Keeping the "hunt" in hunting

[David Petersen]

#5039

“Let’s keep the ‘hunt’ in hunting” has long been a popular BHA saying. I no longer recall who came up with it. Written by CO BHA chair David Lien, the below link revisits that basic theme in an excellent short tribute to Orion the Hunter’s Institute founder, Jim Posewitz. The one short paragraph David quotes from Jim pretty much skins hunting ethics down to the bare bones; most all ethics issues, no matter how complex, fall under one or more of these easy-as-pi points. For those so inclined …

Keeping the ‘Hunt’ in Hunting

[Fallguy]

#36498

I have donated to them for years. They have never faltered in their message. I am sure that some corporate money has been offered to sway their message but they have stayed the course.

[Stephen Graf]

#38156

Following the links Dave provided, I found the following discussion of ethics vs preference very interesting…

http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/ethics-vs-preferences

Just saying…

[Jason Wesbrock]

#38501

Steve,

That was a very good article. Thanks for sharing. It somewhat reminds me of one Roy Marlow wrote for TBM years ago.

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#38821

[David Petersen]

#38847

Interpretation, por favor? Not that I’m a literalist 🙄 …

[Bruce Smithhammer]

#38923

David Petersen wrote: Interpretation, por favor?

Aw shucks Dave, now where’s the fun in that? Apropos of an “ethics” conversation, I’m content to let people come to their own interpretations. 😉

Btw, did something happen to your previous post re: Tantillo? I don’t see it anymore….:?:

[Fallguy]

#39037

Steve Graf wrote: Following the links Dave provided, I found the following discussion of ethics vs preference very interesting…

http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/ethics-vs-preferences

Just saying…

I have to agree with Dave here. His portrayal of baiting is the exception not the norm. I live next door to Wisconsin and the average baiter hauls out 3 to 500 bushels of corn and assorted other attracts. They surely do not haul anything resembling bait back out of the woods. This just another “Big Tent” argument, do not worry what the other guy does as long as it is not defined as “illegal”. Now I have to go to the Orin site and voice my feelings. Thanks Dave for the update.

[Stephen Graf]

#39427

David Petersen wrote: …moral relativism, that is, there are no ethics beyond what the law requires and an individual chooses. Baloney!…

Hmmm… I know another group that believes they know what is morally right and everyone needs to comply with their vision. I believe they are called the taliban 😯

I delight in real and open minded discussions of topics like these, I take no offense when folks disagree with me, I only hope they bring facts and reason to the table. And I hope no one gets offended at me, and I hope I bring facts and reason to the table too. If I don’t, kindly show me 😀

With that said, one of the things I found interesting in the article was the discussion of shooting ducks. It pointed out a logical flaw in the “high ethics” of wing shooting I had never considered. I like when people point things out to me that I never thought of.

Anyway, one leg of the table we keep our ethics on is the concept of a clean kill. Another leg is the concept that the hunting conditions must favor the game and that the outcome is not certain, even doubtful. I have embraced these as self evident. But the article has pointed out that they can be in conflict with each other.

Shooting a duck on the wing meets the conditions of an uncertain hunt. but it does not meet the conditions of a clean kill. The clean kill conditions would be better met by shooting the duck on the water.

A third leg of the table is sustainable take. A fourth is eating what you kill. Killing a duck on the water meets all the requirements of an ethical hunt except the uncertain outcome criteria (an argument could be made that the outcome is not certain until the trigger is pulled, so it may meet that condition as well)

I wonder how many ducks have been wounded from wing shooting? Way more than “potting” a duck I bet.

It wasn’t that long ago that people felt it was OK to fling arrows 60 or 70 yards at a deer in hopes of connecting. Now we know that a clean kill dictates much shorter ranges.

I guess it boils down to the question: which is more important, a clean kill or an uncertain outcome?

[Stephen Graf]

#39465

Fallguy wrote:

I have to agree with Dave here. His portrayal of baiting is the exception not the norm. I live next door to Wisconsin and the average baiter hauls out 3 to 500 bushels of corn and assorted other attracts. They surely do not haul anything resembling bait back out of the woods. This just another “Big Tent” argument, do not worry what the other guy does as long as it is not defined as “illegal”. Now I have to go to the Orin site and voice my feelings. Thanks Dave for the update.

