Hunting “Ethics” vs Logical Debate

Home > Hunting “Ethics” vs Logical Debate

I’m walking a fine line here, although I don’t think I’ll be saying anything I haven’ t said before… but it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that it’s time to rethink this strategy of pushing for bans and restrictions on certain hunting practices based on this idea of “ethics”. It’s drawing a deeper and deeper division between hunters, and tightening a noose around our collective neck as the definition of “ethical hunting” becomes narrower and narrower.

It’s most recently, and loudly evidenced in the discussion (more like a raving fight) over high fence hunting that began on Albert Rasch’s blog and spilled over onto The Daily Limit blog.

Here’s the thing… the most consistent argument I’m hearing against things like high fence hunting, baiting, and hound hunting is that it provides fodder for the antis because it makes us look “bad”.

My argument against that runs a bunch of divergent courses, but here’s the question they all lead back to… if there were no anti-hunting movement, would we even be having these debates?

Think about that for a moment, if you can or if you will. Is the perception of our sport by outsiders the biggest driving factor for our ethical arguments?

If so, what does that really mean about our commitment to ethical behavior? We only do it when someone is watching?

Of course we know better than that. It’s been echoed from Aldo Leopold to Ortega y Gasset, that the thing that defines a hunter is that the only witness to his actions is nature. The real definition of ethics is what we do when no one is watching, when we have no audience to applaud or deride us. It’s a personal decision… an individual choice to shoot or hold, waste or conserve, or participate or simply observe. There is no way to quantify that, nor should we try to do so.

Sport hunting can stand on its own quantifiable and logical merits. It does no harm, and instead often provides measurable benefits to the resources and habitat. We can PROVE this. Any challenge to any practice should be addressed with a simple response. “What does it hurt?”

And that is all the public image we should require, because it is the image we embody both publicly and privately. We don’t eradicate game or non-game species. We don’t harm the environment. We don’t put ourselves or other humans at risk. We make honest attempts to humanely kill our prey, and do so far more often than wild predators. Added to that are the often unintentional benefits, such as the money raised for conservation and the management of populations.

Hunting should not be defended based on esoterica and emotion. Any emotional argument can be countered easily, and justifiably. Emotions are personal. Values are individual. There is no right or wrong at that level. Why do we let ourselves stake the future of our sport on such a precarious balance?

Remember. The root of all opposition (both overt and passive) to hunting is that WE KILL ANIMALS. The how and why are irrelevant. We need to embrace that reality.

Reply

Joshua

Posted May 13, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Great post. Really has me thinking.

Thanks.
Reply

Tyler

Posted May 13, 2009 at 12:46 PM

Great post. I guess when this discussion comes up, people disregard the fact that humans are cohabitants with every other living creature. When we take a life and eat it, that gives us life.

Great blog! I wanted to show you this new deer feeder
Reply

Albert A Rasch

Posted May 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Phillip,

Great analysis. In the final analysis, I believe you are correct. It is true that the anti-hunters object to killing, not so much the “hunting.” Their tactic is to divide and eliminate.

Your always impressive acumen causes me to pause and reconsider the direction this discussion has taken.

As always, best regards,
Albert
The Rasch Outdoor Chronicles.
The Range Reviews: Tactical.
Proud Member of Outdoor Bloggers Summit.
Reply

mdmnm

Posted May 13, 2009 at 10:06 PM

I respect your point of view, and I haven’t gone over the Rasch’s place to check out the debate, but I don’t entirely agree. While, as you note and Leopold penned, ethics are practiced out of sight, we need some metric by which to judge behavior that should not fall to the lowest common denominator of “illegal”. While I agree that ethics cannot be legislated, I’m not willing to go so far as endorsing or refraining from criticism of practices that, at best, can be said to lead to quick kills. I don’t want to share a campfire with someone who’d shoot a tiger right out of a cage, or a retired zoo animal, or anything like that.

Tough topics that are hard to discuss and I applaud your bringing them up and discussing them here and other places.
Reply

NorCal Cazadora

Posted May 14, 2009 at 6:42 AM

It’s interesting – my boyfriend’s mom was visiting from Massachusetts back in March and in one conversation we had about hunting, the one negative thing she said was that she was really turned off by “canned hunts.”

