Hunting Ethics

[LanceOregon]

This is a moral dilema for me.

Just the other day I caught a rat in my house and could have let it go, but instead I whacked him with a shovel 3 times and he died. Now I did not release the rat because I know he would return and continue to breed and bring in other rats. So I whacked him.

Now I had no guilt what so ever about whacking this rat for the mere fact that he exists and was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Now if I take it up to a larger species of animal and whacked something bigger, like a dog or cat. I would feel remose. I would not shot and kill a dog that constantly dug through my garbage. I would shoot him with rubber buck shot from a shotgun and scare him away for good.

Now suppose I am hunting for hog, rabbit, bambi or even a panda bear. If I hunt it and kill it for sport and leave the carcus is it any different than killing the rat in my house for the mere fact that he exists and was in the wrong spot?

These are some pretty far out scenarios that you are making up here. Shooting an animal that is on your state's big game list, and then leaving it to waste would generally be a hunting regulation offense. You could be fined, have equipment used in the hunt seized, and have your hunting rights abridged. That is how it is here in Oregon.

Vermin like Feral hogs, coyotes, and rattlesnakes are no way in the same category. Here in Oregon, all of these animals are totally unprotected, and can be legally shot at any time.

And regarding killing a rat in your yard: My goodness, what else are you supposed to do? Capture it and take it to your local Humane Society, and have them put it up for adoption?

Your Guidelines here should be both legal, and then religious. First, if killing the animal in a particular way is illegal, then it should never be done. Secondly, consider what your own religion may give guidance on the issue. After all, God gave man dominion over all of the animals. None of them is considered to have the same rights as man. Only man was created in God's image.

That said, one should never be intentionally cruel to any animal, even the most destructive pest. All animals deserve to have a quick death. Many states even require that hunters not intentionally allow an animal to suffer, and quickly dispatch it if that is possible.

I, for one, could never ever bow hunt. The effectiveness and reliability of a bow in quickly dispatching game just cannot come close to that of a modern rifle. When I kill an animal I don't want it to suffer for any length of time. I thus make every effort to take only what I personally consider to be ethical shots where I have high assurance that I can place my shot so that the animal quickly expires.

Now, does that mean that bow hunting is unethical, just because I am personally not comfortable doing it? I certainly don't think so. Humans have been hunting animals for thousands of years with bows. If someone else wants to hunt by bow, I'm all for that person having the right to do so.

We all have to make our own personal choices regarding what we are comfortable doing. And we all need to fully obey the law, and all hunting regulations.

But you are fretting far too much over this, in my opinion. Feral hogs are indeed very destructive. They are considered to be a harmful invasive species here in Oregon. Thus, just like the Nutria here in our state, there are no limitations on killing them. Both of these animals don't belong here, and are harmful to the natural ecosystem.

.

[LanceOregon]

I'm a meat hunter and I try to be a good steward of this good Earth we live on. Has I see it hogs and coyotes are vermin where I live. If you can use parts of the carcass after killing them, great, if not the worms and buzzards will enjoy the gift you've given them. The Earth doesn't waste anything.

That is very well put. I have been on varmint hunts where I have returned to locations the very next day, and the animal's body is already practically picked clean.

In fact, some birds like crows, magpies, and even huge turkey vultures seemed to be attracted to our hunting. It was practically like we were ringing the dinner bell for them. They were often feeding on animals only a few minutes after they were killed.

.

[Art Eatman]

During the big Guadalupe River flood in 1998, my cousin trapped 34 feral hogs within a hundred yards of his house. And I've seen photos of over a hundred feral hogs around a deer feeder.

When you have those sorts of numbers of destructive feral animals, you just can't worry about using or leaving the carcasses. You have to kill as many as you can. If you have time and energy to take the meat, great. You do what you can.

Protecting your property from damage is far more important than worrying about feeding buzzards and coyotes.

Yeah, sure, you can make a sport out of going out hog hunting. No problem. But that's not the same as eradicating a pestiferous and harmful animal--which has nothing to do with "hunting".

