I have noticed an interesting occurrence when it comes to hunting ethics. It seems that the region of the country and the hunting ethics in the family that one grows up in determines a hunter's ethics. Let me give some examples:
Example #1 I know someone who grew up in upstate New York who is totally fine "party hunting". That is, it doesn't matter who has the deer tag, anyone in the hunting party can take the shot and "we'll figure out the tags later". Then, if too many deer are taken, oh well, some will just go into the freezer without a tag. If hunting his family's land, he rarely even bothers getting a tag. It seems the attitude there acknowledges that there are too many whitetails there so they take care of it, legal or not.
Example #2 Last year, I shot a traditional 3-D shoot with a group of guys that I met at the shoot. As we were shooting, one of the gentleman went on a tyrade about how unethical it was that hunters in Texas tend to use feeders to bait deer. "That's not hunting" he said, even though totally legal in Texas. About an hour later, this same gentleman stated that the best way to hunt blacktail deer was to get some good dogs trained to run the deer to you and a flat shooting rifle. I imagine that some Texas corn-feeder hunters would be totally appalled with the thought of running deer with dogs, although totally legal here in California.
Example #3 I have heard hunters in Montana say that it's not ethical to use trail cameras (it's illegal during the season in MT) but tell that to a Midwest whitetail hunter.
Example #4 In California, it is considered the unpardonable sin to shoot a doe deer (and not legal for most of the state) where in other states you have to shoot a doe before you can shoot a buck.
I'm sure there are lots of other examples but my point: Perhaps we should have a strict personal understanding of our own ethics that we are comfortable with and stick to those tenaciously but, cut our fellow hunters some slack when it comes to hunting ethics, understanding that regional cultural differences exist and there is no "One size fits all" when it comes to hunting ethics. Your thoughts?
I agree that there are many factors that affect a persons hunting ethics. I remember first hearing that they hunted deer with dogs down south (I believe at the time it was Georgia). I thought that was terrible and definitely not "fair chase". However, I didn't think twice about hunting rabbits with a dog and shotgun . Go figure!
I also had reservations about baiting bears, but have since shot one off a bait.
Personally, I separate legal and ethical in my own mind. For me, illegal is "off limits". No justification for that. I feel a responsibility to always operate within all known hunting regulations. This, I feel, is my contribution to the overall good of society (including the privilege to hunt). Not just for my benefit, but for the benefit of everyone.
A few years ago I had trail camera pics of a mature buck. We called him "freaky", due to his non-typical right beam. We had a "earn your second buck" rule at the time. I shot a small 8 early in the season and then set out to take the required doe so I could hunt exclusively for Freaky. Well, I couldn't find a doe, which isn't usually that hard. You guessed it. One morning Freaky strolls in and stops at 15 yards. I've heard of people checking in "phantom does" in such cases. We have electronic check in which would make it easy. Although tempted, I passed him. We never seen that buck again. Another factor in my decision to pass on the largest whitetail I've ever seen during season is my personal moral compass. I could not lie.
This is a very interesting topic. I'll be watching. Good to hear from you.
From what I've seen it's more cultural than regional. Around here, driving deer is popular. I hate it. I don't protest or rant about it, but I wont do it. In Wisconsin you can buy as many antlerless tags as you want until the quota is filled. I don't shoot does or fawns, and get labeled a trophy hunter for it. It's nothing to do with trophy hunting, I figure there's plenty of others killing anything that's brown, and frankly I'd rather leave the does to repopulate and keep the herd thriving. Not a popular train of thought around here. I keep my freezer stocked with meat from bucks as it is.
Now, my ethics got started with my fathers influence (who is technically a life long trophy hunter) despite other influence in family and friends. But throughout my life my hunting philosophy has evolved due to logic and reasoning on my own situation.
I'd wager that most hunters who stick with it long enough, and especially the traditional community, go through a similar evolution throughout their lives, regardless the end result.
My short answer is, "Yes". We are all products of our environment to a large degree. Common practices within our family and the area in which we live strongly affect our "ethics". True some may change hunting habits over time but, in my opinion, not likely.