I think you may have committed a prepositional fallacy. What I mean is that you have made the argument: “If A, then B and If not A, then not B” The assumption that one persons sloppy use of baiting means everyone is a sloppy baiter.

It’s the same fallacy employed when people say that bow hunting should be illegal because “a deer got shot in the neck and wandered around the park for a week”. Just because one hunter makes a bad shot doesn’t mean all hunters will do the same thing.

The things we all hold dear (I think) are:

– Uncertain outcome

– Clean Kill

– Limited Take

– Eat what you kill

While baiting may reduce the uncertainty, it doesn’t affect the other 3 legs of the ethics table. But I would argue that the difference between baiting and not baiting is way less than the difference between a trad bow and a scoped rifle.

Should we throw rifles out with the bait?

[/list]

[Stephen Graf]

#39519

David Petersen wrote: …Anyone who believes there are no higher ethical standards than the law and “what I want to do,” hasn’t spent much time thinking, much less reading and studying the issues. IMO.

You’ll get no argument from me on this. A person would be hard pressed to claim to be better read or have done more thinking than you have on the topic. I certainly haven’t. Your books have really helped me to begin to understand my place in the food chain. And I thank you for that.

Still, it’s never a good idea to allow our wise men to go unchallenged 😀

And I would humbly point out that I don’t believe the author was making an argument that the law defines ethics. I think he was making the argument that some of our “ethical” positions really boil down to preferences because we have not made a rational and factual distinction to justify our positions.

[Ralph]

#40779

A full bellied society can pick and choose their set of hunting ethics whereas a hungry society says ethics be damned.

In our society how many people truly have the need of hunting to provide for the family? It’s nice to be able to supplement the menu with wild game but necessary?

Many times the hunt, the supplementation of different meat in the diet, is way more expensive than going and buying a half of beef for the freezer.

Why hunting?

So, when it comes to the “hunt” in hunting, what is the why?

Some hunt for the “sport” I guess which to me translate to hunting for the thrill of the kill. When the kill lust is upon an individual what ethics? Maybe preferences or rules (laws) of a sector of society dictate methods and means and that group may interpret those rules as their “ethic”.

My ethics, which I think are good, sound and honest, may differ from yours which you think are good, sound and honest but we may live in two entirely different societies, environment and geographical locations.

My daddy always said you should only shoot a running rabbit so it had a fair chance of getting. Me, if I find or stalk a sitting rabbit, it should’ve ran. Tastes good in the skillet either way.

But is that a difference in ethics or preferences? Is it a different set of ethics for hunting rabbits with a shotgun or a bow.

There are laws, which some think are attempts at enforcing their ethics, and they are “ethical” rules that apply only if caught, and there are those who believe in fair chase and there are those that the hunt is necessary for survival.

“Ethics has to do with what my feelings tell me is right or wrong.”

“Ethics has to do with my religious beliefs.”

“Being ethical is doing what the law requires.”

“Ethics consists of the standards of behavior our society accepts.”

“I don’t know what the word means.”

Raymond Baumhart

[quiverfull]

#41546

If one accepts relativism in his vision of morals, then ethics by definition cease to exist. Me-centric self absorption and a self satisfying-at-all-costs approach to life, hunting, whatever, is what got us in the pickle we are in today. We need sportsmen, not just hunters, to populate the woods and fields and spawn and nurture the next generation of outdoorsmen and women. A bunch of loose filaments blowing in the wind, already separated, are easily broken. A group of such strands, twisted together by the force of what is right and honorable is, like a well made Flemish bowstring, difficult indeed to break. Not to mention, adequate to the task at hand. This is why I count my success afield by the degree of challenge, the fair chase, the mastery of my weapons and hunting skills and not by body count. It is also why I enjoy lasting, real, Band of Brothers style friendships with my hunting buddies; we are all grounded on the same foundation, in it for the good of all, and willing to make sacrifice toward that end. Just sayin’…..JB

[Fallguy]

#42582

[quote=Steve Graf]

While baiting may reduce the uncertainty, it doesn’t affect the other 3 legs of the ethics table. But I would argue that the difference between baiting and not baiting is way less than the difference between a trad bow and a scoped rifle.

