hypothetical ethics discussion

[tahunua001]

Grandpa's game management eradicated the wild turkeys from many states where they were native for centuries

uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

another poster claims that the gigantic 300 pound wolves are decimating the deer and elk populations in Washington State to the point there soon won't be any left. Which is it?

that particular poster (wait a minute...oh I see what you did there ) was describing the current situation in montana, wyoming and idaho which were all part of the original wolf implantation programs. and yes, elk and highland deer populations have plummeted in recent years and due in no small part to wolves. those points were brought up in that topic to show a very possible and almost inevitable outcome if washington should also fail to control their wolf population. but that topic is not very central to this conversation although it also deals with the dilemma of carry capacity and over population of a specific species.

[Hansam]

uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

You've got that wrong bud. Turkey is indigenous to the US. Turkey however is NOT indigenous to Europe.

If I recall correctly the first turkey was introduced to Great Britain in the early 1500's and then it spread to the rest of Europe from there.

I may be off on when the turkey first went to Europe but the fact remains that turkeys are native to the Americas and not Europe.

[Double Naught Spy]

Hansam is right. Turkeys were not known in the Old World until travelers brought them back from the New World.

I personally have examined numerous turkey burials from SW puebloan sites dating back over 1000 years, along with dog, merlin, hawk burials. Turkeys occurred over much of North America, Central, and South America. Of course, the turkey burials were apparently domesticated turkeys, which is rather neat when you think about it, but they were not your Pilgrim's Pride type of white turkeys. Turkey was a common food of prehistoric Native Americans and their remains can be found in refuse middens of sites with long occupations and even short term sites.

Probably the oldest turkey remains I have examined would be about 6000 years, but they are not the oldest turkey remains found in association with human sites, not even close, just the oldest I have examined.

Remember from your history that Ben Franklin argued for the turkey to be the national bird of the new fledgling country (pun intended). He felt it symbolized America nicely, being of true American origin.

[Art Eatman]

Can't blame old Ben. Turkeys taste better than bald eagles.

[buck460XVR]

uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

As others have stated........Turkeys were a native species here in North America. Same goes for Prairie Chickens. Prairie Chickens were once very abundant the U.S., but hunting and loss of habitat have made them almost rare in most of their original range. Maybe them there "europeans" are the ones that introduced them midget deer........

that particular poster (wait a minute...oh I see what you did there ) was describing the current situation in montana, wyoming and idaho which were all part of the original wolf implantation programs.

No...he wasn't. He was talking about a situation in Washington state and the migration of Canadian wolves there. You can tell by the title of his thread....Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population

[Buzzcook]

the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one.

So this is in your OP

with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.

The possible solution you offer in the OP is wide scale poaching. That is an illegal increase in the number of animals hunters take.

I stated that there is a legal way to increase the game limits. Part of my reasoning was that there is no opposition to increasing the game limit.

In reply you stated that there were powerful interests involved in hunting. You pointed to archery and muzzle loading as examples. What you didn't do is point to any example of a lobby powerful or not that would oppose an increase in game limits in the example you gave in the OP. PETA doesn't count

[BigMikey76]

Personally, I find that the concept of blind obedience to law as outweighing the health of an ecosystem to be philosophically disturbing.

I think this statement leans toward the heart of this topic - Philosophy.

"Blind obedience" is certainly dangerous, but in any organized society, no matter what the form of government, there is a social compact in place. The philosophical nature of that compact is that the populace agrees to give up some of their individual rights to the government, and the government, in turn, agrees to govern in the interest of the people. The level of rights given up individually dictates the amount of power the government holds, and if the balance is not right, then there is either a government that is too weak to maintain control, or a government with too much power that ends up bullying the populace.

Assuming that the balance is right (whether it is or not is probably not a topic for this thread), it is incumbent on each member of the society to follow the laws the government makes, since the right to make and enforce laws is the primary right that has been given up by the individual. It is then incumbent upon the government to make sure that the laws are, in fact, in the best interest of the people they are governing.

This is where it gets fuzzy. The government, being formed of human beings, is not perfect. Never has been, never will be. When the people perceive that the government is wrong, they have the right and the responsibility to make it known and try to get things changed. That can take the form of petitioning, protesting, voting out leaders in favor of new blood, or any number of other methods, but the nature of the actions taken should fall within the established rules for accomplishing change.

A distinction needs to be made at this point. If I feel that my government is wrong, and the rules they have established are unreasonable, I still have the responsibility to follow them while I am trying to get them changed. Only if it is clear that the government is acting illegally or in some way violating the compact that has been established do I have the right to disobey.