Ethics around here is hit and miss per individual. As far as your numbered issues, all but the last one to me is unethical. whether one shoots a doe or not is totally a management issue.
Fair chase is always an interesting term. That is, obviously there is a fine line and in most cases the judgement is somewhat subjective. It seems most folks make a determination of ethics based on some sense of difficultly in the pursuit. To make matters even more complicated is when people make a judgement based on factors of thier regional environment. For instance hunting feeders vs food plots. Dogs, party drives, fences, ozonics, you name it.
Also, something to think about is your motivation for pursuit. Is it sport, or is it sustenance, or a little bit of both?
I personally like to form opinions based on whether a method is resource sustainable. That is, does a specific method adhere to conservation guidelines and manageability. Whether or not I feel a method is "hunting", is somewhat personal.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
... so I tend to think it is somewhat regional based soley on game populations by region and which methods can be sustained. That is of course assuming all game laws are chosen based on studies and not just based on personal feelings.
It does bother me when people paint with broad brushes... ie when a food plot or corn feild hunter judges a South Texas feeder hunter and vice versa.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Very nice post, Doug!
Behind some of these behaviors there factors, which may vary from region to region.
Hunting game with dogs often doesn't give you time to be selective of sex/age of what you shoot. That is fine for animals with a numerous litter, such as rabbits and pigs. Deer usually have a smaller litter size (1-2 fawns per year) and hunting by dog might decimate its population. Of course, if you are in an area with few hunters/limited access, the impact might be reduced, so it depends on the territory. Last winter I was invited to a deer hunt with dogs, but that was in a very large area and hunting was limited to one day every 1-2 years.
I shudder a bit when I hear people saying "why did you shoot a doe?". The idea of harvesting only males is a bit of an old one, and it has been demonstrated that skewing the male/female ratio too far can be very detrimental to the populations, particularly in cold climates. That is because when there are not enough adult males, the younger ones become sexually active before they normally would. This means they spent their time fighting/defending the territory/looking for females instead of feeding. When winter arrives they are too weak and die. Easy to see how this might become a cycle, the less the males, the more they die. That is the reason why in some areas in Europe we have to tag a doe before we can tag a buck, or in some cases doe tags are given to younger hunters, and older ones can draft a buck tag. For what I hear some states here have similar policies. Once again, it depends on the region and on the number of hunters; I guess in warmer climates the dynamics might be different.
Personally, if it's legal and edible I go for it. I haven't harvested anything by bow yet, so I'll take what comes around. I have never been a trophy hunter, not even by gun, but I have heard people saying that "we are not animals, why would you even shoot something that does not have a trophy...?!" To each their own I guess, as long as they don't prevent me from shooting a doe. :P
I don't eat antlers :thumbsup:
Also, an excessive pressure only on older males with big trophies might be detrimental to the quality of the trophies on the long run. If people shoot exclusively animals with large trophies, they end up pressuring the species to have small trophies: animals that tend to have smaller trophies are more likely to survive and breed, while the ones with big antlers/horns are more likely to be harvested. That is another reason I tend not to pass anything as long as it is legal. Adult animals tend to be the best breeders, and harvesting a younger one actually has less of an impact on the population.
Quote from: SwampRabbit on August 19, 2018, 07:58:56 PM
... so I tend to think it is somewhat regional based soley on game populations by region and which methods can be sustained. That is of course assuming all game laws are chosen based on studies and not just based on personal feelings.
It does bother me when people paint with broad brushes... ie when a food plot or corn feild hunter judges a South Texas feeder hunter and vice versa.
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
:thumbsup:
I think region is only one part of personal ethics. Local laws, population density, hunting opportunities(time and land), goal(meat, trophy, relaxation) and other things all play into one's personal ethics.
I don't believe we should fault another for their personal ethics just because they are not the same as ours. As long as they play by the rules!!
I agree, how one is raised hunting has a lot to do with molding one's personal ethic. I started hunting in Indiana. Therefore, according to law, no baiting, no dogs, and shooting does is fine. I've lived and hunted in states where other things are legal but I have no interest.