Should we throw rifles out with the bait?

Rifles have an advantage over bows correct so we shorten the season. Steve just for argument sake should we consider the individual that puts out bait and removes it at the end of the day ethical? It would seem that they are creating “Pavlov’s Dog”. Then they can shoot a deer of their choosing at a time and place of their choosing. It seems closer to shopping than hunting. Also why is it unacceptable to bait waterfowl? I believe it is an unfair advantage. It is my belief that the skill factor goes down when you can place a pile of food and sit back and pick your prize.

[Stephen Graf]

#43190

Fallguy wrote: Rifles have an advantage over bows correct so we shorten the season. Steve just for argument sake should we consider the individual that puts out bait and removes it at the end of the day ethical? It would seem that they are creating “Pavlov’s Dog”. Then they can shoot a deer of their choosing at a time and place of their choosing. It seems closer to shopping than hunting. Also why is it unacceptable to bait waterfowl? I believe it is an unfair advantage. It is my belief that the skill factor goes down when you can place a pile of food and sit back and pick your prize.

I don’t disagree with your sentiments, but…

What I am saying (what I learned from the article) is that it isn’t enough to “feel” something is wrong. If you feel something is wrong, but can give no other justification, then it is a preference. It’s not fair to impose our feelings on other people. That’s not relativism in ethics. That’s decent human behavior.

Going back to our 4 legs,

-Uncertain Outcome

-Clean Kill

-Limited Take

-Eat what you kill

Baiting can be said to increase the chance for a clean kill, while it does reduce (but not eliminate) the uncertain outcome. Which is more important?

I think it also increases the the opportunity to Eat what you Kill. If you have a better chance to choose what deer to kill, (gnarly buck vs tasty doe).

All I am saying is that if we can’t justify our “preferences” with logic and fact, then we shouldn’t condemn others for having different “preferences”.

I for one would like to hear a strong argument against baiting. I’ve been trying to figure this out for a long time in the back of my head, but have not been able to do it. I thought it was a personal failing. But now I think maybe there just isn’t a good general argument.

There are good specific arguments against baiting, as in the case of CWD for example. But a general argument based on the 4 legs of the ethics table that we all accept?

[Jason Wesbrock]

#43535

Steve Graf wrote: [quote=Fallguy]

All I am saying is that if we can’t justify our “preferences” with logic and fact, then we shouldn’t condemn others for having different “preferences”.

Very well said.

[Mark Turton]

#44471

This thread makes interesting reading, Ive just been looking at some dictionary definitions for the word ‘ethic’ and I’m not sure it applies as I thought it should for the following reason.

I’ll spare you the full dictionary definitions and leave you free to explore them as you think fit, Ethics is defined in subtly different ways in the various dictionaries Ive consulted, they refer to Christian ethics, Medical ethics, Virtues, Duty, a set of principles of right conduct.

But all these depend upon the culture your from, the political, tribal, family principles that you adhere too.

Are we not as hunters embracing traditional values not bound by a ‘moral code’ that is to abide by the law of the land, ensure a clean kill, use all that we can from the kill, respect the environment those we find in it and the nature, and pass on our knowledge and experience to ensure that good moral principles continue with the next generation.

Not wanting to get into religion and politics but Id much rather have a ‘moral code’ to abide by than be held to account by the political and religious elite.

Mark.

[quiverfull]

#44549

Pot, I agree that ethics vary by culture, and that there are even regional issues within the US of A that may require slightly different approaches to taking game. In my state, Georgia, for instance, we are up to our eyeballs in deer, and suffer much damage from wild pigs also. I realize that as a management tool, we need more hunters going after these beasts, and that not all of them are going to want to put in the work to become trad bow hunters. Plus, to harvest at levels we need to maintain ideal game populations, we need guns, crossbows, 80% let off compounds, etc. It is, however, disturbing to me that organizations like P&Y are dumbing down their trophy requirements. That will probably never affect me, as I lack the resources to be a serious trophy hunter, and for that matter the desire. I guess that it should be that I must take pride in my own mind, and influence as many others toward this way of thinking, that I will continue to “do it the hard way”. Honestly, if I needed meat to fed my family, I would break out a rifle, as boiled ethics are not very nourishing. But, under present circumstances, I can afford to do it my way. It is not, as they say, a “hill to die on” for me, like some more meaty subjects, but yet a peculiarity that, at least to me, lets me apart and gives me much more satisfaction. Just my 2 cents.

