Hunting ethics seems to creep into just about every conversation about hunting, particularly big game. In Georgia, once again they are debating the deer baiting issue. Current law allows baiting but not shooting any animal unless it is at lease 200 yards away. A new proposal would allow shooting over the bait. Some don’t like that.
AccessNorthGeorgia.com has an article about the deer baiting debate in which the writer talks with Glenn Dowling, executive vice president of the Georgia Wildlife Federation. Dowling doesn’t like the new proposal that would allow shooting over bait but not entirely for the right reasons in my opinion.
There’s the faintest hint of a deer track in the muddy trail outside Glenn Dowling’s office, and the sight of it sets him off.
For 10 minutes, he rattles off the steps he’d take if he were on a hunt, finishing with tips on the ideal spot to set up a deer stand.
“I hunt animals on its terms,” he says, a hint of disgust in his voice. “I use information about animals that I learned instead of conforming animals to my schedule.”
Dowling goes on to say that he finds shooting deer over bait as killing not hunting, something he considers unethical. Before Mr. Dowling throws too many stones at the unethical hunters he sees, he should consider his own situation. To Dowling, hunting over bait is unethical. For me, I would never hunt over bait as a form of food. This is something I’ve never done and the only way I might consider doing so was a matter of survival.
Dowling says he hunts animals on its terms while at the same time talks of using information he’s learned about animals in order to best locate a tree stand. If hunting from a tree stand is hunting on a deer’s terms, we can assume that deer also climb trees and regularly scan the tree tops before entering an area. I wonder if he uses calls, rattles antlers, uses scent-free clothing, a scope on his gun and a myriad of other items, methods and tactics that some hunter somewhere would find unethical?
Personally, I don’t care how Mr. Dowling hunts provided that he is hunting within the laws. I hunt according to what I have learned over the years and what I find enjoyable. I’ll have to be honest and say I have never hunted from a tree stand. This season was the first time ever I hunted from inside a portable blind. I found a game trail that had a few buck pawings on it, applied a little bit of buck lure – also considered bait – to the scrape and went and sat in the blind. Was that ethical? Most would say it was. Some would say it wasn’t. Whose right?
Ethics are an individual’s choice. Laws are made to protect the game, create the safest hunting environment and limit abuses. Laws that deal almost entirely with ethics should be made based on science and safety not human emotion or personal conviction.
“The sport is called hunting, not killing,” says Dowling, the federation’s executive vice president. “They want to guarantee a kill for some fat cat from up north or out west. And if you teach a kid that, you don’t teach them all the ethic to hunt. It’s dumbing down a generation of hunters.”
I couldn’t agree more with Dowling on this issue. Every kid should be taught about hunting ethics. I learned from my father. More than likely Dowling learned from his. Making laws about ethics won’t teach good ethics.
The article states that Dowling spent an hour and a half opposing this new proposal to a group at a meeting.
He’s upset. He just spent an hour and a half shooting holes through a proposal to allow hunters in Georgia to put grain, apples or any other type of bait in a feeder to lure game animals to a killing ground.
I wasn’t at this meeting and have no idea what Mr. Dowling said to try to convince those in attendance that allowing hunting over bait should not be legal. Hopefully, he spent more time talking about scientific or safety reasons why it is wrong than ethical ones.
If science proves to us that baiting deer spreads disease, maybe that’s reason enough to stop the practice completely. If science proves there are too many deer and regular hunting isn’t accomplishing harvesting goals, then maybe that’s reason enough to pass the bill. It may be for the good of the deer herd. If science proves that some of the kinds of baits being used can physically harm a deer, again maybe that’s reason enough to disallow it.
The article states that the Georgia Department of Natural Resources opposes the bill but doesn’t really give a reason why. The writer lumped all opponents together saying they considered it blasphemy. I have my reservations as to whether or not the Georgia DNR would call shooting deer over bait blasphemy. I would hope that the DNR would have its sights set on science and law enforcement rather than ethics and make it’s position based on such. After all, I think that is their job.
Tom Remington