Another thing that can impact one's "ethic" at certain times and places is what the landowner wants. If the landowner says no does or only large bucks, I must adopt that constraint while there. I've hunted places where the landowner wanted more liberal harvest than the law allowed (antelope and whitetails), of course I declined compliance.
My personal ethic starts with what is legal. However, my ethic may be more strict than what is allowed.
I also think one's personal ethic may change (likely) as they are exposed to other people and their techniques and age/ability. I don't criticize another's ethic UNLESS it is illegal. I've lost a few hunting spots over the years because of insisting that everyone follow the law.
Quote from: madmaxthc on August 19, 2018, 09:26:59 PM
Also, an excessive pressure only on older males with big trophies might be detrimental to the quality of the trophies on the long run. If people shoot exclusively animals with large trophies, they end up pressuring the species to have small trophies: animals that tend to have smaller trophies are more likely to survive and breed, while the ones with big antlers/horns are more likely to be harvested. That is another reason I tend not to pass anything as long as it is legal. Adult animals tend to be the best breeders, and harvesting a younger one actually has less of an impact on the population.
I'd like to note that I'm not advocating buck only across the board, it's a local balance issue to my mind. Alot of local hunters I've known, when they do think on conservation, usually fall back on "the DNR says I can shoot 5 does this season so they must be overpopulated" without actually looking at the area they hunt. The DNR is a relatively small outfit for the task at hand, most of the time the best they can do is based on educated guesses on the larger picture. And that's without the political influence that comes with any government organization.
Laws are regional. Ethics are individual.
All great and well thought out feedback, guys. Thanks.
Laws are legal. Morals are universal. Ethics are always situational.
If I could, I'd take fawns & spikes while preserving those animals with proven wariness. But it isn't legal.
I'll never take a shot that I think may miss the vitals or where recovery was impossible. I also don't animals I can't eat or otherwise have no use for once they're dead (pests like rats and some birds being the exceptions). That's my moral code.
I've hunted over feeders, shot a doe, etc. where legal and where I was confident that populations were high. But I wouldn't advocate that on my home turf where our success rates are a dismal 5%. Yet if the economy collapsed & I had to feed my family, I do any of those things without a second thought. That's ethics.
From what I see hunters are a product of there mentors reguardless of region. If some dirtbag takes his boy out poaching one night I would be willing to bet that kid will grow up with no respect for game laws much less anything remotely close to ethics.
There's many hunting practices that I personally frown upon, but they are legal so I just worry about me and what makes me happy. The game of chess is where it's at for me. But I also feel hunting is a lot like religion u start telling folks what's right, wrong or indifferent tempers are gonna flare.
I surround myself with like minded traditional Bowhunters to shield from the slobs.
Legal is not always ethical, ethical is not always legal.
I think most of us would dispatch a severely injured animal whether it was shot or hit by a car. Legally would probably be wrong, but ethically it would be the right thing to do. There may not be time to get permission, and even if there is, it may not be granted. I won't watch an animal suffer just to wait for an authorized person to come and dispatch it.
It's legal here to kill a doe with spotted fawns, ethically I think it's wrong.
Parts of our state is legal to bait, the rest of the state it's illegal. Ethical goes with the legality in that situation.
To a large degree I'm sure they probably are, but I suspect the job of Fish & Wildlife depts. in the various states face drastically different challenges, i.e. managing game populations, controlling natural predation, stemming the spread of CWD, etc. Stampeding bison over cliffs would be frowned on today, but nobody can argue it wasn't darned effective if there were lots of Native American mouths to feed.
Part of my ethic has always been to eat, or at least try to eat, whatever I hunt. A corollary to this is to not shoot at anything I don't have an excellent chance of killing. I find this ethic getting stronger as I get older. At one time, I would take a shot at non-game animals, such as jackrabbits, if I had a chance. Then one day when I was elk hunting with my brother-in-law, we were comparing notes mid-day, and he asked me how my morning went. I told him I hadn't seen any elk, but took a shot at a jackrabbit. He asked me why I did that, since I couldn't eat it. It wasn't in a mean way; I think he just wanted to know why I would do that. I didn't really have a good reason, other than that I wanted to. Bunny rabbits are different; if I had shot a bunny rabbit, we would have cooked it right there for lunch. Something about that made me rethink my ethics, and now I don't shoot unless I have a good reason. I suppose depredation of pests would be a good enough reason, but I haven't been in a situation where I needed to depredate any pests lately.
