The Morals and Ethics of Hunting - Why Should We All Agree?

[Royal27]

I think you need to re-think your argument: Because it's legal?

All three of your items, Abortion, Socialized medicine, and Homosexual acts and marriage previously were Illegal.

I see your point. I should have said because it's legal now. I picked the examples more because they were controversial than illegal at one point. But it's fairly easy to come up with legal to illegal as well.

• Slavery
• Murder of indigenous peoples
• Drinking and driving
• Etc...

And to be clear here. I'm much more interested in having the conversation than making an argument or trying to get someone to agree with my point of view here.

 

[Clayton Holland]

Gizmo makes some good points regarding the law as the minimum standard. Now we just need the laws to be influenced by those who hold hunting and wildlife management dear and not those who want to stop it.

 

[gizmo]

Individuals own or use firearms for a host of different (legal ) reasons and we need to respect that and remain together.
Hunting however is only one of the reasons for firearm ownership. For this to remain a legitimate reason we also need to stick together but make sure there are no bad apples within the bunch. I believe there should be some form of "code of conduct" for hunting that includes "the morals and ethics of hunting" (over and above legal requirements). To do business these days in a world of social media requires all organisations to adopt a code that sets out how members of your organisation should go about their business. Look around how fast things are changing and unless we also adapt to change we will be like the ostrich with his head in the sand. (You will not be prepared for what is coming up behind you).

Neale on the surface that sounds great to have an enforceable code of ethics but it's not practical or possible without infringing upon the rights of others. Who is going to set these standards? You say we hunters, who is we? Does my input count? Does yours? What about the guy in Tanzania that substance hunts for his family? There is no practical way nor fair way. What if I have a say and you don't and you disagree with me? Does that mean it should be my way despite what you feel is acceptable. Especially if I was to tell you that you couldn't do something that is perfectly legal and you see as acceptable but I don't. What right do I have to tell you otherwise. What right would you have to tell me the same. Even if you were able to sit every hunter on earth down could a mutually agreed upon code of conduct be established. No way. That is why laws are in place. That is also why beyond the realm of law it is up to the individual to establish there own set of ethics they are comfortable with.

 

[sheephunterab]

I've always said that if you put a group of hunters in a room and told them to come up with an agreed upon set of hunting ethics that the outcome would be all hunting would be abolished.

 

[Wheels]

Ethics are all individual. We may agree on some or disagree on some, but in the end, they are individual.

When the majority in a society share the same ethics, society becomes outraged when there is a perceived violation of societies ethics.

At that point, society makes rules regarding ethics and calls it law, which carries a punishment to those that break societies "ethics".

In the end, we are all human and have free choice. We will never completely agree on the definition of what is ethical.

 

[Neale]

Gizmo, I take your point. I think Clayton has hit the nail on the head. But to achieve this we need to unite and show the majority that our sport/liveihood/existence can be conducted in an ethical manner. There may be a fine line between "Hunting and Shooting" and individuals will certainly have there own "Ethics".
Is there common ground????

 

[gizmo]

Gizmo, I take your point. I think Clayton has hit the nail on the head. But to achieve this we need to unite and show the majority that our sport/liveihood/existence can be conducted in an ethical manner.

Absolutely and it is, the best thing we can do is obide by the law and not tolerate anyone who doesn't. Really, the vast majority of hunters are good and ethical people. Sure people make mistakes but there is a difference between mistakes and intentional law breaking. That's also what the legal system is for. Those who are convicted of breaking laws should be outcasted and the majority let it be known that behavior isnt tolerated not acceptable.
Ethics are an entirely different story and one that will never be wholly agreed upon so, we have to stick together on what is the common denominator, I.e. The law.

 

[Neale]

Maybe that is the case. I worked most of my life with an organisation who believed that to remain in business in the future they would have to develop a set of Safety/Environmental/Social/Cultural standards that exceeded the laws at that time. It was stated many times by management that the "Legal" was the minimal standard but to maintain and improve market share and achieve expectations of shareholders this minimium needed to be exceeded.

 

[johnnyblues]

WHO??? ME?????

No not you Royal! Lol

 

[gizmo]

Maybe that is the case. I worked most of my life with an organisation who believed that to remain in business in the future they would have to develop a set of Safety/Environmental/Social/Cultural standards that exceeded the laws at that time. It was stated many times by management that the "Legal" was the minimal standard but to maintain and improve market share and achieve expectations of shareholders this minimium needed to be exceeded.

Neale I completely understand where you are coming from. I also agree with the intent behind your thinking. Unfortunately, when it comes to this its not as cut and dry as we would like.

