Hunting Ethics

[tahunua001]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by shortwave

...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]

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]

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]

for your game, for your fellow hunters and for the non-hunting public as well. (don't dump carcasses right in the parking lot)
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)
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]

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]

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]

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]

Ed should have immediately tried to put that animal down.

[Gunplummer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. .....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Sorry, changed my mind about posting a reply.

[shortwave]

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.