I feel the same way about fishing. I went into a hot shot fly fishing store here in Sacramento to buy some flys for my wife before one of our backpacking trips. I, of course, wanted barbed flys because we would be fishing to eat on our trip. The salesman turned his nose up at me and said that they didn't sell barbed flys there, as if I had asked for some fish poison. I told him I didn't believe in torturing fish; I believed in eating them. Needless to say, neither one of us made a new friend that day. Walmart had barbed flys for sale.
Good discussion, with input from people that I would like to share a camp with one day. I have stated for a long time that an individual's view of hunting is largely a provincial one. Ever see those surveys on social media asking you how many states you have visited? Most people don't get too far from home. The vast majority of hunters never venture outside their state. Most who do, rarely get outside their region. If you are fortunate, as some here are, to travel across the country hunting, you are definitely in the minority. People's perceptions are limited by their experiences. The internet is a poor substitute for immersion into a cultural experience like hunting.
Within the scope of your experience, an individual should definitely have and live by a personal code. I think where we get into conflict is by applying those ideas to a grander scale. There would be no hunting in much of Africa if it weren't for high fences protecting game animals from poaching. There would not be any practical black bear hunting in densely packed north Canadian forests without baiting. Cat hunting would be an incidental experience without running dogs. There are dozens of other similar examples linked to method of take, which is the most common topic of conversation regarding ethics.
Despite the fact that I think there are situational and regional considerations that impact our decisions in the field, I do think that ethics are important to the future of the hunting experience. I think that the comments above regarding sustainability issues, health of the herd, managing populations, and following game laws are what determine our actions as being ethical. To that, I would add the ability to consistently and humanely harvest game with the method that you are employing.
I guess you can look on that biblical principle; Jugde not lest ye be judged also.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Game laws need to be updated to match the conditions and the situations. In Iowa tree stand laws needed to be added as bowhunter numbers increased and some public woods were getting permanently claim staked by hunters with permanent tree stands. Hunters are coming out with pickup loads of tree stands attempting to control entire small public hunting lands for their private use. The law has been adjusted to state that all blinds ground or lofted in trees are public property. That is not how the hunters see it. That law is once again in need of clarification and adjustment because of hunters' practices. When CB radios were the rage, a law was needed to ban the use of them during hunting. Such direct communications was taking an unfair advantage and adding insane behavior to those chasing deer to death. A game warden believes that cameras on public land should be banned. Some 'hunters' are going so far as to put cameras at entrance areas on public land, just to see who is hunting the grounds. I have had two people come up to me just last year and show me pictures of my car and my wife and myself by our car and in the woods a month before the deer season. Both individuals told me that I was in 'their' spot and asked if I could not go there anymore. Funny, they don't go up to the gangs of foreign kids that go in and shoot at anything and everything with guns, I bet they get their picture taken too. 1500 public acres and it is 'their spot'. That same game warden says that is voyeurism and it is illegal, he also believes that cameras that are iPhone linked break the electronics communication rules, He stated about satellite linked cameras, "More efficient and better than having a buddy with a two way radio and a pair of binoculars. When we catch people using cell phones directing gun hunter drives, we throw the book at them. Tell me, what is so different about that satellite linked camera and two way radios telling hunters when and where the deer are." When mechanical and technological advantages get too far, adjustments get made. Things like tightening up on game tags issued, season lengths, area accesses and other things, but going against corporate makers of things like cameras and crossbows and offload vehicles remain free and clear of game laws. Once a crossbow gets into a state it will remain, the adjustments will be loaded onto the hunters, not the corporation that makes the crossbow.