 

[billc]

Individuals own or use firearms for a host of different (legal ) reasons and we need to respect that and remain together.
Hunting however is only one of the reasons for firearm ownership. For this to remain a legitimate reason we also need to stick together but make sure there are no bad apples within the bunch. I believe there should be some form of "code of conduct" for hunting that includes "the morals and ethics of hunting" (over and above legal requirements). To do business these days in a world of social media requires all organisations to adopt a code that sets out how members of your organisation should go about their business. Look around how fast things are changing and unless we also adapt to change we will be like the ostrich with his head in the sand. (You will not be prepared for what is coming up behind you).

First off hunting is not all the same to everyone and not everyone does it through groups to enjoy it.Most will not let others decide that for them they go by the law of the land not what some group might think is moral or good ethics.

Hell we don't need to worry what is coming behind us now we can stop what is rolling over us right in front of us.

 

[Ray B]

the virtue or non-virtue of a particular action is sorted into various categories and the placement can change over time. The categories are Ethical, Unethical, Legal and Illegal. At any point in time an activity may be seen as ethical. then as public opinion changes the activity may shift into unethical but may still be legal. As public opinion continues to shift the activity can move into illegal. So (name your activity) is seen as ethical and the perpetrator praised. The results of the activity leave a negative residue. this negative is viewed by some as bad, so the idea that the activity is unethical takes root. As more and more people give more weight to the negative aspects of the action, to the point that the negative outweighs the positive, among the majority of voters or their representatives, the activity is banned or severely regulated, and thus the transition from widely accepted ethical behavior moves to illegal and perpetrators receiving of general contempt. This course has occurred in several aspects of hunting (baiting, use of dogs, shooting unaware prey, etc) in several jurisdictions. Several organizations publicize the positive aspects of hunting and other activities, but generally the responses are of an intellectual nature and the assault is led on an emotional basis; and to uniformed and uninvolved people, the emotional will generally win.

 

[K-man]

I agree with almost all of the other posts. I build houses and we have a "building code" which we must adhere to by law. I have many other builders in my area that build to a different standards, but none can be "worse" than the minimum. My favorite saying is that "code is the worst home you can legally build" I say this to apply the same situation to hunting. Many of us agree that just because it is legal, we may choose to adhere to a higher standard. It is not for me to mandate a higher standard to you, many factors are involved. I would suggest that most of us who have a stricter standard of ethics have been mentored at some point in our lives, and we need to remember to pass along that mentoring to the next generation or two. We must not stand on our pulpits and preach, we must walk with someone and show it to them. Thanks for the rant time.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

A number of rambling thoughts, questions and opinions, bear with me it's only Tuesday evening and I'm really wishing it were already Friday.

1) Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.

2) The issue of hunting is not a two sided coin. It is not black and white. There's a crap load of grey that at least for the time being I believe outnumbers the black and white. The grey is representative of the average non-hunter who really is ignorant to hunting and for the most part doesn't cross their mind.

3) It is the grey for which we must center our efforts. Do you think the anti's think for one moment that they're going to change the minds of us hunters anymore than we think we'll change their minds? My answer to that question is of course not. So who are they then targeting to side with them?

4) Unity amongst hunters is certainly important. However I reject the thinking of "you're either with us or against us." That if you take a position that isn't in line with the majority that you're now obviously one of "them."

5) If we don't police ourselves, who will?

6) I take no issue with controversial threads provided the facts supporting it are present. I don't believe fearing the anti's is a reason to avoid such subjects. In fact I believe quite the opposite. If we're willing to discuss those subjects openly and to work to correct bad situations, it goes to show those in the grey mentioned above that we are policing ourselves and do not need their help.

7) I think of AH as a place where we can discuss more than the latest PG trophy or CRF vs PF. Forums like this provide the opportunity to not just speak about local issues or national issues but also global issues regarding hunting. Hunting is supposed to be fun and I have no problem with the more lighthearted discussions. But unfortunately as we know not all matters hunting are fun. If we can't discuss such issues here, then where can we?

8) Don't make it personal! If you're in one of the more controversial threads and you turn it personal, you've already lost your argument. If a comment was directed at you that is insulting, don't return the insult as you've also now lost your argument. Making it personal is what leads to hunter disunity, not the subject. We chose the words we use and we chose how we react to others words. Choose wisely.

Enough of my dissertation for the night, sorry if you've made this far.

 

[gizmo]

A number of rambling thoughts, questions and opinions, bear with me it's only Tuesday evening and I'm really wishing it were already Friday.

1) Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's wrong.

2) The issue of hunting is not a two sided coin. It is not black and white. There's a crap load of grey that at least for the time being I believe outnumbers the black and white. The grey is representative of the average non-hunter who really is ignorant to hunting and for the most part doesn't cross their mind.

