Royal27
AH ambassador
There have been several very interesting threads here lately that basically invoked discussion, sometimes heated, around what is "OK" to hunt, or how it is "OK" to hunt something. And how we should all react to those situations in order to protect hunting in general.
So I'd like to take this a slightly different direction. My real question here is not what particular hunt/activity is "OK," but rather how we should react when we determine that something is wrong and what constitutes "wrong." In other words, should we support any activity that is legal at the time it took place regardless of our ethical belief?
For me personally, there is some gray area in the decision making process itself when it comes to how we should react to a particular situation. It is not always cut and dry and especially from the ethical point of view. I believe this because I don't think that ethics, for the group, are cut and dry like a law is. But I also don't think they should be discounted, which seems to happen quite often.
First, to address the legal aspect. This one is cut and dry to me. If it is illegal in a particular area we shouldn't do it, or support it (for that area), period. Examples of this are hunting at night with lights, or hunting dangerous game with a below legal size caliber. If you do these things, where illegal, you are in the wrong in my book, period. I've seen the excuse used that it is legal elsewhere and that makes it OK, because someone thinks the law in question is wrong. I don't agree with this belief at all. It is against my personal ethics.
Now here is where the gray area comes in, for me personally. Is night hunting ethical just because it is legal, or is hunting a lion OK with a .243 (extreme example on purpose) because there is no legal restriction in a particular area? The ethics of these questions are to me partially a personal decision and there is no black and white answer. One of the definitions for ethics is as follows:
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior
So my ethics may be, and probably are, different from yours. Or, the ethics of Texas hunters as a group may be dfferent than those raised in South Africa. If my personal ethics are not supported should I then overlook them in order to support the "greater good" of hunting because an act is legal? I don't believe I should, and I don't. There are many though that clearly state that if it is legal we must support it, period. I believe that position leaves ethics out altogether as there are many laws on the books in many countries over many different subjects that I don't believe are ethical. Am I to support them just because they are legal, or because they are part of something else I do support?
This is a very complex subject in my mind. Not so much because of the legality that always seems to be the first thing that people point to, but because of ethics. I won't blindly support something I don't agree with in order to help something I do. If my team loses because I did the right thing (in my mind) then so be it. I won't "cheat to win." Whether I like it or not, there are shades of gray.
So I'd like to take this a slightly different direction. My real question here is not what particular hunt/activity is "OK," but rather how we should react when we determine that something is wrong and what constitutes "wrong." In other words, should we support any activity that is legal at the time it took place regardless of our ethical belief?
For me personally, there is some gray area in the decision making process itself when it comes to how we should react to a particular situation. It is not always cut and dry and especially from the ethical point of view. I believe this because I don't think that ethics, for the group, are cut and dry like a law is. But I also don't think they should be discounted, which seems to happen quite often.
First, to address the legal aspect. This one is cut and dry to me. If it is illegal in a particular area we shouldn't do it, or support it (for that area), period. Examples of this are hunting at night with lights, or hunting dangerous game with a below legal size caliber. If you do these things, where illegal, you are in the wrong in my book, period. I've seen the excuse used that it is legal elsewhere and that makes it OK, because someone thinks the law in question is wrong. I don't agree with this belief at all. It is against my personal ethics.
Now here is where the gray area comes in, for me personally. Is night hunting ethical just because it is legal, or is hunting a lion OK with a .243 (extreme example on purpose) because there is no legal restriction in a particular area? The ethics of these questions are to me partially a personal decision and there is no black and white answer. One of the definitions for ethics is as follows:
moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior
So my ethics may be, and probably are, different from yours. Or, the ethics of Texas hunters as a group may be dfferent than those raised in South Africa. If my personal ethics are not supported should I then overlook them in order to support the "greater good" of hunting because an act is legal? I don't believe I should, and I don't. There are many though that clearly state that if it is legal we must support it, period. I believe that position leaves ethics out altogether as there are many laws on the books in many countries over many different subjects that I don't believe are ethical. Am I to support them just because they are legal, or because they are part of something else I do support?
This is a very complex subject in my mind. Not so much because of the legality that always seems to be the first thing that people point to, but because of ethics. I won't blindly support something I don't agree with in order to help something I do. If my team loses because I did the right thing (in my mind) then so be it. I won't "cheat to win." Whether I like it or not, there are shades of gray.
Last edited: