A Death Of Ethics: Is “Hunting” Destroying Itself?

[Doug Hamilton]

Using the “I do it because it’s legal” is a very one dimensional and counterproductive argument, in my humble opinion.

It‘s basically an invitation to the antis to pressurize the government to make any particular forms of hunting illegal.

Rather, hunting should be defended on moral/environmental and socio-economical grounds.

All animals (even problem animals/predators/livestock killers) should be hunted with the objective of ending their lives as quickly and cleanly as possible.

Terming anything as a “Killing Contest” is a mark of crass tastelessness on the part of the hunter.

Now, on the other hand… It’s abundantly clear to me that this Mr. Sutton fellow is a pompous self righteous coarse fool who thinks that he is entitled to talk about trophy hunting without actually knowing anything in-depth about it. In my humble experience, “Hunters” like him are the true threat to hunting. Just because he practices one form of hunting, he thinks that he has a right to condemn hunting practices which are conducted by other hunters.

When he doesn’t realize that his boot licking of the anti hunting brigade (regardless of how eloquently it‘s written) will do him no good in the long run. Those who are seeking to ban hunting of the lion in Africa today, will seek to ban the hunting of the whitetail deer in the USA tomorrow.

Photographic safaris never can or will replace hunting safaris. Let me ask you all something. When a tourist has come to Africa (for instance) and taken his nice photograph of a lion, will he ever return to Africa again ? No, because he has taken his photograph and next year, he will spend his money elsewhere. A hunter though, will keep returning to the forests to hunt wild game on a relatively consistent frequency. Because hunting is his food for the soul. And he will keep paying for it. He is the better long term consumer of wildlife. Ergo, he is the reason why wildlife must exist.

One of these days, I also have a bone to pick with whatever muttonhead thought up the name “Trophy Hunting“. It’s such a one dimensional & shallow title. The name infers that we shoot a lion (for instance) solely for the purposes of lopping it’s head off to mount on our walls or skinning his hide to adorn our floors while the rest of the animal lies rotting… whereas nothing could be further from the truth. Big game hunting is so much more than that. As a matter of fact, I’ve hunted several lions over the years (to date) & I only retained the hide from the first male.

I have been a hunter for almost all of my life. I most certainly have no.problem with.the.killing of an animal. I did learn from my father and grandfather that any animal that you remove, even.mice or coyotes, are to be Killed with the least amount of pain or suffering possible. Cruelty is to be avoided if only because it's stupid. One of the things I think we can take pride in is that a large animal taken cleanly with a bullet, suffers far less than those that die by "natural" means. The fawn that dies in the jaws of a coyote suffers far more than the deer that falls to a Hunter's bullet. By that logic, I feel no guilt on calling in a coyote and shooting him, and I like knowing that a deer.will not suffer due to the way coyotes kill deer. That would not, however, make it alright for me to run over a coyote repeatedly with a snow mobile

 

[Tom Leoni]

Re: the "hunting for ego" claim. This is what I say to non-hunters who ask me why I like to hunt.

It's not ego. It's not misplaced "manliness." It's not an unlikely physical contest with the animal (which debunks the "why don't you make it fair and use a knife/spear" argument).

It's what we evolved to do. That and reproducing. Since a quarter-million years ago (and arguably before that) this is what our specie has had programmed in our DNA. So the reason why I hunt is the same reason why we derive pleasure in being with the opposite sex, even without reproduction being the direct goal.

When they ask me "but then why not just photographing the animals," you can easily guess what my response is, in the form of an analogy.

 

[Saul]

Re: the "hunting for ego" claim. This is what I say to non-hunters who ask me why I like to hunt.

It's not ego. It's not misplaced "manliness." It's not an unlikely physical contest with the animal (which debunks the "why don't you make it fair and use a knife/spear" argument).

It's what we evolved to do. That and reproducing. Since a quarter-million years ago (and arguably before that) this is what our specie has had programmed in our DNA. So the reason why I hunt is the same reason why we derive pleasure in being with the opposite sex, even without reproduction being the direct goal.

When they ask me "but then why not just photographing the animals," you can easily guess what my response is, in the form of an analogy.

The way I like to explain it is that we are so disconnected from the natural world these days, and hunting puts you back into the food chain.

 

[HankBuck]

Re: the "hunting for ego" claim. This is what I say to non-hunters who ask me why I like to hunt.

It's not ego. It's not misplaced "manliness." It's not an unlikely physical contest with the animal (which debunks the "why don't you make it fair and use a knife/spear" argument).