3) It is the grey for which we must center our efforts. Do you think the anti's think for one moment that they're going to change the minds of us hunters anymore than we think we'll change their minds? My answer to that question is of course not. So who are they then targeting to side with them?

4) Unity amongst hunters is certainly important. However I reject the thinking of "you're either with us or against us." That if you take a position that isn't in line with the majority that you're now obviously one of "them."

5) If we don't police ourselves, who will?

6) I take no issue with controversial threads provided the facts supporting it are present. I don't believe fearing the anti's is a reason to avoid such subjects. In fact I believe quite the opposite. If we're willing to discuss those subjects openly and to work to correct bad situations, it goes to show those in the grey mentioned above that we are policing ourselves and do not need their help.

7) I think of AH as a place where we can discuss more than the latest PG trophy or CRF vs PF. Forums like this provide the opportunity to not just speak about local issues or national issues but also global issues regarding hunting. Hunting is supposed to be fun and I have no problem with the more lighthearted discussions. But unfortunately as we know not all matters hunting are fun. If we can't discuss such issues here, then where can we?

8) Don't make it personal! If you're in one of the more controversial threads and you turn it personal, you've already lost your argument. If a comment was directed at you that is insulting, don't return the insult as you've also now lost your argument. Making it personal is what leads to hunter disunity, not the subject. We chose the words we use and we chose how we react to others words. Choose wisely.

Enough of my dissertation for the night, sorry if you've made this far.

Ooooh, very good points brought up here. Though I tend to lean toward the unity side I think you are spot on about open discussion and policing ourselves. Discussing things often leads to enlightenment but also toward division. Sooooo it's a difficult question. As far as getting feelings hurt, there again you are right. Often I think when one posts something they expect a certain response. When they don't get it, it leads to hurt feelings.
At the end of the day I love AH and the community it has built. It's the only social media site I've ever stuck with and I've been blessed to have developed some very near and dear friendships through. I've learned more from here than I'd ever imagined and at times I've been put in my place for good reason. That's what's great about it. In almost 99.999999% of situations disagreements are handled in a gentlemanly way and those rare instances when they aren't are generally resolved quickly.
Good post Phil and great thread Royal.

 

[Ray B]

As I discuss in my hunter education classes; If everyone completed a survey regarding hunting and their scores were tabulated, 0 being Anti-Hunting, 100 being Pro-Hunting, all would find themselves somewhere on the scale. In Washington about 5% of the population purchases a hunting license and so, would be near the topo of the scale; also, about 5% of the population are members of PETA, PAWS or another of the animal rights anti-hunting groups, and as such, would be anti-hunting. That leaves 90% of the population, who are the ones that determine through the ballot box the future of hunting. It should be the goal of every hunter to move everyone they meet, a little farther along the line toward pro-hunting. Keep in mind that in all contacts a negative contact requires 7 to 10 positive contacts to even things out.

 

[edward]

as the dead horse has been pulverized and continues to still be beaten i bid you all a long good night,at least until the dead horse gets up and runs again.with a new subject that the antis might not love.

 

[sierraone]

as the dead horse has been pulverized and continues to still be beaten i bid you all a long good night,at least until the dead horse gets up and runs again.with a new subject that the antis might not love.

Yes, time for a new subject as is due on the lion hunting thread also!

 

[Royal27]

It's interesting that a couple of themes seem to be at least somewhat recurring:

1. We must police ourselves
2. We should keep things quiet and to ourselves - deal with issues privately

So for those who propose both - how is it suggested that we do this in the age of information? In many ways (not all) the two look almost mutually exclusive. Seems to me that "spreading the word" has to be done via Internet and Social Media these days. I don't see any other way (personally) with our global society. Now that being said, I also think it increases the importance of being FACTUAL and ACCURACTE exponentially. That's our duty. We can no longer afford to speak based on hearsay and partial truths to make a point.

I just don't think we can affect positive change in a vacuum, as much as we may want to.

 

[Philip Glass]

Royal,

The problem is that what ever the hunting argument that has come up it was instituted in some way by a group of people who want us out of business. There is rarely a real legit argument from hunter to hunter that has much validity.
My first argument has nothing to do with hunting at all. It has to do with private property rights that without we are simply Communist China. The most prevalent argument in hunting in my world today revolves around high fences. If a person does not like high fences then hunt somewhere else and shut up. High fence is a Private Property issue. We have fought and died for generations for the rights US citizens have to own and manage their property. Without that we are nothing. Private property rights are why Texas hunting ranches have saved scores of species from extinction. Private property rights and ownership of game is why South Africa and Namibia now have millions of wild animals.
Now if there is a legit hunting argument that does not have anything to do with sovereign ownsership of land and animals then maybe we can have a civil discussion!
Regards,
Philip