Why was she turned off? Because HSUS has done a really effective job of pushing an image to the public of high-fence hunts being a place where lazy men shoot just-off-the-truck animals as they’re backed into a corner of a fence, then mount the head and brag to their buddies about their dangerous African hunt.

This campaign has been so effective that many hunters buy into that as the reality of high-fence hunting. And of course, don’t we all despise someone who would shoot a zebra in a corral and pretend he did a lot of work for it? It’s cowardly and small.

As I said over on the Daily Limit blog, I’m a new hunter, and I came to this with no preconceived notions about ethics. So I’ve been truly building mine from the ground up, based on practice, reading and listening to people like Phillip who challenge me to think (because I, too, used to base my opinion of high-fence hunting on the propaganda in the air).

And what I think is we get distracted very easily from what’s really going on in hunting. Yes, there is the hunt, which can be easy or challenging, but usually provides a lot of enjoyment either way. And we can all argue about whose hunt is better (and obviously, we have been).

Then there’s the killing, in which an animal dies so we can eat it. And from the animal’s perspective, there’s really no difference between being shot on open range and being shot inside a 1,000-acre fence. It’s still shot, it still dies.

Isn’t it funny that our ethics are so wrapped up in how we feel about the animal’s death? I personally think our core ethics should be concerned with the animal’s death itself: achieving the cleanest kill possible – whether it’s in a fence, over a feeder or in open range – to avoid prolonged suffering.

Some days I may go for an easy hunt. Other days I may go for a difficult one. And frankly, I don’t give a damn whether I had to go through a grueling ordeal to get it or not. What I do care about is a clean kill that puts meat in my freezer.

And can I just say, what the hell is in the blogosphere these days? There has been what seems to be an unusually high level of viciousness this week. Geez Louise.
Reply

Arthur

Posted May 14, 2009 at 10:39 AM

I have steered clear of many hunting forums because of this nonsense. The infighting that goes on amongst our ranks is just incredible. And worrying about how a legal hunting practice is viewed by anti’s or non-hunters is kind of silly as well.

I’ve touched on this subject on my blog. My particular take was how non-hunters viewed baiting, but that was awhile ago, and now, with a new perspective on this issue that I’ve attained in the last year, I think that debate was down right silly.

You are right, Phillip. They simply despise us killing animals. These individuals don’t care what method we use, they care simply that we are killing animals. For hunters to fight amongst themselves about what type of hunting is more “ethical” is just plain silly. And that only helps to fuel the anti’s even more.

Who am I to define someone else’s ethics for them?
Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Posted May 14, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Thanks for the comments,all.

Mdmnm, I appreciate your respectful reply. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, or we probably wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But I think that we’re seeing a similar disconnect that’s come up before in these conversations…

I am, by no means, suggesting that we stop discussing ethics. I don’t want to brush them under the table as if there’s no such thing, and I’m certainly not saying, “anything goes.”

I propose that we have two metrics by which to judge hunters’ behavior. The first is the law, which at its best is designed to ensure that our hunting practices do not damage the resource or endanger other people or property. The law does codify some basic ethical principals, such as caliber minimums to ensure humane, quick kills, but it’s generally based on quantifiable data.

The second metric is personal ethics. We all have our own set of rules, standards, and expectations that guide our hunting experience. On certain core concepts, I’m pretty sure we share a general value system, but on others, as we have seen, we’re all over the place.

There’s nothing wrong with having strong beliefs and values. There’s nothing wrong with discussing them with other people or even getting a little evangelical about them. This is how we learn and grow. Sometimes minds will change, and sometimes they won’t.

Where I believe the line should be drawn is when we start to impose our personal values on strangers, especially based on nothing stronger than that we don’t like the way something “looks”, or because it doesn’t “feel right”.

If you don’t like the idea of shooting a tiger fresh out of the cage (an awful, inaccurate, “canned hunting” stereotype that is perpetuated as much by uninformed hunters as it is by anti-hunters… but we’ll go with it for now), then don’t do it. If you don’t want to associate with anyone who would, then do them a favor and let them know why you feel that way. Maybe they’ll reconsider their motivations, and you’ll have changed that behavior. Or maybe they’ll offer a perspective that you hadn’t considered and your mind will change.

Or maybe they won’t.