A couple of examples of a government acting illegally or violating the social compact:
- Violations of Civil Rights
- Unconstitutional actions

A couple of examples of a government acting unreasonably, but not illegally:
- Enacting tax laws that don't make sense
- Enacting game laws that don't make sense
- Enacting any law that doesn't make sense

Here is the question that must be asked: Was this law put in place legally?
If the law does not violate any other existing statutes, and it does not violate the rights of the people who are subject to the law, then it is not illegal and should be followed.

Notice that there is no allowance for "that law is stupid, so I'm not gonna' follow it." It is not the right of the individual to randomly decide which laws to follow and which to break, assuming that the laws are legal. It IS the right of the individual to be the catalyst of change by gathering support and demonstrating to the government that the people are not happy with the current state of affairs.

Here is the toughest part for a lot of people to swallow:
Even when the majority of the population feels that the rule in question is not reasonable and should be changed, the government is under no obligation to change it. Representative government does NOT mean that the government officials are required to follow popular opinion. They ARE expected to use their best judgement and make decisions that are in the best interest of the people. The popularity of a law, however, is not often a good indicator of whether it is a good law or not. One example of this is taxes. Taxes are incredibly unpopular, but they are necessary, and the government is under no obligation to change or eliminate a tax based on popular opinion (please don't let this statement be the impitus for a partisan debate. I hate to see a good thread put down because it got infected with those darn poli-tics).

The only way to legitimately get a law changed based on popularity is to exercise your right to vote. Get the people you disagree with out of office, and replace them with people you like. If you can't get rid of them that way, then maybe their policies are not as unpopular as you thought they were.

OK. I am officially dismounting the soapbox now.

[tahunua001]

No...he wasn't. He was talking about a situation in Washington state and the migration of Canadian wolves there. You can tell by the title of his thread....Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population

the topic at hand was whether washington should control their wolf populations however many of the reports of widespread destruction are coming from MONTANA, WYOMING, AND IDAHO
the discussion revolved around what actions should be taken to control the wolf population based on what has happened elsewhere in the country.

the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one.
So this is in your OP

Quote:
with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.

did you purposefully remove the single sentence that I added to make my point just so you could continue this argument?
it is a lot easier to fill a tag if you are allowed to take either sex. since you are not able to, these animals are not being harvested and many hunters are not filling their tags because few of the animals in the region meet the minimum requirements for legal harvest. easing the requirements would allow these animals to be harvested rather than just issuing extra tags.

I think big mikey summed it up very well. he observes both sides of the discussion and points out where both are right and where both are wrong and makes very good arguments for both.

my main issue is one that he pointed out very well,

The only way to legitimately get a law changed based on popularity is to exercise your right to vote. Get the people you disagree with out of office, and replace them with people you like. If you can't get rid of them that way, then maybe their policies are not as unpopular as you thought they were.

in this case, it has been addressed several times that there is need of eased restrictions for hunting in this unit however, by popular vote it is denied. the land can't withstand it, the wildlife can't withstand it, many of the landowners and hunters know it but statewide the majority vote lies in the western half of the state. whether through ignorance or just a fear of change will not support such an action. this is where we find ourselves.
now that I've added that quick side note, I think you summed this discussion up very well.

[twins]

I guess we can argue this till we're all 6 feet under but the informal poll from this thread should tell the OP and Art that majority rules in our country. So "jury nullification" isn't in your favor Art.

[Art Eatman]

twins, it's moot. It's now legally possible in Texas to do just what I did. I was just a good many years ahead of the "professionals" on habitat restoration. Hey, it's all a learning curve, and they're young folks, busy reinventing the wheel.

Read the fable about the shape of the cell in a beehive. Aesop, IIRC.

[cnimrod]

the situation is in no way hypothetical.
Local Firearm restrictions prevent the discharge of weapons, including bows within most village limits. It takes an awful lot of non-hunters to get tired of the deer decimating their landscaping and colliding with their vehicles to get local laws changed or temporarily relaxed. Some towns hire professional sharpshooters many do let local hunters in with restrictions after a special training class. My town hasn't gotten to that point but what has happened is limited poaching has occurred to keep the numbers in check. (Much of it by local LEOs.) Also areas that were once open to hunting but are now closed are still hunted by the locals. Is it illegal - yes, unethical - probably not, but if everybody did it...

[Double Naught Spy]

Ah, but what is funny about that is that while many place may not allow for the discharge of firearms, they do allow for air rifles and there are some very nifty high powered air rifles, but few folks realize this and few folks would consider the option.

[Art Eatman]

The Texas deer herd was severely depleted by the 1930s and thus "Don't shoot does!" became the watchword. That emotion held even after the population explosion from both game laws and the eradication of the screw worm fly. Thus the rules on legal take, precluding does but for one doe per fifty acres. That created a Big Oops insofar as deer becoming pests in some areas.

