Ethics Roundtable Discussion Continues

Home > Ethics Roundtable Discussion Continues

Well, the ethics discussion has certainly taken on a life of its own… or rather, regained the life it previously had. There’s nothing particularly new about this conversation, but there is much to learn, and often the learning isn’t so much in the words folks are writing, but in how we think about them and how they impact our actions.

I’ve gone a bit astray from the original roundtable idea. When I suggested the running conversation, the idea was to read one another’s points and ideas, and then post our extended comments to our own blogs. This would keep the conversation from bogging down in a single comment string on one site, and would enable the conversation to reach a much wider array of readers. It would also allow the discussion to take different directions, as folks could build off of ideas spurred by someone’s point.

Recently, with two posts over at the Fair Chase Hunting blog, I got pulled directly into the conversation in the comments, and failed to continue it here on the Hog Blog. The first was Eric Nuse’s original response to the roundtable idea, What is Hunting – A Philosophical View, and in it he lays out the ideas presented in a paper he wrote following a retreat that must be similar to Galen Geer’s “symposium” (the post that sort of kicked all of this off).

Eric’s post generated some pretty good discussion, including a few comments that I think made the perfect illustration of how personal the concept of “ethical hunting” can get… and how quickly that personal definition excludes other hunters’ methods and motivations. But even better, it offered the opportunity to begin to differentiate “ethics” from aesthetics… both in semantic terms and philosophical.

The second was a follow-up based on that initial discussion, wherein Eric tries to separate the notions of Ethics Versus Preferences, which I consider the keystone of my own position as well. At some point, preferably early in the discussion, we have to learn to separate the “I” from the picture, before we start trying to apply definitions of “right” and “wrong” to the larger community. The conversation also illustrated how convoluted the discussion becomes, and pretty much ended up with the idea that we need to simplify the issue… although exactly how to simplify becomes a tricky question in itself.

Oddly enough, or maybe not so oddly, Galen put up his own post to a similar ends… the discussion gets unwieldy with so many esoteric ideas, so maybe we should start with a simple idea. His suggestion was to begin with this idea:

If we agree that the key to being an ethical hunter is full use of skills and allowing the game to fully use their natural ability to survive then the outcome is ethical hunting. If we can accept that premise does this become a functional foundation to build on?

I’m not sure if that idea simplifies anything or not, but it is a starting point. The complexity becomes a question of definining a “full use of skills”. What does that mean? Is it a justification for the new, untrained hunter to hunt over bait inside a high-fence enclosure? Does that then mean that there is no justification for an experienced hunter to do the same? While I can sort of see the logic there, I think that it is a vague differentiation that would be lost on non-hunters (not to mention that it’s a logical leap and a value judgement with which I disagree). But maybe it’s as good a starting point as any.

But to the idea of simplicity… to the need to simplify…

As these conversations have dug deeper and deeper, I am brought back to what I consider a critical question. What is the objective of this discussion? If there were to be a singular, definitive outcome, what would it be?

I’m not saying it’s a pointless use of our energies to simply debate on the academic level. Great ideas are being generated and expanded, and maybe some preconceptions are being challenged. I think some folks might realize that the ideas of “fair chase”, “ethics”, and “morals”, are bigger than any individual perspective. These are good things, and if that’s all we get out of this exercise, then I can deal with that.

But it seems that we’re digging pretty hard for something more substantial… I’m just not clear on what that is.

One of my reasons for asking this, maybe belatedly, is because we must understand that if we start to really dig for truth, we’re going to have to tip some sacred cows. Hunting is not a “noble sport”, no matter how we couch our justifications and arguments (and there are some strong ones). We can wrap it in pretty concepts and grandiose ideals, but it boils down to recreational killing… blood sport. This is the reality that I think we’re trying to reconcile here.

And I just keep wondering… to what ends?

Reply

NorCal Cazadora

Posted February 1, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Sacred-cow tipping is NOT fair chase, Phillip!