It's what we evolved to do. That and reproducing. Since a quarter-million years ago (and arguably before that) this is what our specie has had programmed in our DNA. So the reason why I hunt is the same reason why we derive pleasure in being with the opposite sex, even without reproduction being the direct goal.

When they ask me "but then why not just photographing the animals," you can easily guess what my response is, in the form of an analogy.

Tom: I’m very impressed and Not with your answer - but that you even bother to waste time answering a Question that is NOT really a question…it’s seeking to criticize whatever your response is and the “fake question” just opens the door. You sir are a very nice and patient man….better then Most !

 

[tigris115]

Ok, I wanna say this though

Hunting predators like cougars with hounds is something I heavily agree with for the reason that it allows you to take animals very selectively; a good thing.

For example, if I got a cougar treed with my team of hounds up in the Rockies, I can glass it for a bit and say

"Ok it's kinda big but oops, just saw the rear end and there are no testicles. Alright team, this one's a lady cougar, fall back and we'll try for a tom later"

It's kinda like how lion hunters use bait and camera traps; they don't wanna shoot just any lion but a particular individual.

 

[HankBuck]

Ok, I wanna say this though

Hunting predators like cougars with hounds is something I heavily agree with for the reason that it allows you to take animals very selectively; a good thing.

For example, if I got a cougar treed with my team of hounds up in the Rockies, I can glass it for a bit and say

"Ok it's kinda big but oops, just saw the rear end and there are no testicles. Alright team, this one's a lady cougar, fall back and we'll try for a tom later"

It's kinda like how lion hunters use bait and camera traps; they don't wanna shoot just any lion but a particular individual.

@tigris115 - yes selective AND you get to see some fine Hound work - the dogs and the chase are everything (for me) the actual kill is similar to shooting a big squirrel…so the Cat better be BIG otherwsie its disappointing (unless they were using your Hounds and then again it’s all about the dogs). Most times when treed you can’t see the nuts so they judge by the Head size…and some Big females occasionally get shot (130-140 lbs.)

 

[tigris115]

@tigris115 - yes selective AND you get to see some fine Hound work - the dogs and the chase are everything (for me) the actual kill is similar to shooting a big squirrel…so the Cat better be BIG otherwsie its disappointing (unless they were using your Hounds and then again it’s all about the dogs). Most times when treed you can’t see the nuts so they judge by the Head size…and some Big females occasionally get shot (130-140 lbs.)

Exactly. With dogs, the margin for shooting the wrong cat is absolutely minimized.

When it comes to life in general, I like to leave as little margin for a mistake as possible

 

[steve white]

I'm not one to open a door for the antis, but let's remember, we have an ever growing number of female hunters coming into the sport. This is a great thing, but they may not take to anything very inhumane in appearance. Even the trackers in Africa throw dirt on the blood while cutting back brush and setting up for our photos. Optics are not unimportant. Just sayin.

 

[Wyfox]

You're obviously not a hunter @tigris115
Your confusing "predator control" with "hunting". It's not the same and it's not for everyone. But predator control is necessary.

Our own government state and federal have full time predator control specialists and guess what they use, they run them down with airplanes and helicopters... is that sporting? nope! it's not supposed to be. It serves a purpose, control predator populations to insure survival of lamb, calves, and wintering wildlife. No different then predator contests, it encourages predator management. A necessary conservation tool.

Guess how they hunt wolves in Canada, Europe, and Asia, they run them down on snowmobiles too, it's not hunting it's simply killing, no sport involved.

Killing animals isn't pretty, doesn't matter how you do it.

Soo what's next? going after trappers? or how about the guy driving down the highway that doesn't swerve when a coyote stands in the road, that's not hunting just considered road kill. You going to write a hit piece on motorists running down raccoons in Prius'? Because I see raccoons dead everywhere on the highway, but no protests about that "Save the raccoons from motorists"

What he did that was bullshit was not kill it, he taped it's mouth shut and paraded it around town like an exotic pet. Did that wolf deserve that? no, I 100% agree with that. He should have killed it as soon as he had the opportunity.

When emotions get involved no one wins.

 

[HankBuck]

I'm not one to open a door for the antis, but let's remember, we have an ever growing number of female hunters coming into the sport. This is a great thing, but they may not take to anything very inhumane in appearance. Even the trackers in Africa throw dirt on the blood while cutting back brush and setting up for our photos. Optics are not unimportant. Just sayin.

@steve white - those last words you write “just sayin” - what exactly are you “sayin”? Seems like you are afraid to make a clear point but like to sneak in thru a side door.
If “if” you have an opinion - state it, support it, and then be willing to debate it.