It’s a valuable conversation we’re having here. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, and I’m not even dead certain that I’m right. My ideas are the result of a constant evolution over a lot of discussions like this one, both with hunters and anti-hunters. The evolution continues…
Reply

T.Michael Riddle

Posted May 15, 2009 at 4:35 AM

The plain and simple truth Phillip is that the more people who are born into this world, then all the more cry for newer law’s to be enacted to protect people from themselves.

The individuals who are fooling themselves into believing that if we, as a sport hunting community, continue to Pacify, codify, cater to and try to present an image which no human being can ever live up to, then that is exactly the Achilles Heel of the sport itself!

How can you arrange an ordered image for something which is as intangible and liquid as ethics?
Was it the ethical thing to do when we forcibly took Native American children away from their families just to indoctrinate them into Christianity and our belief system? By all accounts they were doing just fine without our intervention and injection of our ethics into them, and their own set of ethics allowed them to co-exist with nature quite efficiently.

Just the term: Sport Hunting, has caused a wild and boisterous debate right here on this blog!

After all of that is said and done at the end of the day the antis are still going to keep coming, and with a relentless attack upon our very freedoms, and the liberty to even enjoy the company of our own pets, and to stop “all” dealings which are animal related.

It is inevitable, the extremist mindset is not going to change and they have declared war while most people just simply blow them off as being kook,s!

Well, those “kook,s” have managed to legally change the term Pet Owner, into Guardian of your companion animal here in San Francisco.
Because people there did not put up any resistance against the invasive over reaching A.R.G.s which pushed for that legislation.

Now, if someone doesn’t have a water bowl 24/7 for their pet, that animal can be taken away from them, and they will find themselves with criminal charges levied against them. Because as a Guardian you no longer own that animal.
Dog’s do not need access to water 24/7 because their metabolism is completely different than a humans is and they could go a full two days without water or food and not suffer any ill effects, just as a coyote or Wolf will do on a regular basis.

The people who lay out their own set of ubiquitous ethics for everyone else to likewise follow, are more of a controlling nature than anything else which they may cite as being their primary motivation.

They are challenging the very air that you breathe (the carbon foot print which you leave) carbon credits are just around the corner.

The time to stand up and fight these extremists is now because later may be too late!
Reply

mdmnm

Posted May 15, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Philip,

Re: the “tiger out of the cage” example. I chose it as an extreme example. While I realize it is a stereotype, unfortunately it is not without some basis. I nearly used “an elk in a 40 acre pen”, as Kirt Darner, of the 80′s era Remington ads and (formerly) the record books for mule deer was convicted down in NM fairly recently for providing elk “hunts” in just such a set up. I’ve hunted on places with high fences, but the fences have not been impassable to game and the encompassed area was thousands of acres of brush. To avoid the slippery slope of size of enclosure I chose another example.

I appreciate what you’re trying to say and agree with your “two metrics” formulation. As to the legal end of things, we probably legislate ethics quite enough in some areas. For example, years ago Steve Bodio was writing about the lack of biological basis for some of our restrictions on techniques and pointing to the ethical and biologically sound use of punt guns and 8 gauges for waterfowl in the United Kingdom still going on today.

With respect to the ethics end of things, I also understand the “hang together or hand separately” argument. The gun community has (as you’re likely well aware) gone through spasms of debate over the same idea with respect to “assault weapons” vs. “hunting guns”.

I mostly write to advocate not going too far in refraining from criticism of some possibly legal but dubious practices. It is critical for hunters to police themselves and their fellows with respect to behavior. Here’s one example of how we let ourselves and each other down (and apologies for linking to my place). Personally, I think the level of ethics which we all should accept is something more than “technique led to a humane kill”.

The fun and frustration is in drawing the lines from there- I thought Hodgeman’s
account of the AK Dept. of Fish and Game encouraging hunting over feeders for spring black bears in order for hunters to have more time to evaluate the animal and avoid taking a sow was really interesting and thought provoking. Personally, I haven’t hunted over a feeder, but know quite a few folks in TX who do so and I don’t see it as wrong, just unappealing to me. That’s a discussion within the hunting community and I guess I don’t share your perception that our ethical arguments are being driven by outside forces. Articles from 100 years ago, when blood sports were much more generally accepted, reveal ethical debates a-plenty.
Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Posted May 16, 2009 at 5:54 AM

Apologies for my brief absense… thanks to Microsoft’s “Important Updates”, my computer went south on me. I’m on a borrowed laptop right now.