But in all seriousness: Good point – though I really am enjoying the debate. And now that duck season is over, perhaps I can participate more fully again.
Reply

No one's perfect

Posted February 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM

To me, the concept of “ethical hunting” seems simple – do everything you can reasonably do to minimize the suffering of the animal you are hunting. This would include practicing your marksmanship skills (don’t take a shot that’s longer than you can consistently make a clean kill with), using enough gun (whatever that means), etc., but would leave issues such as high fence and fair chase to each individual’s preference.
Reply

Arthur

Posted February 1, 2010 at 6:36 PM

This has become so much bigger than what it originally was, Phillip. I loved the debate at first, but since then it has morphed into something much different….almost to the point of overkill.

I do think that no one’s perfect summed it up pretty well, and that his idea of “ethical hunting” is right on the money. I’m starting to wonder how much more debate can take place on this topic, and what is it truly going to accomplish.

My bigger fear, though, is that this debate is going to end up hurting our sport more than it is going to help, because ethics can be debated until the cows come home…..I’m not sure how we’re ever going to come to one solid resolution.

At least it keeps me thinking, I guess.
Reply

Eric Nuse

Posted February 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM

I just finished reading a new book, “A Matter of Life and Death, Hunting in Contemporary Vermont” by Marc Boglioli based on his PhD research. He looks at hunting through the eyes of an anthropologist and comes up with some surprisingly simple observations that explain a lot.
One thing that came out was the very different ways urban/suburban folks look at nature compared to rural folks. Rural residents look at trees and see beauty and fire wood, at deer and see grace and food. Urban folks only see the beauty and rarely connect nature to their own livelihood and survival.
Thinking about it this way, we don’t have to explain the kill part of hunting in philisophical terms. We need to explain it in utilization of a renewable natural resource frame. Interestingly, polls show support of hunting by nonhunters goes way up when they know it will be eaten, and up even more when they know all new hunters must pass a hunter education course before they can get a license.
Maybe the explanation of why we hunt to urbanites should be simply it feels good to bring home local, organic, free ranging meat to my family that I harvest in a respectful and humane way. And you know what, if you worked hard to get the right skills it would feel really good to you too. Period
Reply

NorCal Cazadora

Posted February 1, 2010 at 8:06 PM

Funny you should say that, Eric. That’s the message I put out there all the time, and urbanites do in fact respect it a great deal.

Urban foodies are taking up hunting here in NorCal all the time – including a fair number of former vegetarians. Not that I’m taking credit for all of them – Michael Pollan has had huge influence in this area. But yes, that message resonates.
Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Posted February 1, 2010 at 9:44 PM

Good stuff all. Holly, Cow Tipping can be fair chase… I’ve run from more than one bull, and so far, I’ve won every race.

Perfect, I think you’ve got the gist of it. That is, to me, the crux of the matter.

And Arthur, I think that’s what I was getting at… that the deeper we dig, the more we’ll bring to the surface that’s been pretty happily lying there. Let sleeping dogs lie… isn’t that the thing?

Which brings me to Eric’s point. I absolutely agree that, as long as the discussion is about utilization then we’re on relatively solid ground. But… and here’s one of those cows… what about hunting for game that isn’t utilized? What about predator hunting, varmint hunting, and similar pursuits? I’ve heard arguments, but not strong ones. How do we reconcile those guys for the non-hunters? Or do we toss them under the bus?

It sounds like I’m making light, but I really am not.
Reply

Arthur

Posted February 2, 2010 at 5:26 AM

I agree, Phillip. Let sleeping dogs lie. This is a “debate” that could keep going on for centuries with no real conclusion. Ethics are in the eyes of the beholder, and I am not going to be the one to force my ethics on any other hunter.
Reply

T. Michael Riddle

Posted February 2, 2010 at 6:15 AM

I would have to comment here Phillip that the PREDATOR to PREY ratio must always be kept in check. And if it were not kept in check we would see many of those beautiful animal numbers slowly dwindling.
Just as is the case of the Mt. Lion vs our Deer population here in Cali.
Reply

NorCal Cazadora

Posted February 2, 2010 at 7:22 AM

Uh oh, if that’s true, we have way too many humans! But we knew that, didn’t we? Of course, most of us don’t act as predators ever.
Reply

Cork Graham

Posted February 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM

The more and more I read these trails and debates the more I really question how much research is done before comment is made on something like hunting, especially when it’s still a “sport” in reference.