I read where Alabama's limit was something like a buck a day. Dunno about does, but it indicates a very large population. OTOH, western Texas habitat in some areas will support one deer per fifty acres.

I still believe that the worst enemies of rational dealings with wildlife are Felix Salter and Walt Disney.

[ZeroJunk]

Here in the county I live and since I have been hunting it has gone from no deer season at all to bucks only, to bucks and doe.....

Now you can kill 6 deer all the same day if you want to. Only two can be bucks, but they can all be doe.

If that doesn't satisfy you two doe tags can be bought extra as many times as you want.

So, other than the two buck limit there is no limit.

It is a moving target over time.

[BigMikey76]

Ah, but what is funny about that is that while many place may not allow for the discharge of firearms, they do allow for air rifles and there are some very nifty high powered air rifles, but few folks realize this and few folks would consider the option.

Before using the air rifles in city, check your local laws. In my city, air rifles, BB guns and even sling shots can get you ticketed for "discharge of a firearm within city limits." I found this out the hard way when I was 15 and got in trouble for shooting BB guns in a buddy's back yard. A neighbor called to complain, and we both got ticketed.

[dahermit]

It always amazes me that while the great majority of people (I do not know of anyone who has not), will admit to breaking some law on purpose (speeding, parking meter, etc., etc.), they loudly denounce the people who break some other law. I can imagine some child molester voicing an opinion that poaching is "unethical".
Humans do seem to wear selective blinders.
"Judge not least ye be judged". "Your righteousness are as filthy rags."

[cnimrod]

rationaLIES are still LIES

[2damnold4this]

When considering ethics in hunting, we have to think about several things.

We have to do right by the law, we have to do right by our fellow hunters and we must do right by our prey. Problems arise when one of these areas conflict with another.

If I had to prioritize, I'd put doing right by our prey first, doing right by fellow hunters second and doing right by the law third. I don't want to minimize the importance of doing right by the law and I'm not commenting on the Op but there are times the most ethical choice requires violating the law.

[Art Eatman]

Stable ecosystem? I doubt anybody here would condone poaching. There's certainly no justification in the lower 48 insofar as a need for meat; too much public assistance available. (When I was in the Army, the ration was four ounces of meat per GI per meal.)

[tahunua001]

I've heard stories about the lewis clark expedition. some of the men were eating as much as 5 pounds of meat a day....that is a lot of meat...but probably not much else.
and I agree, there is, unemployment, social security, food stamps and welfare and if that runs out there is a food bank in almost every town in america. my town has less than 1100 people in it and it has one.

poaching for food is almost an obsolete crime nowadays, it might not be an obsolete excuse however.

[farmerboy]

Well I'm not so quick to lock someone in jail for killing out of season or too many as long as they are not selling the meat. And as far as law goes, we have a speed limit too and how many on here go alittle past that? Laws are laws right? Let's say if our Government passed a law for Everyone to turn in all your weapons and that was Law. How many of us would grab everything we had and stand in line to turn everything in? I think Not! Law or not. Taking a deer or animal is way low on my list. Just saying

[BigMikey76]

And as far as law goes, we have a speed limit too and how many on here go alittle past that? Laws are laws right?

I think your logic is a bit flawed, here. Yes we do have speeding laws, and when someone gets caught speeding, he receives the appropriate punishment. Just because it is common to break a law does not mean that it is OK. It simply means that most people are willing to accept the punishment if they get caught. The point is that we do not have the RIGHT to speed, poach, steal, etc. Instead, we have an OBLIGATION to obey the laws. You can't legitimately argue that just because a lot of people break one law it should be OK for people to break another.

[a7mmnut]

To the OP: that's precisely what happens over and over again through time. State regulations in the USA seldom address the independent herd issues; rather they choose to regulate the entire population. Micro zoning is the only way to overcome this, and is unused by most wildlife agencies as to date. Just do the right thing. -7-

[kilimanjaro]

OK, so we also have millions of acres of timbered country with high fuel loads due to a century of fire suppression by the government's land managers. Think you should be able to torch off a few hundred ground fires to improve the health of the forest?

Get involved in the improvement of your public game resources and land management practices through the system, not in spite of it.

[mquail]

Same goes for Prairie Chickens. Prairie Chickens were once very abundant the U.S., but hunting and loss of habitat have made them almost rare in most of their original range. Maybe them there "europeans" are the ones that introduced them midget deer........

The Heath Hen is gone and the Attwater's is almost gone. I'm told the greater prairie chicken lives in only a few places in much of it's origional range such as Illinois and Wisconsin. Here? SD, Kansas and Nebraska have huntable populations of chickens. I'm not sure about OK or CO. We have a few chickens in the eastern portion of SD. I'm also pretty sure many organizations have been trying to put the lesser prairie chicken on various lists for a long time.

Brad