Mdmnm… I’m pretty well in agreement that there’s nothing wrong with criticism, especially EDUCATED criticism of certain behaviors. Let’s put it all on the table, be honest, and say what we think.

As far as that goes, we’re doing fine. A lot of non-hunters and anti-hunters are learning that our motivations and ethics run a lot deeper than they may have expected, based on their own, uneducated, stereotypes.

But “educated” is the key word here. The baiting example you described is a perfect example. A lot of hunters are strongly opposed to the practice of baiting… and almost without exception, they have never done it. They don’t understand the rationale for making it legal. All they see is the appearance of laziness on the part of the hunter who would sit over a bait pile or feeder. This is the aspect that gets the heaviest publication, and is perpetuated through stereotypes and one-sided discussions.

What they don’t get is that there are other benefits to baiting, including the fact that it helps increase the harvest in areas where the game animal populations are too high. It also, as the AK folks recognized, allows hunters to make better target selection in areas where the pressure on females and youngsters may be upsetting the balance.

The same can be said for many “questionable” hunting practices or hot-topic issues. It’s really no different at all from your preconceptions about the Rainbow Gathering and what you actually found. Or, more relevant, it’s a lot like the way many non-hunters change their attitudes about hunters once they actually meet us and talk to us about what we do.

I guess where I’m going is that we should spend more time talking and learning instead of simply criticising. People just need to be willing to talk about things, and to learn. They don’t have to agree, when it’s all said and done, but my guess is that a little education will go a long ways toward modifying people’s eagerness to condemn a practice with which they don’t agree.

I know this is redundant now, but for me it keeps coming back to that key question… what does it hurt? If the best anyone can come up with is that it hurts our “image” in the eyes of the antis and non-hunters, then I have to challenge that rationale. Our image will never be more or less than what it boils down to, and that is people who kill animals for “recreation”. We have got to be honest and accept that, and stop trying to bury it behind some curtains of super-ethical posturing and justifications.

But most of all, what I want to do on this blog and in others where I join these kinds of discussions is to encourage that conversation. If I can spur folks to talk about it, and to examine (not necessarily change) their own preconceptions and biases, then I’ve done as much as I can do to help our community.
Reply

Coues

Posted May 19, 2009 at 11:37 AM

What is the difference between me going to the store and buying a steak or a chicken and going on a “canned” hunt as long as the meat is utilized?

In the first case, you are paying for meat that has been killed, processed, packaged and delivered to the store for you to purchase.

In the later case, you the hunter are doing some or all of those tasks. The end result of both cases is that an animal died. Hopefully as humanely as possible and with all of the edible parts used.

Now, if these animals are being shot for only the horns and the rest is thrown in the dumpster, that is already against the law in most states. Wanton waste of game meat. Cruelty to animals, etc. How about enforcing those laws in order to shut down shady operations?

Becareful what you wish for. Today they talk about shutting down high fenced hunts, then next year it will be baiting, then a few years later it will be scents and calls, then decoys, then ????…..Slippery slope. Once you lose your footing and start that slide, it will be almost impossible to stop.
Reply

T.Michael Riddle

Posted May 19, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Here! Here! Coues,
Precisely the point which Phillip has been trying to make all along!

Good to see someone with a level head on their shoulders and not letting “emotions” dictate all that they say or do!
Reply

John Simeone

Posted May 26, 2009 at 10:13 PM

The rules are pretty clear in fair chase doctrine. You dont shoot an animal that can’t escape your imediate presence. That was Teddy Rosevelts rule when they tried to get him to shoot the teathered bear..if you dont know the story, go read the Boone and Crockett rules of fair chase. This was written in the first place because things were already out of hand, so sport hunting was invented. I guess to some rules don’t mean anything just as long as you get to kill something. Some rich fellow in New York that doesn’t get to go out much, well this may be for him, luckly he won’t be around my camp too much. I do however use high fence hunting to introduce new hunters to the sport, so I’m not perfect.

But its not about ethics, its about money. People make money with high fence hunting I know I’ve done it many times. I love to go to the pen where they are about to release the chosen victim for the day, the one one I paid for and I say “Is that to one I get to shoot today.” They look at me like I’m not supposed to know this….get real. Pass it on..

