Last month Field and Stream asked readers to participate in a poll. The poll question, which may have meant more to the creator of the question than the polltakers, went like this:

Should high-fence hunting operations be regulated at the federal level?

As of this writing, there were 764 votes that broke down this way. 19.1% voted yes and 80.2% voted no. You can read anything you want into that poll. It means nothing really. And before you go accusing me of picking on Field and Stream and their unscientific polls, let me tell you right up front that we run polls also at the Black Bear Blog and those are not scientific, but……..you can only vote once, something that Field and Stream doesn’t feel necessary in conducting polls – at least this one.

For the record, I voted 5 times there and voted no all five times.

So we have no way of knowing how many people actually participated in the poll and frankly I don’t care. What I did take issue with is one person’s comment they left.

“Hunting in a pen of any size is unethical. The disply of animals taken in this manner, whiether it be on tv or on your wall, sickens me.
“If we sportsman find ourselves in to poor physical condition to pursue game ethically, we should respect our sport enough to retire as hunter.

When a discussion takes place about hunting and ethics, all hell breaks loose. This person obviously does not believe that hunting in any area that is surrounded by fences regardless of the size, is ethical and I can respect that. He also has a problem with those who choose to display their take, even within the privacy of their own home and frankly it isn’t any of his business what I put on my walls but he’s still entitled to his opinions.

But the real comment that sent me over the edge was his last statement. He is suggesting that when any of us hunters are too old, physically “challenged” or in any way reach a point where we have to rely on anything that he deems “unethical” that we should retire for the good of the sport.

I sure hope this guy doesn’t use a vehicle to get to his favorite hunting ground because he is either too lazy or physically unable to walk that far because for some, that is considered “pursuing game unethically”. Maybe he uses an ATV to get to his site or a tree stand once he gets there? Perhaps he uses a rifle scope or deer scents? Maybe an animal call or two in order to trick an animal to come to him? Isn’t that unethical by someone’s standards? Oh, maybe he thinks he is the great dictator of ethics.

Maybe this guy has no idea in the world what it’s like to have a chronic disabling back disease that severely limits how far one can go to hunt and has to rely on modern technologies to get them to the woods. I guess that’s unethical too and I should retire.

Or how about the hundreds of kids who have been given a “Hunt of a Lifetime” before they die? They all can’t “pursue game ethically” according to this reader and shouldn’t be given an opportunity to participate.

What about the guy in the wheelchair, the paraplegic or quadriplegic returning from the war on terror in Iraq or Afghanistan, the blind man or the woman who shoots with only two feet? Someone needs to tell them that what they are doing is “pursuing game unethically” and they should retire or never begin.

For the life of me, I can’t understand how any one person can be so pig-headedly ignorant and make such a statement. I sure hope to God that he doesn’t bless you with a crippling disease because you would have to retire and never again get a chance to experience even a small part of what millions of the rest of us like to do.

If you don’t think hunting behind a fence is “pursuing game ethically” then don’t participate. If you think that legislating it so others can’t, then be prepared for the next idiot who will come behind you and legislate the way you hunt out of existence. After all, if you can dictate one’s ethics, so can the next guy.

Tom Remington

Related Posts