's. If you would take an animal to a check station without a tag, the hunter may as well call DNR his/her self as this is what will happen at the check station.

This turkey incident with 'Bud' happened many years ago and is something a fella should probably talk to his DNR people about prior to it happening so as to know how to handle a situation like this.

A friend of mine owns a gun shop that's also a check station and from time to time gets calls from deer hunters that have taken broadside, heart/lung shots at deer only to have the slugs pass through and hit a deer they didn't see standing behind targeted deer.

He usually tells them, "you have one tag,bring me one deer...you have two tags, bring me two deer", and leaves it at that.

In a situation like the turkey scenario, ethically, it would be very hard for me to just leave a game animal in the field to rot knowing I caused its death purely accidentally. I'd have to find a way to check it or something.

Guess a phone call to ODNR is in order,eh!

As far as Gunplummers questions/comments about Ohio, our hunting land, laws or hunters here, just kinda waiting on his response to my post as to where he's coming from. A response may not even be warranted.

briandg
December 9, 2011, 09:33 AM
When you find yourself in the situation of having bagged an extra deer or turkey by accident, and have no choice but leaving it in the field to avoid prosecution, keep this in mind.

Raccoons, possums, coyotes, crows, buzzards, bobcats, foxes, and all of the other carnivores will be happy to dive into a turkey carcass, and if you're in a cool season, it will stay nice and fresh and healthy for a week or two. It won't go completely to waste. It may even feed the predators that would ordinarily have killed another one, and by doing that, spare the life of other game animals.

This isn't the same as shooting a deer, taking the head home, and leaving the rest behind.

Art Eatman
December 9, 2011, 10:13 AM
Enough wandering. Dunno what Ohio issues have to do with anything.