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

[Doug Hamilton]

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.

Makes perfect sense, but hunting and pest control are not exactly the same thing. Even most of those that are rabidly opposed to hunting and trapping aren't too concerned about killing rats and mice.

Those that are opposed to killing wolves under any circumstances won't care about what range you shoot them at. The Disney School of Wildlife Management has no.requirement of common sense.

 

[rookhawk]

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.

The problem with hunters is we're loud and proud as an interest group. Explaining to a non-hunter we kill elephants and lions is not a good entry. The best testimony is to be a good human and have the public over for a dinner of turkey and venison. When the uninformed public trusts your ethics personally, then you can explain how sport hunting of big game is true conservation. They won't cross that bridge until they believe in you. Once they believe in your ethics, you can explain how sport hunting and trophy hunting is saving species, economies, and lives. It has to start with a bowl of turkey chili that you harvested for clean living off your own land.

 

[Hunter-Habib]

The problem with hunters is we're loud and proud as an interest group. Explaining to a non-hunter we kill elephants and lions is not a good entry. The best testimony is to be a good human and have the public over for a dinner of turkey and venison. When the uninformed public trusts your ethics personally, then you can explain how sport hunting of big game is true conservation. They won't cross that bridge until they believe in you. Once they believe in your ethics, you can explain how sport hunting and trophy hunting is saving species, economies, and lives. It has to start with a bowl of turkey chili that you harvested for clean living off your own land.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. It starts with something small and relatable to the common masses.

 

[rookhawk]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. It starts with something small and relatable to the common masses.

I would think in your area of the world, it is especially hard to convince people that hunting is conservation. You're surrounded by Hindus, and your nation is a high-population muslim country. By those circumstances, policy has been to touch nothing, harvest nothing, out of necessity. Each of us needs to meet our neighbors at their level of understanding and build trust while we expand minds.

 

[Neophyte]

Makes perfect sense, but hunting and pest control are not exactly the same thing. Even most of those that are rabidly opposed to hunting and trapping aren't too concerned about killing rats and mice.

Those that are opposed to killing wolves under any circumstances won't care about what range you shoot them at. The Disney School of Wildlife Management has no.requirement of common sense.

If they love them so much they should bear the cost of those worthless critters. Not only that they should take them home and let them live in their apartments with them.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

If they love them so much they should bear the cost of those worthless critters. Not only that they should take them home and let them live in their apartments with them.

Maybe you haven't heard, Walt Disney taught us that animals all love each other and live forever unless some evil human kills them. "Run Bambi! Man is in the forest!"

 

[Hunter-Habib]

I would think in your area of the world, it is especially hard to convince people that hunting is conservation. You're surrounded by Hindus, and your nation is a high-population muslim country. By those circumstances, policy has been to touch nothing, harvest nothing, out of necessity. Each of us needs to meet our neighbors at their level of understanding and build trust while we expand minds.

It's a little bit more complex than that. You see... bird hunting and (to a lesser extent) deer hunting, rabbit hunting & boar hunting are pretty common pastimes in the rural parts of our country. Venison and wild game meat is considered a delicacy at the family meal tables of most rural Bengalis. Being a country of 700 rivers, waterfowl hunting is an almost universally popular hobby in rural areas. As a matter of fact, from October to April... you'll be hard-pressed to find a rural home where pin tails or whistling teals or bar headed geese or greylag geese AREN'T eaten.

Nine out of ten Bengalis view hunting (and fishing) to be a positive thing.
BUT
This only extends to game animals which are typically seen as conventional tablefare (upland birds, waterfowl, deer, rabbits, buffalo, nilgai, boars & the like).

The problem begins when you try to convince them that "Trophy Hunting" is actually a good thing. For instance, when I was Chief Conservator Of Forests of Bangladesh (and later a Member of Parliament for two consecutive terms)... I brought up the proposal that we should re-legalize the hunting of Royal Bengal tigers in order to reduce human-wildlife conflict in the rural areas outlying the Sundarbans mangrove forests (where an average of 52 human beings are killed by Royal Bengal tigers per year)... my colleagues at the Ministry of Forests (even my staunchest supporters) flatly told me that I would be committing career suicide by even bringing this proposal up. It didn't matter that the population of Royal Bengal tigers inhabiting the Sundarbans is currently at an all-time high (far exceeding the terrain's L.C.C or Land Carrying Capacity). I was simply told that legalizing Royal Bengal tiger hunting was a complete no-go. From a hunter/conservationist's perspective, this is very tragic. But from a politician's perspective... I can totally understand why my colleagues stopped me. They arguably saved my career and allowed me to retire peacefully.