Uncle John’s Outdoors
Louisiana
Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Posted May 27, 2009 at 6:38 AM

Thanks for dropping in, John.

Just a couple of comments. First, the Boone and Crockett rules of “fair chase” exist primarily to qualify trophies for the trophy book (and don’t get me started on the impact of the trophy quest on hunters’ “ethics”). While many hunters, including myself, agree that the B&C rules are a good representation of our personal ethics, they are not intended to guide the actions of every hunter.

In the case of High Fences and game ranches, it truly is about the money of course. The operators of these facilities certainly have a financial stake in this debate, but that doesn’t invalidate the arguments. These folks don’t want their businesses shut down by people who simply don’t understand or don’t like what goes on there. They have a right to stay in business, just like any other ranch or farm.

But let’s not get so focused on an irrelevant detail (High Fences) that we forget the real topic of discussion. Is it right to impose our personal ethics on other hunters, when the only real harm of their actions is to our own sensibilities? Who has the right to define another man’s experience (to say, for instance, “that’s not ‘hunting’”)?

I’m still standing by my contention that this trend toward painting ourselves as uber-ethical paragons is nothing less than a noose around our collective neck. Every time we cut out another legitimate hunting practice because it doesn’t live up to this arbitrary standard, that noose tightens.
Reply

Noonesperfect

Posted June 22, 2009 at 7:09 PM

Personally, I appreciate the experiences I have had at a high-fence ranch. It gave me an opportunity to learn what signs to look for. It gave me an opportunity to go on my first hunt with a real chance to shoot (at) my first pig. It gave me an opportunity to try a more difficult hunt the next time I went, and the encouragement and confidence to try an even more difficult hunt next time.

I am not exactly in prime physical condition, and I REALLY appreciated the chance to participate in the hunt in a controlled (no worry about lots of crazies running around shooting anything that moves) environment that was definitely large enough to give the game a real chance of evading me.

I don’t understand the ethical issue in this type of situation, although I can see the dilemma if the animals are really caged until time for the hunt.
Reply

Anthony Esquivel

Posted September 27, 2009 at 9:57 PM

It might be suprising to some readers (though not to me) that logic, in its origin in the academy with the greeks, was founded on ethics and thus mathematics and the sciences.

In just recently getting acquainted with this discipline of hunting, I’m amazed of the anti-intellectual, dumbing down of the so-called anti-hunters. It seems that those who live by and conduct themselves according to the “hunters code” ( to use or more or less battered phrase) are unassumingly arguing against straw men invented by the anti-hunters.

It seems the hunters have found themselves “high fenced” in by the anti-hunters. Though by loss of focus and philosophy rather than anything of substance argued by those against the discipline.

I know many of you have read Ortega, I encourage all to read him or reread him ont his subject, in order to argue a hunters position in a ethical, logical and cogent manner.
Reply

JeffG

Posted January 23, 2010 at 7:20 AM

I’ve been scanning the ‘net with this question of “hunting ethics”. It is very encouraging to find such deeply considered discussions as this.

My particular question revolves around “varmint hunting”. I can apply the statistics of overpopulation control (prairie dogs), or predator control around game populations (coyotes), but get stuck when I evaluate how well natural predator/prey/food supply ecosystems work without any human component.

If we introduce ourselves as part of this “natural” system, even with all of our technological advantages, then we can argue that we are just doing our part to keep the balance…But how much are we “a part of” the natural system when we have so heavily controlled the environment, or so thoroughly upset the balance just by our presence?

The act of holding such complicated questions…and not settling for the incomplete, or over-simplified answers, then having an answer be internally demanded at the moment of pulling the trigger, or releasing the arrow, makes us better, more ethical hunters…in my opinion.
Reply

duck life 3, duck life games, duck life

Posted January 31, 2012 at 5:26 AM

Nice post. I was checking continuously this weblog and I’m impressed! Extremely useful info specifically the remaining phase I maintain such info a lot. I used to be seeking this certain information for a long time. Thanks and best of luck.

Hunting “Ethics” vs Logical Debate

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Blogroll

Fish and Game Contacts

General

Outdoor Industry and Media

Outdoor News

Outfitters I've Used

Web Forums

Archives
Categories