I know many of my friends will use trail cams and set up bait stations which is legal in my area but I personally don't do it for a few reasons. One being it cost money to buy the corn and two you need to travel in and out and to me that is more of your scent being spread around.
I also don't use a trail cam cause of several reasons.
One they cost money,two they need to be checked and three I like to be surprised at what is around and not knowing keeps it more exciting but I don't care that my friends use them.
Now I do like to use what our Creator has put in place for game to eat like white Oaks ,foliage or if there is a field of Corn or Soybeans they funnel to.
I on the other hand do use a cover up ground spray and use a grunt tube to try and coax a deer in .
I use natural down trees and look for root balls and a water source as well.
I may use a bottle of lure but don't waste a lot of money on that either.
If my buddy has any I top off my containers with what he paid for .I figure I made him enough strings I don't mind letting him freshen my scent wicks if you follow me lol :thumbsup:
if what people do does not infringe on others, I consider that. However, last year I had a new one. I got my picture taken on Labor Day weekend on public land, the individual told me that he claimed the area with his trail cams and flags. Tree stands are not legal at that time, so now they are hanging plastic flags to claim where they intend to put their tree stands? I believe the technical term for that would be 'littering'.
Yes, regional, due to differences in game species and the kind of habitat we hunt. In the deep South, hunting with dogs is considered by some to be necessary, because the ground cover is so thick the deer have to be routed out with dogs. Across the Mississippi to the West, we tend to hunt much more open ground where it's much easier to see game while still hunting. Other situations vary with the habitat, too. When in Rome...
Quote from: Doug_K on August 20, 2018, 08:39:41 AM
I'd like to note that I'm not advocating buck only across the board, it's a local balance issue to my mind. Alot of local hunters I've known, when they do think on conservation, usually fall back on "the DNR says I can shoot 5 does this season so they must be overpopulated" without actually looking at the area they hunt. The DNR is a relatively small outfit for the task at hand, most of the time the best they can do is based on educated guesses on the larger picture. And that's without the political influence that comes with any government organization.
Hi, Dough,
I did not mean for the post to be a personal attack, I hope it did not look as such. I agree with you, hunting regulations are not perfect, and while ecological models are based on math, there are factors, such as political pressure and poaching, that are difficult to control. I think you're right, the objective of governmental organizations is necessarily long term sustainability, and rules might need to be adjusted as needed.
Best,
Max
Quote from: madmaxthc on August 20, 2018, 08:13:02 PM
Hi, Dough,
I did not mean for the post to be a personal attack, I hope it did not look as such. I agree with you, hunting regulations are not perfect, and while ecological models are based on math, there are factors, such as political pressure and poaching, that are difficult to control. I think you're right, the objective of governmental organizations is necessarily long term sustainability, and rules might need to be adjusted as needed.
Best,
Max
No worries there Max, just wanted to clarify before someone got the wrong idea.
Quote from: Doug_K on August 20, 2018, 08:53:23 PM
No worries there Max, just wanted to clarify before someone got the wrong idea.
Cool, glad to hear that
:thumbsup:
Unfortunately we live in monkey see monkey do world.
It is the same with hunting practices, these trends spread like wildfires until they reach an area with opposing trends and stop.
The hunter that follows his own moral compass in spite of what everyone else is doing around him is a rare bird indeed and a breath of fresh air in a sea of lock step crowd followers.
Wayne Boone's post shows him to be just that kind of exceptional hunter, following his own moral comapass and a credit to the sport.
I managed a large 50 member hunting club for 15 years, QDM with very strict rules and a huge member turnover. We had to take in just about anyone who wanted to join just to keep the lease paid.
I finally walked away because I couldn't handle the way our John Q Public type members conducted themselves on the lease.
Here I what I found; 20% of the members were ethical hunters all the time, hard working, good men and a joy to be around. 60% considered themselves to be ethical hunters and would be most of the time, they could and would tip to the darkside occasionally if no one was looking and they thought they could get away with shooting a club illegal deer. The remailing 20% were downright criminal, no ethics, no honor and no respect for game. They would actually spotlight and kill deer on our food plots at night after everyone else had left the lease.