In other words, let me put it simply for you: Nine out of ten Bengalis would view hunting a Cape buffalo in Africa as a good thing (because it's a game animal typically associated with tablefare). Two out of those ten would view hunting a lion in Africa as a good thing (regardless of how much lion hunting can have an overall positive effect for wildlife conservation). I was however, recently able to get a very talented group of young university students (while conducting a lecture on sustainable wildlife management at Rangpur University) to view the trophy hunting of African lions in a much more positive light... after I showed them slides of the meat harvested from a hunted African lion being distributed amongst local rural African communities. I explained that in Africa... absolutely nothing goes to waste. Perhaps, we would have better success in inciting relatability amongst the common Bengali masses if we changed name "Trophy Hunting" to "Management Hunting" (or something along those lines).

In regards to being surrounded by Hindus, this is also not as clear cut an issue as people think. The Hindus living in Bangladesh for generations are more or less okay with hunting (quite a few even hunt regularly themselves). Most of them will eat meat (except for beef). The problem is the Hindus living in India (which surrounds Bangladesh on three sides). They view Bangladesh as a neocolonialistic possession of theirs and have been frequently trying to get all forms of hunting (as well as firearms ownership) banned in Bangladesh.

Our previous government (who was overthrown on 5th August of this year) were bootlickers to the Indians because the Indian government basically installed them here so that they can run Bangladesh like an Indian colony. Our previous government were thus quite restrictive regarding hunting & firearms (although they couldn't afford to outright ban hunting & firearms ownership because it would incite a very vocal discontent amongst rural Bengalis). After our new government (who basically hate the current Indian BJP government for ruining our country in the last 16 years) came to power, they relaxed hunting & firearms ownership laws to more reasonable degrees. Because it's an army backed government. And in Bangladesh, nine out of ten army officers view hunting & firearms ownership as a good thing.

We are still a long way from making the common Bengali unde that hunting ten Royal Bengal tigers a year (in order to save a thousand) is a good thing. But never say never.

I covered many of these points in Chapter VIII & Chapter X of my autobiography. Not trying to sell books or do product promotion, but it would help you understand this topic in a little more fleshed out manner.

 

[J.Ogilvie]

The problem with hunters is we're loud and proud as an interest group. Explaining to a non-hunter we kill elephants and lions is not a good entry. The best testimony is to be a good human and have the public over for a dinner of turkey and venison. When the uninformed public trusts your ethics personally, then you can explain how sport hunting of big game is true conservation. They won't cross that bridge until they believe in you. Once they believe in your ethics, you can explain how sport hunting and trophy hunting is saving species, economies, and lives. It has to start with a bowl of turkey chili that you harvested for clean living off your own land.

This is exactly right. It's one of the reasons why I think Meateater/Steven Rinella has been so successful as a representative for hunters.

 

[Tam Dl]

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.

This isn't the '40s any more, most people are shooting those bush deer with a bolt gun, and possibly a 3x9 scope. Basically Carlos Hathcock's gear. Many of those same timber hunters shoot groundhogs in the off season, and in the pastures, those ranges can be extreme.

In the open, steep country of the West, that is often not possible.

I took an archery tune-up course from a famous PSE archer. We got him out to diner, and he mentioned that they didn't like to talk about it ( ), but in Arizona you pretty much needed to be lethal at 80 yards if you want to get your antelope (I consider that an unethical bow shot, but maybe not from a national champion, who had won tournaments at those kinds of range). So for sure, you need to be able to take longer shots, but why does it always seem that bowhunters are still 5X-10X closer than gun hunters.

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 hear there is a problem with those canyon busters if they don't happen to be people who know the terrain. And they then find they can't get across. But the thing is that people are sniper LARPing wild today. They have new cartridges and gear that makes longer shots possible, as you mentioned. That is where the current discussion gets frisky. They often aren't aware that those High BC bullets are not terminally optimal across their field of play. They don't know how difficult it can be to find the point of impact once you start walking it up. And they usually have optimistic opinions about the difference between the best shots and groups they made, and what the statistical norm would be for at the range, and how that will degrade in the field. I don' think most people feel 400 yards is extreme, I would not shoot it if I couldn't practice it, and I don't have that range. That may be another advantage to the west, maybe you access to that kind of practice.

 

[Tam Dl]

There has long been a tradition of using the words "hunting", or "shooting" selectively. Hunters find the game and try to shoot it. Shooter don't find the game but may shoot it. Something like driven game shooting employing beaters, is likely not described as hunting. Using professional hunter may involve a division, as does hunting with a dog. The balance of roles, and activities of the hunter/shooter in the field, and local custom, will determine which term is more accurate.

I don't consider either activity more ethical. I have a property with lots of deer. I could walk out the door with a rifle and bag one with zero hunting, at the apple trees, and I don't see why non-hunters should object, I am just, literally, harvesting a crop, that was harvesting another crop. But if it was a big one and I mounted it, and told everyone what a master hunter I was, I would be a liar. And the same is true if I took him with a 400 yard shot down the long view out my front door.

