Ethics, what would you do?

[BRICKBURN]

It is morally repugnant to me to allow an animal to suffer in the manner described.
Some of us are obviously more evolved than others!

I am against immediate back up shots by a PH. If there is a safety issue sure, otherwise it is my job to deal with the shooting. If I am incapable of performing my duties as an ethical hunter, I think the PH should be directed to jump in.
I have asked a PH to finish an animal for me because I wanted a quicker end. The PH obliged.


Apparently respect for wildlife has nothing to do with the responsibility to dispatch game as quickly as possible. They are more focused on recovery.


Some pretty strong words on ethics and values from the Pope and Young club.

"The Club supports the philosophy that it is the responsibility of an ethical hunter to expend all reasonable effort in recovering a hit animal."

That little rule that is obviously the basis for this discussion.

Record Book Eligibility:
To be eligible for entry into the Pope & Young Club’s Records Program, an animal must have been taken:

• Entirely by the use of the bow and arrow (as defined by the Pope & Young Club)"

Pope and Young's policy and position on hunting.

"To ensure bowhunting for future generations by preserving & promoting its heritage and values"

The fair chase concept does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; ..........
"Though such rules focus on the pursuit itself, the spirit of fair chase is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment and for other individuals who share the bounty of our natural resources.


Interestingly, hunting behind a fence is devoid of a resemblance to fair chase!!

Canned Shoots Position Statement

The Pope and Young Club condemns the killing of big game animals in artificial situations where animals are held in captivity, or released from captivity. Inappropriately referred to as “canned hunts,” these actions are devoid of any resemblance of fair chase hunting.

Beyond the Club’s position that game-proof fenced enclosures are not fair chase because the animals are not free-ranging, these canned shoot situations present further concerns impacting the future of bowhunting, weaken the public acceptance of legitimate fair chase bowhunting, provide possibilities for transmitting diseases, and corrupt the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Animals held, or bred and raised for the purpose of trophy harvest, in these facilities are not wildlife, rather, are privately owned livestock. The killing of these animals is not managed by the authority of a wildlife management agency. And the killing, itself, is devoid of any values embodied by legitimate hunting.

The Pope and Young Club does not accept into its Records Program any animal taken under any captive scenarios. High Fence Position Statement

The Pope and Young Club does not consider game-proof fenced enclosures to be a condition meeting the basic tenets of Fair Chase. Fair Chase is defined as the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal.

As such, the Club does not accept any entry into its Records Program which has been taken from within a game-proof fenced enclosure.

http://pope-young.org/fairchase/default.asp

Apparently there are people who are willing to withhold payment based on an excuse. Wait, if they are that unconcerned about the animal why would they give a damn about the PH or Outfitter?

Clarify those contracts guys.

ps. Forgot to answer the question about what would I do.
I am shooting at least fifty arrows a day to ensure, as best I can, that the PH will not need to hand me the rifle. If required, I'll be asking for the rifle. Screw the book!

 

[Velo Dog]

On another thread (at what point are we causing our own problems), Hunthardsafaris and I were exchanging posts about what some might view as actions that hurt our sport. In particular, he said, in part:

"this opens a whole new can of worms and as responsible adults and hunters,the choice to hunt off a vehicle will and can only remain the clients. He pays,his Safari, the PH is there not to judge your ethics,he is there because by law you need one,he judges your trophies and makes sure you do nothing illegal or get yourself killed. If he insists you shoot from a truck you can insist on a new PH. That is the problem with us today ( my opnion) we are to scared to upset the next person no matter how wrong he or she may be,everyone has a right and abdicates responsibility.
It does not start or stop with trucks,waterhole hunting,last minute spotlight drives and yes even aircraft and helicopters. No one forces the hunter to do this,but we all know it's happening and stand idly by and turn the other way to keep the peace. If we as hunters cannot keep our own house in order it is going to be a hell of a ride with the Anti's.

