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

[Doug Hamilton]

The Sambar are no problem as they are browsers, and if anything are benefical as they eat the woody weeds- plus they are good eating.
The Kangaroos being native and given they directly compete with the cattle are a much bigger problem. There are government licenced hunters that can cull the roos. We had 450 taken off one property last year and you can hardly notice the difference, there are still 1,000s. And this gets to the point of public perception. Currently globally there is a campaign against all the fooball boot manufactures to stop using K-Leather (Kangaroo Leather) Which is a totally sustainable natural product and replace it with a synthetic hydrocarbon based inferior alternative - logic has nothing to do with it, it is all emotional. If we don't recognise and accept that emotional public campaigns could be the demise of our sport then we are naive. We must not condone any inhumane actions if we want our sport to continue.
After that rant. Here is how dingoes are controlled.

In my state Dingoes are protected, but wild dogs are vermin.

The emotionalism that you mention sounds really familiar. Are you sure that Australia and the US aren't part of the same country?

 

[BlueFlyer]

The thing is, these methods are used by farmers and other members of the agriculture community.

As being part of the farming community I will not take offence at the generalisation. The point is the majority of the public would not be able to tell the difference between a hunter and a non-hunter. All they see is a person killing a defenceless animal! And in the video referenced in the article, there was absolutely no way of determining if the person was a hunter or rancher. All that could be seen was a person torturing an animal to death.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

As being part of the farming community I will not take offence at the generalisation. The point is the majority of the public would not be able to tell the difference between a hunter and a non-hunter. All they see is a person killing a defenceless animal! And in the video referenced in the article, there was absolutely no way of determining if the person was a hunter or rancher. All that could be seen was a person torturing an animal to death.

Agreed. But I do know something about the methods that are used in the Western US to control deer in the vineyards as well as how sheep ranchers controlling coyotes. I have even been playing invited to help. I refused.

My response was to Tigris115. The OP keeps stating that "hunters" have to stop using inhumane methods when in fact I am not seeing any evidence that hunters are using them.

 

[TOBY458]

The Sambar are no problem as they are browsers, and if anything are benefical as they eat the woody weeds- plus they are good eating.
The Kangaroos being native and given they directly compete with the cattle are a much bigger problem. There are government licenced hunters that can cull the roos. We had 450 taken off one property last year and you can hardly notice the difference, there are still 1,000s. And this gets to the point of public perception. Currently globally there is a campaign against all the fooball boot manufactures to stop using K-Leather (Kangaroo Leather) Which is a totally sustainable natural product and replace it with a synthetic hydrocarbon based inferior alternative - logic has nothing to do with it, it is all emotional. If we don't recognise and accept that emotional public campaigns could be the demise of our sport then we are naive. We must not condone any inhumane actions if we want our sport to continue.
After that rant. Here is how dingoes are controlled.

In my state Dingoes are protected, but wild dogs are vermin.

Thanks for posting this. Very good video! What breed are your hunting dogs?

 

[LivingTheDream]

My response was to Tigris115. The OP keeps stating that "hunters" have to stop using inhumane methods when in fact I am not seeing any evidence that hunters are using them.

This was 100% the point I was trying to make, if you keep saying hunters this is nothing more that misleading Anti Hunting propaganda.

 

[HankBuck]

Agreed. But I do know something about the methods that are used in the Western US to control deer in the vineyards as well as how sheep ranchers controlling coyotes. I have even been playing invited to help. I refused.

My response was to Tigris115. The OP keeps stating that "hunters" have to stop using inhumane methods when in fact I am not seeing any evidence that hunters are using them.

@Doug Hamilton - appears “Tigris115” is Not a Hunter, more a philosopher/pontificator

 

[Saul]

@Doug Hamilton - appears “Tigris115” is Not a Hunter, more a philosopher/pontificator

He is a graduate student studying African conservation.

 

[DieJager]

Give the guy some slack. He is trying and he seems on our side. Everybody needs to start somewhere.

 

[375Ruger416]

He seems open minded, which I’ll take.

 

[LivingTheDream]

Give the guy some slack. He is trying and he seems on our side. Everybody needs to start somewhere.

I actually enjoy his posts and it is good to get a different perspective. Though I have been frustrated with this particular post I do think it is good for him to be on here contributing.