 

[Neophyte]

This isn't the '40s any more, most people are shooting those bush deer with a bolt gun, and possibly a 3x9 scope. Basically Carlos Hathcock's gear. Many of those same timber hunters shoot groundhogs in the off season, and in the pastures, those ranges can be extreme.



I took an archery tune-up course from a famous PSE archer. We got him out to diner, and he mentioned that they didn't like to talk about it ( ), but in Arizona you pretty much needed to be lethal at 80 yards if you want to get your antelope (I consider that an unethical bow shot, but maybe not from a national champion, who had won tournaments at those kinds of range). So for sure, you need to be able to take longer shots, but why does it always seem that bowhunters are still 5X-10X closer than gun hunters.


I hear there is a problem with those canyon busters if they don't happen to be people who know the terrain. And they then find they can't get across. But the thing is that people are sniper LARPing wild today. They have new cartridges and gear that makes longer shots possible, as you mentioned. That is where the current discussion gets frisky. They often aren't aware that those High BC bullets are not terminally optimal across their field of play. They don't know how difficult it can be to find the point of impact once you start walking it up. And they usually have optimistic opinions about the difference between the best shots and groups they made, and what the statistical norm would be for at the range, and how that will degrade in the field. I don' think most people feel 400 yards is extreme, I would not shoot it if I couldn't practice it, and I don't have that range. That may be another advantage to the west, maybe you access to that kind of practice.

Bow season is in January which is when the rut is on and many units are OTC tags.

There is a season in August but the success rate is much lower. It’s also before they are pressured by rifle hunters.

As for myself I have a self imposed limit of 400 Yards with a rifle and I’ve hunted AZ a lot. I don’t do stick and string and have no desire to. I just tell people that my great grandfather fought people using stick and string and was superior to their antiquated weapons system and I have no desire to go backwards.

 

[Tam Dl]

I happened to get a letter to the editor of Traditional Bowhunting published, back when it was print only, on the subject of trophy hunting, which not even that community seemed to agree on. My point was that as we practiced it, it was normally a matter of self guided hunts, for superior specimens, where the fact of pursuing those specimens radically reduced the chance of success, raised the challenge, and all the meat would be eaten. This gave all the animals a better chance of survival; should mean they were more likely to be humanely harvested (on the assumption that only relatively expert people would make the shots and not just bust one loose and loose that chance for ever). Trophy hunting has a bad reputation, where it does, because people think that the hunters are not going to eat the animals, and and are simply obsessed with a wall hanger. And because they read the occasional article about someone whose quest descended to poaching.

Harder to defend are the guided trophy hunts, but they are the only option in many parts of the world. I can easily defend them, but given that even many hunters don't know what the easier case for trophy hunting is, I don't know that there is much point in trying to make the case for the general public.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

This isn't the '40s any more, most people are shooting those bush deer with a bolt gun, and possibly a 3x9 scope. Basically Carlos Hathcock's gear. Many of those same timber hunters shoot groundhogs in the off season, and in the pastures, those ranges can be extreme.



I took an archery tune-up course from a famous PSE archer. We got him out to diner, and he mentioned that they didn't like to talk about it ( ), but in Arizona you pretty much needed to be lethal at 80 yards if you want to get your antelope (I consider that an unethical bow shot, but maybe not from a national champion, who had won tournaments at those kinds of range). So for sure, you need to be able to take longer shots, but why does it always seem that bowhunters are still 5X-10X closer than gun hunters.


I hear there is a problem with those canyon busters if they don't happen to be people who know the terrain. And they then find they can't get across. But the thing is that people are sniper LARPing wild today. They have new cartridges and gear that makes longer shots possible, as you mentioned. That is where the current discussion gets frisky. They often aren't aware that those High BC bullets are not terminally optimal across their field of play. They don't know how difficult it can be to find the point of impact once you start walking it up. And they usually have optimistic opinions about the difference between the best shots and groups they made, and what the statistical norm would be for at the range, and how that will degrade in the field. I don' think most people feel 400 yards is extreme, I would not shoot it if I couldn't practice it, and I don't have that range. That may be another advantage to the west, maybe you access to that kind of practice.

Archers aren't competing with rifle hunters. I have always found it was easier to see deer during the archery season. See not take, but there may be.more opportunities. I have taken three mule deer bucks on inside 100 yards in open country, but so have also had to leave some huge bucks without firing a shot.because there was no.way to get closer than 300 yards. The two pronghorns that I took were at about 100 yards, and 150. It's not that I don't know how to stalk, but sometimes it just isn't possible.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

There has long been a tradition of using the words "hunting", or "shooting" selectively. Hunters find the game and try to shoot it. Shooter don't find the game but may shoot it. Something like driven game shooting employing beaters, is likely not described as hunting. Using professional hunter may involve a division, as does hunting with a dog. The balance of roles, and activities of the hunter/shooter in the field, and local custom, will determine which term is more accurate.