Instead of reference to anthropologists, I’d really like to see more comments by biologists, game wardens and naturalists (or at least comment by those who have actually interviewed these people indepth) who actually pay the dues in the field and have been so ignored in places like California and even in Oregon, that’s now trying to fix a cat problem run wild because of political correctness that led to the removal of dogs for hunting bear and mountain lion.

When we mature above the initial romanticization of hunting and look at it for what it is (an environmentally/ecologically important activity that results in death), the question of “ethics” doesn’t come up–other than to make the animals demise as quick as possible. I’d say as painless, too, but trapping is an important tactic, and that’s not painless in anyway shape or form. What does come up is whether a game/animal population can be preyed up and in what number, by the greatest predator on the planet.

…Yes, Holly, there are too many people on the planet and it’s a good thing everyone doesn’t hunt….I find it ironic that Charlton Heston wrote a plug for my 2004 Vietnam prison memoir, and that he starred in “Soylent Green”, and frankly, looking at the human population from the pov of a biologist really freaks me out!

Cheers,
Cork
http://corksoutdoors.com/blog/about/
Reply

Eric Nuse

Posted February 3, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Phillip said, “What about predator hunting, varmint hunting, and similar pursuits? I’ve heard arguments, but not strong ones. How do we reconcile those guys for the non-hunters? Or do we toss them under the bus?”
Phillip you’ve hit an interesting topic here. T. Michael gives the country wisdom position, which includes people in the circle of life, with the added stewardship responsibility of helping keep things in balance. Unfortunately science doesn’t fully support this position, especially in intact ecosystems where the large predators like bear, wolf and mountain lion still live. So hunters loose the support of the of the biologists (except in certain situations) when they kill predators and don’t utilize the hides. They also loose some hunters and most of the non-hunting urban folks. Throw in a hunting contest and you have a real public relations free for all.
So predator hunters are back to the philosophical argument; we are not doing harm to the predator population, we don’t harm other people, we kill clean, follow fair chase and it is legal. And by the way I like to do it. And I’d assume the folks doing this regularly still disagree with the science and feel they are doing good for the deer etc.
So do we throw them under the bus – no, but I feel they should use all salvageable hides, show respect for the animals and use restraint. They should also make their skill available for helping with stock damage situations, which is a very valuable service to society.
Don’t even get me started on prairie dog hunts and pigeon shoots…
Reply

Cork Graham

Posted February 3, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Great statements, Eric: they’re all (we’re all) hunters!

I do have to disagree with you on the statement about science not supporting the stewardship. Science is not the problem. When you talk to scientists who actually do the work, not the new breed that quotes from book upon book (and often doesn’t hunt or even fish…yet work for DFG??), without hardly any field experience, you get the innaccurate statements.

But, from those naturalists, scientists and biologists who actually do the work in the field, they’re in full agreement about the importance of game management and its importance to wildlife conservation. The sad part is that no matter what research they come up with, it’s always under the control of people in cities who have no knowledge and understanding of wildlife management or conservation, much more than having perhaps a cat in their urban apartment. That’s the insanity: that through the voting system, game management policies that were originally controlled strictly through departments of natural resources are now controlled by public and emotional opinion.

That’s why I get so furious when I read some blogs where the blogger evidently writes from such a lack of knowledge so evidently just an emotional level–and there’s no excuse for it! Newspapers are going the way of the dinosaurs. Good blogs have a big void to fill…and all it takes a little phone call to a source at DFG or a university science department and get a quote…is that so hard to do?