Ethics I was always taught was knowing right from wrong and conducting yourself that way whether someone is watching or not. Kinda blows #1 out of the water. No one would "party" hunt in front of a game warden unless that was legal for starters. If they are not breaking the law for instance baiting where legal this isn't ethics. It's a sportsmanship call. What is sporting to you and that does vary person to person. Ethics we can make an excuse about but if you wouldn't do it w a CO watching it's not ethical.
Party hunting is legal with gun season here. It is one the of prime reasons some gun hunters go nuts chasing deer from section to section, trespassing their way across the county and lobbing 500 yard slugs at deer to keep them moving. The old idiotic head them off at the pass game. That kind of party hunting goes wrong more often than not. Once a C hunter came up to me and my wife while we were putting are stuff together to go home and said that he shot a nice fat yearling doe for my wife to tag. No one shoots a deer for my wife, especially not me. That kid had two choices, 1. He tags the deer and takes it home. 2. I call the game warden. He picked 1 and has hated me ever since.
^5 Lawrence
:thumbsup:
Quote from: pavan on August 21, 2018, 12:10:05 PM
Party hunting is legal with gun season here. It is one the of prime reasons some gun hunters go nuts chasing deer from section to section, trespassing their way across the county and lobbing 500 yard slugs at deer to keep them moving. The old idiotic head them off at the pass game. That kind of party hunting goes wrong more often than not. Once a C hunter came up to me and my wife while we were putting are stuff together to go home and said that he shot a nice fat yearling doe for my wife to tag. No one shoots a deer for my wife, especially not me. That kid had two choices, 1. He tags the deer and takes it home. 2. I call the game warden. He picked 1 and has hated me ever since.
You mean one tag issued to a "party" of hunters? That makes no sense to me! That is inviting game law infractions!
Quote from: fnshtr on August 21, 2018, 12:46:32 PM
You mean one tag issued to a "party" of hunters? That makes no sense to me! That is inviting game law infractions!
Actually it refers to everyone pooling the available tags and hunting until the quota is filled. In some places tags aren't actually assigned to an individual and it can work well. In fact, it is a much closer step towards managing the resource for specific harvest goals than assigning tags to individual licenses. A lot of large private landowners or large clubs in the south are given a set number of doe tags for the property. They are then shared as members see fit. There are shortfalls, however, and that is why party hunting as described is illegal in many places. Unfortunately, most hunting regulations are set up to manage people rather than resources. There is usually justification for that...
Quote from: gregg dudley on August 21, 2018, 01:09:06 PM
Quote from: fnshtr on August 21, 2018, 12:46:32 PM
You mean one tag issued to a "party" of hunters? That makes no sense to me! That is inviting game law infractions!
Actually it refers to everyone pooling the available tags and hunting until the quota is filled. In some places tags aren't actually assigned to an individual and it can work well. In fact, it is a much closer step towards managing the resource for specific harvest goals than assigning tags to individual licenses. A lot of large private landowners or large clubs in the south are given a set number of doe tags for the property. They are then shared as members see fit. There are shortfalls, however, and that is why party hunting as described is illegal in many places. Unfortunately, most hunting regulations are set up to manage people rather than resources. There is usually justification for that...
Thanks for the clarification. Totally unfamiliar with that concept.
Although there may be some regional trends, I know hunters in NY who do not fit the profile of the person you mentioned.
I think ethics are personal and different. I believe I need to be an ambassador for bowhunting at keep on the moral high ground. I tell people what I think about immoral actions in the field such as poaching.
I can only hope ethics and morals will sink in to some.
Party tag hunting makes it easy for a non-resident hunter with a doe-only tag to illegally kill a buck. Resident hunter in the party buys an either sex tag. Non-resident with the doe tag shoots a buck while party hunting with locals and puts an either sex tag purchased by the resident on the buck and then takes it home. This has happened in Iowa and money often changes hands where the grateful non-resident hunter rewards the local for using their tag.