I don't consider either activity more ethical. I have a property with lots of deer. I could walk out the door with a rifle and bag one with zero hunting, at the apple trees, and I don't see why non-hunters should object, I am just, literally, harvesting a crop, that was harvesting another crop. But if it was a big one and I mounted it, and told everyone what a master hunter I was, I would be a liar. And the same is true if I took him with a 400 yard shot down the long view out my front door.

I know an old Scottish sportsman who makes it very clear when we chat about country sport that you stalk deer, shoot birds, and hunt foxes on horseback. He has begrudgingly admitted that the American use of hunting to describe every sort of game pursuit has bled into British usage somewhat.

 

[J.Ogilvie]

It's a little bit more complex than that. You see... bird hunting and (to a lesser extent) deer hunting, rabbit hunting & boar hunting are pretty common pastimes in the rural parts of our country. Venison and wild game meat is considered a delicacy at the family meal tables of most rural Bengalis. Being a country of 700 rivers, waterfowl hunting is an almost universally popular hobby in rural areas. As a matter of fact, from October to April... you'll be hard-pressed to find a rural home where pin tails or whistling teals or bar headed geese or greylag geese AREN'T eaten.

...

Thanks for this fascinating insight into the hunting culture in Bangladesh. What is the name of your book and where can it be bought?

 

[Hunter-Habib]

Thanks for this fascinating insight into the hunting culture in Bangladesh. What is the name of your book and where can it be bought?

@PerH can assist you with that one.

 

[ACE (in CT)]

Fascinating thread!
Some very intelligent articulate and compelling positions have been presented, (and some others as well).

I’m always grateful when we hunters can have thoughtful, respectful and informed disagreements with each other without them turning into arguments or name calling.

I completely agree that the best way to connect with non hunters is via delicious healthy game based meals. I have opened a LOT of eyes with delicious Bear Hotdogs!
The anti hunters will never be convinced of our views because emotion not logic informs their position.

Local, regional norms and traditions figure heavily into what is acceptable and considered ethical in different types of Hunting (as in much of life). It’s important to remember that Baiting, using hounds, long range Hunting, etc are traditional and accepted as ethical Regionally; and understanding the history and culture requires much more than a superficial observation.

Defining terms is also important and perhaps even more difficult. What do the terms “Trophy Hunting”, “Sport Hunting”, “Fair Chase” etc. mean? Without common language, misunderstandings are inevitable.

I often end lively discussions (when consensus becomes unlikely) with the phrase: “Well THAT’S why they make chocolate and vanilla!”
(Secretly I can’t fathom why anyone would prefer vanilla).

 

[DieJager]

(Secretly I can’t fathom why anyone would prefer vanilla).

Sacrilege! Vanilla all the way

 

[LivingTheDream]

Vanilla is so much better.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I happened to get a letter to the editor of Traditional Bowhunting published, back when it was print only, on the subject of trophy hunting, which not even that community seemed to agree on. My point was that as we practiced it, it was normally a matter of self guided hunts, for superior specimens, where the fact of pursuing those specimens radically reduced the chance of success, raised the challenge, and all the meat would be eaten. This gave all the animals a better chance of survival; should mean they were more likely to be humanely harvested (on the assumption that only relatively expert people would make the shots and not just bust one loose and loose that chance for ever). Trophy hunting has a bad reputation, where it does, because people think that the hunters are not going to eat the animals, and and are simply obsessed with a wall hanger. And because they read the occasional article about someone whose quest descended to poaching.

Harder to defend are the guided trophy hunts, but they are the only option in many parts of the world. I can easily defend them, but given that even many hunters don't know what the easier case for trophy hunting is, I don't know that there is much point in trying to make the case for the general

Archers aren't competing with rifle hunters. I have always found it was easier to see deer during the archery season. See not take, but there may be.more opportunities. I have taken three mule deer bucks on inside 100 yards in open country, but so have also had to leave some huge bucks without firing a shot.because there was no.way to get closer than 300 yards. The two pronghorns that I took were at about 100 yards, and 150. It's not that I don't know how to stalk, but sometimes it just isn't possible.

The three bucks inside 100 yards were taken with a.muzzle loader. Again, I wasn't competing with modern rifle hunters, and had more sightings and opportunities than would have been likely during a modern rifle season. Could I have tried to lob a shot at 200 yards at a huge buck with my side hammer .54? Maybe, but I would consider that unethical. There is no clear line with ethics.