With this new generation of hunters who are food-base because of Michael Pollan’s book, Omnivore’s Dilemma, we have a potential to bring hunting back into the socially accepted and more importantly, socially understood place in society, or, we have the opportunity through lazy reporting (and yes, a blog, at least a good reporting–even if it’s more like a weekly column/opinion) to do some great good if we bloggers who are willing to take all this as a responsibility to hunting and wildlife conservation to contact the right people and do the right research, and not just type off the top of our heads about something that has suffered for so many years because of some very poor reporting by journalists in the mainstream.

…I’m happy to say that Phillip is one of those bloggers/columnists who does do that due diligence in doing the research…

Cheers,
Cork
http://corksoutdoors.com/blog/about/
Reply

Josh

Posted February 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM

A quick point on simplicity. I love this stuff, and I promise to do it justice over at my blog.

So, simply put, and ethical claim is any statement with “should” or “ought” in it. Folks cannot get away from ethics by saying that, “all ethics are personal, and so we shouldn’t be arguing about it.” or some such thing. That statement is an ethical statement, telling someone they shouldn’t talk about something. When we begin to discuss social issues, we immediately enter ethics discussions. We cannot avoid them.

So embrace them!

The reason people use the libertarian defense (that a person should stay out of others’ things) is usually to avoid the sacred cows. But you aren’t avoiding ethics, you are just enforcing a generally accepted ethical rule and using it to bludgeon people away from talk.

This talk necessitates sacred cow-tipping, whether it be the sacred cow of the “noble pursuit” (which I still believe exists), or the sacred cow of the varmint hunters who just shoot something to kill it.

For me, Eric hits it on the head: One shouldn’t kill something for no good reason (which doesn’t completely leave out varmint hunting). I’ll add that the good reasons to kill something need to outweigh the bad reasons. In that killing leaves an indelible mark on a person’s psyche, and in that it is the killing that is the ethically ambiguous act, we need to focus on it in ethics conversations about hunting.

I think that is another sacred cow in this conversation: killing is on the ethical border. No other sport has the ethical problem that hunting and fishing have – for example, nobody talks about the ethics of basketball hoop heights, but we do about game preserve fence heights.

Sure, I avoid the question of good and bad reasons, for now.
Reply

Phillip Loughlin

Posted February 3, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Eric, you went where I was heading, but I couldn’t get there sooner… damn this day job!

Here’s a thought though… there are justifications for hunting that are real and quantifiable. Whether it’s to manage populations, control crop destruction, or protect livestock… these are all good reasons that hunting should be allowed.

But if we look at it honestly, how many of us actually hunt for those reasons?

Whether it’s the guy who goes out and shoots a deer only to donate the whole thing to a food bank, or the person who shoots coyotes and leaves them lay, isn’t it pretty disingenous to claim we’re doing it for the environment or to manage the populations? I mean, come on… we’re doing it because we love to hunt.

Some of us love to hunt from treestands, and others from the ridgetops. Some love to hunt from horseback, or from the seat of a quad, or on the soles of our boots. Some love the hunt in the great, wide-open, while others are happy to chase game on small parcels of land (fenced or not).

And no, that doesn’t get us any closer to an answer (if there is one) on this whole question of ethics. But I think it’s important to keep perspective… and to keep ourselves honest as we do it.
Reply

Eric Nuse

Posted February 9, 2010 at 10:05 AM

Phillip,
I fully agree, we hunt because we enjoy it, it is real fun. The byproducts of our hunting are also good – meat, population control, predator control and so on. I think it is these positive results of the hunt that justify the kill. The hunt up until the kill needs no other justification. Killing for serious purpose is as natural for humans as any other animal and just as necessary. As Joseph Campbell said, “Life eats life.”, be it animal (wild or domestic) or vegetable.
I think we can also argue that for humans doing things that are fun like playing, doing sports and athletics are critical to human health and development. Connecting to nature and the sport nature of hunting for many of us is very good for us mentally, physically and spiritually. When done right we do no harm, we do good for ourselves, nature and our communities.

Ethics Roundtable Discussion Continues

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