 

[steve white]

I'm sayin optics are important, to keep people from misunderstanding our honorable hunting heritage. It is not worth it to aggravate people unnecessarily especially new women hunters who boost our numbers and teach their kids to hunt, or the undecided urban voters for that matter. Throwing dirt on a bloody animal to cover up blood makes for a better photo without freaking out the overly sensitive.
There are a LOT of things that don't bother me that would bother the general public, but I try not to parade them publicly in such a way as to give hunting a bad name. For example conservation definitely includes predator control, and I will be the first to consistently blow away feral cats that I catch out hunting quail, etc. I just don't do it flagrantly, rather secretively. I don't apologize for it, because I know what the statistics tell on feral cat depredations in Europe--they have eliminated a lot of the game birds there, and I don't want that happening here. But eliminating animals viewed as "pets" would probably be misunderstood at face value by some out there. Same thing happens if I catch dogs running down deer...one of those things that stays "my little secret."
There are hunting traditions elsewhere that show respect for the quarry--the "last bite" for example in Germany. When we do those things we are not seen as having engaged in some kind of blood lust. I'm no better than anyone else and don't want to judge another hunter; we just have to think of how it looks to those outside our sport, without giving up an inch of 2nd A rights or hunting privileges. I wish all wildlife decisions were made wisely and scientifically, but we live in a video world of imaging. And we have enemies--from PETA, to you name it who are looking for an excuse to shut us down--even for trophy hunting, for God's sake. I never thought I'd see the day when even shipping trophies would be a thing to ban! We just live in a messed up world. Before we were outnumbered, it wasn't so bad.

 

[Nevada Mike]

Something I learned in Africa… nothing there dies of old age.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

You're obviously not a hunter @tigris115
Your confusing "predator control" with "hunting". It's not the same and it's not for everyone. But predator control is necessary.

Our own government state and federal have full time predator control specialists and guess what they use, they run them down with airplanes and helicopters... is that sporting? nope! it's not supposed to be. It serves a purpose, control predator populations to insure survival of lamb, calves, and wintering wildlife. No different then predator contests, it encourages predator management. A necessary conservation tool.

Guess how they hunt wolves in Canada, Europe, and Asia, they run them down on snowmobiles too, it's not hunting it's simply killing, no sport involved.

Killing animals isn't pretty, doesn't matter how you do it.

Soo what's next? going after trappers? or how about the guy driving down the highway that doesn't swerve when a coyote stands in the road, that's not hunting just considered road kill. You going to write a hit piece on motorists running down raccoons in Prius'? Because I see raccoons dead everywhere on the highway, but no protests about that "Save the raccoons from motorists"

What he did that was bullshit was not kill it, he taped it's mouth shut and paraded it around town like an exotic pet. Did that wolf deserve that? no, I 100% agree with that. He should have killed it as soon as he had the opportunity.

When emotions get involved no one wins.

What people go after is perceived cruelty. The causing of additional pain for no.reason except entertainment does no one any good. Pictures or video of the kill, or worse the injury of an animal, plastered on social media serves only to cause the anti hunters to start a new round of legislation or a new ballot initiative.

Regardless of the reason for the kill show some respect for the animals you take.

 

[NE 7x57]

I've hunted coyotes for decades. I usually call them which is effective in areas where they haven't been called much. But they are obviously very smart so my success ratio often isn't too high. I've never been a fan of chasing coyotes as many people go bat shit crazy when they're chasing a coyote and I prefer to avoid idiots.

Around here there are specific areas where they are a problem for livestock producers so it's not difficult to get permission to go on private ground to do some calling if the rancher knows and trusts you to not damage something.

Where they are a real problem the government hunts them with planes. Usually one guy flying and another using a shotgun to kill the coyotes.

As for the article, I knew what the author's agenda was within the first few lines.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Re: the "hunting for ego" claim. This is what I say to non-hunters who ask me why I like to hunt.

It's not ego. It's not misplaced "manliness." It's not an unlikely physical contest with the animal (which debunks the "why don't you make it fair and use a knife/spear" argument).

It's what we evolved to do. That and reproducing. Since a quarter-million years ago (and arguably before that) this is what our specie has had programmed in our DNA. So the reason why I hunt is the same reason why we derive pleasure in being with the opposite sex, even without reproduction being the direct goal.

When they ask me "but then why not just photographing the animals," you can easily guess what my response is, in the form of an analogy.

Very well said Tom. Humans evolved to reproduce and to hunt. I would also say that humans have evolved to create and use tools. When someone asks me why I hunt I will now tell.them that. When they then ask why I kill animals when I could just buy meat, I will ask them why would they have sex if they aren't trying to reproduce. If they persist and ask about using guns instead of knives and spears we can tell.them that it's also part of the evolution of humans. Very concise.