 

[BlueFlyer]

Thanks for posting this. Very good video! What breed are your hunting dogs?

Sorry for the confusion, the guy in the video is not me. His dogs look like Short Haired Border Collies. Border Collies and Kelpies are the most popular working dog breeds down here.

 

[tigris115]

I actually enjoy his posts and it is good to get a different perspective. Though I have been frustrated with this particular post I do think it is good for him to be on here contributing.

Oh shut up, you're making me blush lol

 

[Tam Dl]

@tigris115: You don’t Hunt but you have an opinion on Hunting? And You are entitled to that. I’m Not a Doctor but I have opinions on medical treatments and I’m entitled to that. Both of Our “opinions” in these areas are equally “Worthless”

There are ways in which members of the non-hunting public have every right to an opinion about hunting. People are tossing around concepts about what is or is not humane. Not only are we going to have to deal with those opinions as they are held by the public, but I don't see hunters as being the experts in that domain. They are potentially expert in what is happening in the field, but not on the overarching concept of how humane it is. And we shouldn't kid ourselves, even executions in the death house have failed to meet the standard, when the whole thing is under tight control. We can undertake to never make an animal suffer, but it isn't going to be the reality.

I was in a commercial airline crash, and one of the reasons why it happened was that the weather was bad, freezing rain, and the pilot took the opportunity to hand the controls over to a less experienced pilot who completely messed up. We all have to learn how to do things, whether it was my house cat toying with flies, or the self taught kid with his 22. I have seen some wounding studies, and it is sobering but not surprising. The results are so shocking it will get a thread on an archery board, I am a long time member of, locked to bring it up.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

There are ways in which members of the non-hunting public have every right to an opinion about hunting. People are tossing around concepts about what is or is not humane. Not only are we going to have to deal with those opinions as they are held by the public, but I don't see hunters as being the experts in that domain. They are potentially expert in what is happening in the field, but not on the overarching concept of how humane it is. And we shouldn't kid ourselves, even executions in the death house have failed to meet the standard, when the whole thing is under tight control. We can undertake to never make an animal suffer, but it isn't going to be the reality.

I was in a commercial airline crash, and one of the reasons why it happened was that the weather was bad, freezing rain, and the pilot took the opportunity to hand the controls over to a less experienced pilot who completely messed up. We all have to learn how to do things, whether it was my house cat toying with flies, or the self taught kid with his 22. I have seen some wounding studies, and it is sobering but not surprising. The results are so shocking it will get a thread on an archery board, I am a long time member of, locked to bring it up.

As with many things, intent is the defining feature. Shooting a coyote that suffers as a result of a bad hit is not the same as the inning him down intentionally and then racing your snowmobile over him repeatedly u til he dies.

In human terms drinking and driving and killing someone by accident is not the same as planning a Murder 1 and executing the plan to kill someone. Yes, the victim dies either way, and yes both acts are illegal, but the actions are judged much differently

 

[Tam Dl]

As with many things, intent is the defining feature. Shooting a coyote that suffers as a result of a bad hit is not the same as the inning him down intentionally and then racing your snowmobile over him repeatedly u til he dies.

In human terms drinking and driving and killing someone by accident is not the same as planning a Murder 1 and executing the plan to kill someone. Yes, the victim dies either way, and yes both acts are illegal, but the actions are judged much differently

It would depend to some extent on the probability of the bad hit. Hunting, in many of it's North American forms, in the absence of external consequences for bad hits, nested in the long range culture, and the varmint long range culture, is willing to risk bad hits. There has been, in my experience quite a difference in the kinds of shots people take on game that is to be recovered (as predator fur often is), animals that need to be destroyed, and vermin that is seen as an interesting opportunity for shooting.

Intent is also a little vague. Do people who shoot vermin that drops back into their holes, intend to cause them a painful death, generally not, and they certainly don't want to "miss", but the lack of intent is different than concern and being proactive.

Earlier it was mentioned that I didn't seem like a hunter. To some extent code for if you raise moral issues you don't fit in. Which is the great thing about online, there is no "in" into which to fit. I do recognize than in many hunting communities, around the world, there is enforcement of hunting rules due to the fact that people pay to play. I prefer the NA system, but it lacks accountability.