[David Bartlett]

#45149

“Ethics is what you do when no one is watching”

On another note regarding keeping the “Hunt” in Hunting, I was not lucky enough to draw a permit in the Maine Moose Lottery for 2014. No great disaster as I can still go “Hunting” Moose, I just cannot shoot! A win for me and the Moose for this year.

[quiverfull]

#45168

Now, David, that’s what I’m talking about! Good for you. Don’t get stomped into a cranberry bog, but enjoy your beautiful state and that incredible game animal. Moose is on my bucket list, too, just have to move so I’ll have a wall big enough to hang a head on. Well, maybe I’ll be like you and just hang a picture!

[Mad Dog Mike]

#46793

With the way the “hunt” is going, why not just attach a Claymoore mine to a trail camera, use your drone to view and set it off, “whacking” the poor prey, then ride up on your ATV and claim your prize so that your ego can be boosted in the now very modern, pro-tech, AMO ass kissing P&Y? It sure ain’t the way I was raised and hunt even now. Our season here in Montana is being looked at, TO CUT LENGTH of the season, due to the techno crowd having way too much harvesting success. sad day

[Mark Turton]

#46832

Mad Dog, you’re as cynical as I am.

Only a few years ago trail cams, drones, range finders etc were little more than comic book gadgets, for so many all over the globe hunting is being conducted as though it were warfare.

Do we right off those that rely on these gadgets to fill a tag and put all our effort into promoting moral/ethical traditional values in hunting to preserve the distinction between traditional methods and concentrate on the next generation.

I may be a continent away and use the term ‘we’ but we have all the same issues here plus some.

Mark.

[Mad Dog Mike]

#46865

And to boot, during a recent meeting, as I am now an officially termed alumnus of MT FWP Citizen Advisory Council, the words “EITHER-OR” popped up. The gun hunters in Montana are some of the laziest hunters I have ever seen, and the back-logging roads are beat to hell every season due to road hunting. They, however, outnumber us greatly. 2 different areas in NW Montana were announced that those hunters (gun) were getting very PO’d at the success we, as bowhunters, are having..ie the techno side. Thus our regional bio said time to review season lengths..when is enough enough?????? Bowhunting is supposed to be enjoyable and I hunt for the personal ethical satisfaction that comes from getting close, whether I take the shot or not. We are at a crossroads and the road ahead is bad. At age 65, I am glad I have less road ahead than most, but my son may have seen the best years the post WW2 group gave us

[quiverfull]

#46867

Preachin’ to the choir, Mike. Why not substitute a small thermonuclear device for the Claymore and have the drone pick up the cooked beast and deliver it to your dinner table?

It’s a real catch 22; we need more hunters, for political clout, but it seems the newbies are mostly interested in 6.5 mm Maxi Uber Mag rifles or 370 fps. compound bows and crossbows. I saw a video of a Hoyt pro shooter popping balloons at 160 yards, and stating that he is confident out to 80 yards on game, under the “right” conditions. Holy crap! An archery sniper!

[Mad Dog Mike]

#47440

Well that is why I even ask. With what P&Y have done, now that the old trad guys are out and Tom TECHNO Nelson is in charge, all this stuff they need is about to be OK’d. A box to neutralize my scent, a drone, an ATV, trail cams, why not go to auto loading and shooting compounds, and it goes on and on. BUT does this make the person who uses it a better hunter, ie to put the hunt in the hunt? I doubt it is. Hunting is that aspect of life that pits me against an animal that can out-smell me, out-hear me, out see me in most cases, and I am trying to harvest it at ranges that most compound shooters do not even try to get to…25 yards or less. My late Colonel father, stated upon seeing his first compound, “The wilderness will never be the same.!” Boy is that a thought. And he was a longbow man, and picked on me about shooting a recurve ha ha. Seasons are about to be shortened due to success increases, as you have to kill to get that ego boost for the record book. So why not demand P&Y stop this crap,,,enough is enough, and PBS be demanded to be a leader and say enough? Good question

[harmonm]

#54014

Ok, I am sure this will go over like the proverbial lead balloon…in the spirit of keeping the hunt in hunting…Two things to consider that really seem to be at the root of the negatives in the hunting world today.