[mikenbarb]

My thought is that if someone is stupid enough to leave a place where he was granted permission to hunt in worse condition than when he got there than he shouldnt have the right to hunt anywhere. Me and a few friends were granted permission a long tim aga to hunt a piece of property and we still do because we leave it better than when we got there. We also lend a helping hand to the owner on weekends or whenever we can. Its good ethics and all hunters should respect the land no matter where we are.
Roy, Its a good law that we have in NJ that noone can sue someone if their engaged in an outdoor activity on another persons land. Its a great law and every stste should adopt it to protect the landowners and to make it a little easier to gain access. Also, Our game law book has a card that the hunter signs and gives to landowner to release him from any lawsuit.

[Art Eatman]

Years back, a group of us leased a ranch near Uvalde, Texas for about three years. Dunno why, but that particular ranch just didn't have all that many deer on it. The guy from whom we leased, as a response to our grumping, suggested a ranch which had never been hunted. He called the owner, telling him, "These guys are okay. They leave a place better than what they found it."

Being helpful to a landowner can improve one's life...

Art

[LanceOregon]

They don't understand that the feral pigs we control still eat up half of the resources. (what would they do if we let them be?)
They ignore that pigs kill and eat livestock as well.
They are unaware that pigs adopt orphans. (killing a sow does not sentence the piglets to starvation)
All of this, and I haven't even discussed the danger to people physically.
Or, a swines reproductive capabilities.
Or even the devastation to native wildlife. (quail, turkey and deer)

Yithian:

Here in Oregon the Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife considers feral pigs to be a grave environmental threat to the state. They are doing all they can to encourage the compete ERADICATION of the animals. In fact, two populations of them in the state have so far been completely wiped out.

While it is currently estimated that there are only a little over 1,000 of them in scattered locations around the state, ODFW knows how prolific feral pigs are, and that populations can thus quickly boom.

The state is actually frustrated because some landowners are lousy stewards, and don't take care of their land, or care about the situation.

One recent study that ODFW did here in Oregon showed that where feral pigs had fed, weeds often replaced the natural vegetation, due to the damage the pigs do. Thus, a wildlife food resource useful to other animals gets replaced by something that is totally inedible for any wildlife.

.

[Yithian]

Thanks for the support LanceO.
I feel it is important to let some hunters know why "Ethics" while hunting is truly a relative term.
One ethical hunting experience may not be appropriate for a different animal.
My instance of having to hunt pigs in order to control its population (to attempt extinction) is the dire extreme.
I would never condone that same ethic for any other animal I hunt.
The TPWD says I should do the same for mountain lions, but I know that they help control the pig population.
...As evidenced by 5 lions frequenting a natural funnel for overpopulated pigs.
I may choose to hunt the lions soon, but only plan to harvest two or three.

I am glad to hear that the population in Oregon is so well controlled.
I posted a link somewhere here from a Texas A&M publication...

Found it..
http://icwdm.org/Publications/pdf/Fe...xferalhogs.pdf

The interesting part of the pub. is the fact that a Major University of Agriculture seems to recommend the use of snares.
One land owner I help uses them by the dozen. He checks them twice a day, as they "catch" everything, not just pigs.

[Yithian]

Here is a good ethics poll for whitetail...

Assuming all these photo's were taken during the proper season...
Which photo represents an Ethical opportunity, and where would you place the bullet?

A:
60 yards

B:
85 yards

C:
55 yards

D:
2 yards


What would have to happen, for you to take the shot, in those opportunities that are unethical?

[Yithian]

My answers for Texas durring deer season...

A: Maybe... 30-30 or larger, thru the ribs, straight to the heart. That water would seriously worry me.
This is a perfect example of a "focus'ed'" deer but, the twig is in the way of a head-shot.

B:I never take this shot.
If the deer didn't spook, and then turned his body to 'focus' elsewhere, I may take a shot.

C: I wouldn't shoot either here.
The one in the water doesn't appear to be legal by Texas standards.
The one at the waters edge may be legal with further glassing, but I would still wait to see if I could get a shot away from the water.

D: MMM, tender.
But cute.
I would probably let this one go... It depends on my hunger levels.