I forget what the recent context was, but maybe the Chauvin/Floyd thing. I was until then unaware that if he were found guilty of accidental manslaughter, he could be "judged" during sentencing with a sentence of very nearly the same length as for Murder 1.

 

[HankBuck]

It would depend to some extent on the probability of the bad hit. Hunting, in many of it's North American forms, in the absence of external consequences for bad hits, nested in the long range culture, and the varmint long range culture, is willing to risk bad hits. There has been, in my experience quite a difference in the kinds of shots people take on game that is to be recovered (as predator fur often is), animals that need to be destroyed, and vermin that is seen as an interesting opportunity for shooting.

Intent is also a little vague. Do people who shoot vermin that drops back into their holes, intend to cause them a painful death, generally not, and they certainly don't want to "miss", but the lack of intent is different than concern and being proactive.

Earlier it was mentioned that I didn't seem like a hunter. To some extent code for if you raise moral issues you don't fit in. Which is the great thing about online, there is no "in" into which to fit. I do recognize than in many hunting communities, around the world, there is enforcement of hunting rules due to the fact that people pay to play. I prefer the NA system, but it lacks accountability.

I forget what the recent context was, but maybe the Chauvin/Floyd thing. I was until then unaware that if he were found guilty of accidental manslaughter, he could be "judged" during sentencing with a sentence of very nearly the same length as for Murder 1.

@Tam Dl : I know there is a ”point” being made somewhere in your post - could you get to it or highlight it? Not being a Hunter does not matter, it is only one data point and different opinions are always welcome…even if the majority does not agree

 

[Doug Hamilton]

It would depend to some extent on the probability of the bad hit. Hunting, in many of it's North American forms, in the absence of external consequences for bad hits, nested in the long range culture, and the varmint long range culture, is willing to risk bad hits. There has been, in my experience quite a difference in the kinds of shots people take on game that is to be recovered (as predator fur often is), animals that need to be destroyed, and vermin that is seen as an interesting opportunity for shooting.

Intent is also a little vague. Do people who shoot vermin that drops back into their holes, intend to cause them a painful death, generally not, and they certainly don't want to "miss", but the lack of intent is different than concern and being proactive.

Earlier it was mentioned that I didn't seem like a hunter. To some extent code for if you raise moral issues you don't fit in. Which is the great thing about online, there is no "in" into which to fit. I do recognize than in many hunting communities, around the world, there is enforcement of hunting rules due to the fact that people pay to play. I prefer the NA system, but it lacks accountability.

I forget what the recent context was, but maybe the Chauvin/Floyd thing. I was until then unaware that if he were found guilty of accidental manslaughter, he could be "judged" during sentencing with a sentence of very nearly the same length as for Murder 1.

Sorry, I don't think I got your point. People have made unintentional poor hits since the atlatl. "Long range" really has nothing to do with it. Anyone that shoots an animal that he wants to recover for food or fur will make every effort to find the animal because that is the point. Some people are too lazy or stupid to actually make the recovery, but creating pain is not the point as it sometimes is with farmers.

 

[Mentone Mike]

Certainly all food for thought and things we as hunters all need to be aware of. The majority rules and
we are slowly being legislated out of our sport.
Here's another thing that is also coming up lately. Is long range hunting really hunting or just shooting?

 

[Neophyte]

Personally I don’t care how a coyote or wolf meets its end.

They are a shoot on sight animal to me due to the damage they do to cattle and sheep. If I’m hunting I’ll follow the laws. If I’m involved in livestock production I’ll do what is best for the animal crop in my care.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Certainly all food for thought and things we as hunters all need to be aware of. The majority rules and
we are slowly being legislated out of our sport.
Here's another thing that is also coming up lately. Is long range hunting really hunting or just shooting?

As with many things, it depends on circumstances. People that learn to hunt in dense, flat country think anything over a hundred yards is long distance shooting. In their naivety they try to say everyone should just stalk closer. In the open, steep country of the West, that is often not possible. Shot opportunities at mule deer or elk can be hard to come by and they may be across a canyon. Under those circumstances, I personally do not consider 400 yards to be extreme, although that is my personal, self imposed range limit. I do consider anything that requires a "dial-up" scope to be unethical, but again that's perspective. I do not consider anyone that brags about the "Thousand Yard Club" to be to be a real hunter. To me that is nothing more than a stunt where an animal is just a target.