Interesting topic Doug. After reading through the previous posts, I'd say I agree with all the above and maybe expand upon a couple aspects. I think Gregg Dudley hit on perhaps the biggest factor - range of experience and travel - very insightful post. For me, defining my goals is what drives my agenda, my methods, my success and ultimately, my personal ethics.
I believe most of the discussions on ethics are rooted in our tendency to elevate the animal we are pursuing past its status as being either food or a target of our bloodlust. Boiled down there are only those two reasons to hunt - sustenance or sport. Our personal reasons to hunt vary in degree along the line between those two. We then define our personal ethics by where we exist on that spectrum and fall into the trap of using our definitions to attempt to regulate others.
The relatively new (historically speaking) phenomenon of attributing some mystical worth to animals, especially whitetail deer, is causing a lot of this naval gazing. Our incredibly high standard of living and very easy lives have led us to be soft. We are constantly being challenged to find new ways to justify our participation in hunting. We've allowed those who don't hunt to define us. Instead of fighting back, we have collectively tried to reason with those who do not operate from a position of reason.
Since we are talking about hunting, death of an individual animal is the desired result of our pursuit. Where the ethics discussion goes awry is when one person tells another how they should pursue and kill that animal within the law. Some seem to think that if they shoot an 8 pt buck that it is somehow a more ethical death than if they had killed that very same deer as a button buck. Why? The very same animal is no longer breathing. It had no concept of time. The successful hunter in either case made a conscious decision to use a tag on that particular animal, and concluded that within the framework of laws, regulations and their personal needs and/or desires, that buck was an acceptable animal to kill for their needs. Why should anyone else have a say in that?
Here's my suggestion; those that like to hunt bears and deer over piles of donuts and corn from a tree stand outfitted with time-stamped trail cams stay quiet about the guys that like to shoot spotted fawns and does on drives. Unless someone is breaking a law, any hunter shaking their finger at another hunter to shame them is weakening our argument and the bonds of our ranks.
The question isn't about ethics Doug. The question is why do so many hunters feel the need to put other hunters down in the futile attempt to assuage perceived guilt they've allowed non-hunters and animal worshippers to put on them? It all boils down to some hunters trying to paint a prettier picture of how they kill animals than others who do it differently.
What i question about what gets called party hunting, is a loose group of guys with pickups and a tank full of gas start chasing deer in open country from one section to the next with generally two gunners in each pickup. They go out and shoot a bunch of deer and then try to decide who takes what home. how can that possibly be a calculable situation. The other one is when they have posted hunters, driving hunters and guys running back and forth playing pick up the other guys, then they drive a smaller river bottom and everybody starts shooting at every deer they see. I can tell exactly what happens very often. They do a tally to decide how many tags they have in the assembled loose group and then decide how many they are going to leave lay when they have exceeded the number of tags that they have. It happens all of the time in NW Iowa and the game wardens cannot possibly keep up with it. One year in Lyon county the game warden petitioned the state to ban the gun deer season because he felt the hunters were out of control and did not deserve a hunting season.
Once again what we have is a human problem not a legislative problem. I know we are too far down the road to avoid all the laws, but if people used common sense and a strong appreciation for natural resources then it wouldnt matter if a deer was shot over corn, or on someone elses tag because every animal taken home would be eaten and respected. Unfortunatly we are in a society where that is becoming a small percentage and pride driven hunting is now main stream. And yes I too have been guilty of this. I think it best to not dwell on tactics but emphasize the result of what an ethical hunter does with game after taken home. Just my 2 cents. And I appreciate everyones opinion and this site!
There are regional influences for certain but it boils down to personal choice. A few years ago I killed a beautiful 6x6 bull elk and I felt like I'd poached it.....just because I shot it with a rifle. That isn't really an ethical question but a question of preference. It had been so long since I'd used a firearm on a big game animal that it just didn't feel right! For me, no difference shooting a buck under an apple tree or over a pile of apples away from the tree. For me ethics come into play on whether or not to loose an arrow at a marginal range or angle.
Great points, all.
I believe it's is not region, it is personnel. I see ethical and unethical in almost all of the areas I have had the privilege to hunt.