If you have a compelling desire after a kill to have your picture taken with the animal or you are hunting with the goal of killing an animal that “makes the book” then I feel sorry for you. I believe you are missing out on most of what hunting has to offer.

Consider a change of attitude because until hunting moves past the self promotion stage it will continue a downward spiral.

New hunters will most follow the example of those that mentor them in the field. What kind of example are we setting?

[tailfeather]

#54709

You are saying taking a picture with a hunter-killed animal is wrong and worthy of pity?

I respectfully disagree. I cherish all my hunting photos….yes, including photos of animals. I don’t see it as much different than the worldwide examples of prehistoric cave art depicting the hunt.

Hunting is an ancient art and is historically socially and culturally important, though nowadays in smaller social circles. As long as we have been human, there seems to have been a desire to remember, share, and honor the hunt through recording it as art or tale. I see tasteful hunting photos as a continuation of that.

For me personally it is not a matter of boasting about a conquest, or or self promotion. It is a way to honor and remember that day, the animal, and the hunt.

With that said, I agree that many hunting photos plastered all over the net and in magazines are absolutely awful and send exactly the wrong message. But that is a relection of that person and their unfortunate hunting worldview (the influences of which are another discussion), not a general condemnation of hunting photography.

[skinner biscuit]

#54809

In my home state when the inline muzzleloaders came on the scene,the harvest rates went out the window.A survey was sent out asking would people like weapons restrictions or shorter seasons? They choose weapons restrictions,open ignition only,no sabots,scopes or pellitized powder.In my opinion the muzzleloading community made the right choice. If we are lucky, we bowhunters might be given this choice.Sad to say it though ,I don’t see the bowhunting community making the same right choice.

[BuckyT]

#54816

tailfeather wrote: You are saying taking a picture with a hunter-killed animal is wrong and worthy of pity?

I respectfully disagree. I cherish all my hunting photos….yes, including photos of animals. I don’t see it as much different than the worldwide examples of prehistoric cave art depicting the hunt.

Hunting is an ancient art and is historically socially and culturally important, though nowadays in smaller social circles. As long as we have been human, there seems to have been a desire to remember, share, and honor the hunt through recording it as art or tale. I see tasteful hunting photos as a continuation of that.

For me personally it is not a matter of boasting about a conquest, or or self promotion. It is a way to honor and remember that day, the animal, and the hunt.

With that said, I agree that many hunting photos plastered all over the net and in magazines are absolutely awful and send exactly the wrong message. But that is a relection of that person and their unfortunate hunting worldview (the influences of which are another discussion), not a general condemnation of hunting photography.

I have over 3 albums slap filled up with hunting photos.

I sit down with my 6yr old and tell him about the hunts each photo represents. I’m amazed how I can still recall each hunt with vivid and crisp memories!

Some of the photos are nice, others are pretty raw… But .. a hunt is a bloody endeaver when it turns out to be successful. I see no reason to hide it or soften it up for unknowing audiences.

Like you said Feather, nothing boastful about it. Simply great memories from past hunts!

[harmonm]

#55059

You are saying taking a picture with a hunter-killed animal is wrong and worthy of pity?

No, I apologize, it is hard to reply in the limited area of a forum and explain context with every post. The comments were made in the context of the original post and most that followed, establishing a basis for hunting ethics. Perhaps another way of saying it…

A persons reason/goals for hunting will affect how they think and act in the field, the ethics they act upon. When the goal of the hunt is hero picture or an award – making the book for instance, then that is to what I was referring.

[Fallguy]

#55104

I understood the point you were trying to make Harmon. If you only goal at the beginning of the hunt or season is a picture with a large buck or bull then your reasons for hunting are all out of whack.

[tailfeather]

#55483

I understand, Harmon. Sometimes I scan so fast without re-reading previous comments.:oops: I understand your point, and agree.:D

[Author]

Posts