 

[Tam Dl]

Article written by a wolf in sheep's clothing, aka the "ethics police".

There is nothing wrong with policing ethics. For one thing, some states do build laws around concepts like fair chase so that what are ethical standards have the force of law. So sure they are laws, but they are laws on hunting ethics, from the conservation perspective, it doesn't matter whether the quota is met by napalm from helicopters, or Otzi's flit arrow.

Ethics are the crux of the matter because those are (outside of their inclusion within laws) the undertakings we make to society and our fellow hunter, in a variety of regards. They are our highest values, and when we loose those the rest will tumble.

The ethics police can be bullies, or bores, or people who don't realize that they speak only for themselves. That is unethical. The reason most people don't like the ethics police, is because they aren't behaving ethically. They might have a good set of ethics, but they don't wield them ethically.

 

[Tam Dl]

"I myself am pro hunting when it can prove itself as a worthy asset to the conservation of species and ecosystems as a whole."

That is a stupid thing to say. For one thing, the vast majority of hunting, one could probably argue all of it, does not exist outside of the "ecosystem".

Many animals curate and alter their little piece of the environment, destroying parts of it, to create conditions optimized for their use. Murder is also a part of this.

One of the arguments made by those who would reintroduce wolves was that the wolves would radically change everything from wetlands to animal herds. They didn't do this by bills in congress, the wolves ate and fought their ways to the new equilibrium.

"ecosystem" is a human centered, management oriented, administration empowering concept of nature. It is a technology. Technology is manipulated, and people have to fight to decide what the goals are. Always keeping in mind that in many cases the goals are to make work for the technocrats.

 

[HankBuck]

Very well said Tom. Humans evolved to reproduce and to hunt. I would also say that humans have evolved to create and use tools. When someone asks me why I hunt I will now tell.them that. When they then ask why I kill animals when I could just buy meat, I will ask them why would they have sex if they aren't trying to reproduce. If they persist and ask about using guns instead of knives and spears we can tell.them that it's also part of the evolution of humans. Very concise.

@Doug Hamilton , I’m getting confused here - is “Tom” saying we Hunt because we can’t have Sex? Or because we aren’t having Sex Right-Now? I think we need to be careful and make sure we communicate this message accurately….I’m gonna say that “Hunting” is what Man did After Sex - but Before cigarettes.

 

[Tom Leoni]

Hello, @HankBuck - what I was saying is that hunting is as much ingrained in our evolutionary psychology as mating. For at least a quarter million years, humans have evolved to hunt and reproduce, and for this reason both activities trigger a natural sense of pleasure and satisfaction. One is not a substitute or palliative for the other--they are just strong coexisting urges that are part of our evolutionary nature, as much as out heart has evolved to pump blood and our eyes have evolved to see.

Even in spite of our recent "self-bestowed nobility" (than you, Peter Capstick), the urge to hunt is present in every human--especially males. Scratch beneath the surface, and even the most inveterate anti will use other, more indirect activities such as bird-watching, photo safaris, videogames, certain sports, etc. to satisfy this primal need.

Re. why we use rifles as opposed to knives and spears, this is what I say when I'm asked the question: a rifle offers the quickest and most humane way to collect an animal while minimizing the chance of wounding and losing it--only to have it potentially suffer a lingering death or be easily pulled down by predators. If this doesn't convince them, they're not worth broaching the subject with.

 

[tigris115]

I feel like I actually gotta state myself more, as a non-hunter

Obviously I'm pro hunting as the use of hunting in conservation has paid in dividends for a wide variety of species. I've done extensive research and a wide variety of cases has shown that, while hunting can have glaring imperfections for conservation when poorly managed, being totally anti-hunting is utterly foolish.

That being said, while I'm not on team "don't shoot predators ever," I think running over an animal with a snowmobile and then bashing it against said snow mobile is a bit much. Though, as said earlier, I agree with using dogs for large predators as it lets you be more selective and greatly decreases the chances of a wounded animal successfully getting away. Like if a black bear gets away after being shot, the dogs are much better at trailing it, keeping on its heels, and baying it until the hunter can deliver a proper killing shot.

I'm not sure how much of this there is but how much educational material is put out there by the big organizations (NRA, DSC, SCI, BnC, DU, etc.) that tries to explain details of hunting to non-hunters? It's kinda like the same things as when someone says all zoos are prison until they actually see how a modern zoo operates and the work they do.

For example, I could see a video that explains the conservation of the many caprids that live in the -stan countries through hunting that explains how such practices help conservation. Just include professional citations.