Another view point on this is how many hunters are willing to book with a Outfitter that only subscribes to fairchase on the foot hunting in a big area, I am not talking DG only. Outfitters get paid for results and trophies on the wall,successful safaris get measured in inches,numbers and pounds. How many clients are physically prepared and up to a day after day slog in the African heat?"

Back to me.

I am sympathetic to what Hunthardsafaris has to say. Being a PH has to rank high among thankless jobs. This got me thinking though - I was in a hunting camp recently and had an experience, and I'd like to know what people think of it, and what they would do. Here are the facts.

Another hunter in the camp wanted to hunt a sable, with a bow, to qualify for some SCI award or other. He was an experienced bow hunter. On this day, they found a sable, and he took the shot. For whatever reason, it was not a great shot (as happens to all of us from time to time), and the sable was wounded. The PH thought the wound would eventually be fatal, but likely not for some time.

The sable ran and some many hours were spent tracking it. Eventually, it was tracked to very dense brush, where the bowhunter proceeded to take another shot. And another. The brush was apparently thick enough and the shot tricky enough that the arrows missed their target, or hit the poor animal in the rear end. And eventually, our hunters ran out of arrows.

At that point the PH said enough, I'm going to put the animal out of its misery. The hunter said if you do that, you're paying for it, because I won't be able to count it towards my award. So they sat there, and waited for this poor animal to die, which it apparently did, a few hours later.

What should the PH have done? What would you have done?

Excellent question Hank2211,

I admittedly cannot truthfully imagine myself in that PH's shoes.
What a dreadful tight spot to be in.

Too bad the pre-safari paper work between Client and PH evidently did not thoroughly address animals wounded, who pays for same, what constitutes "reasonable efforts" to recover wounded game, including the PH having final word on when he or she will tell the bumb-shot Client to stand down so the PH can swiftly conclude the mess, and such likes.

I am only a relative beginner to Africa so maybe I am over-simplifying things here.
Of course the right thing to do is to end the physical suffering and to end it sooner than later.

The following I will say without going into one of my characteristic and tedious rants:

The original post here is a perfect example of one more reason among several that I refuse to share camp with people who are fascinated by tape measures and record books, gold medal awards and other meaningless nonsense.

Out,
Velo Dog.

 

[Royal27]

I definitely think that the ethics issue here is on the hunter mainly, if not completely. 1. He didn't do the ethical thing, which is dispatching the animal as quickly as possible. 2. He used threats of financial loss to get the unethical result that he wanted.

There isn't enough info IMO to determine what part the PH played in the drama. my opinion might be quiet different if the PH was in his first season and doing some freelance work vs. A 20 year vet with the same outfit. I'm not saying the ethics change, but ability to handle a tough situation dang sure does.

 

[Royal27]

Too bad the pre-safari paper work between Client and PH evidently did not thoroughly address animals wounded, who pays for same, what constitutes "reasonable efforts" to recover wounded game, including the PH having final word on when he or she will tell the bumb-shot Client to stand down so the PH can swiftly conclude the mess, and such likes.

In my mind, this may have all been included. If the hunter isn't ethical enough to finish an animal quickly then I have no reason to believe he is ethical enough to follow the rule of the client agreement. And if the money wasn't yet paid it would certainly out the PH in an additional bind...

 

[siml]

As far as I am concerned, this client was totally in the wrong. Unethical to let an animal suffer. Not even debatable.

 

[Velo Dog]

In my mind, this may have all been included. If the hunter isn't ethical enough to finish an animal quickly then I have no reason to believe he is ethical enough to follow the rule of the client agreement. And if the money wasn't yet paid it would certainly out the PH in an additional bind...

Hi Royal27,

The following is not meant to be legal advice, because I am no more than an uneducated spectator here, and it is only IMO, nothing more.

If such contract exists, provided some part of it was tended to in the USA, such as a USA credit card used or US bank check written to reserve this hunt, then I believe the PH can sue in a USA Court, located in whatever state the Client resides.
The Courts seem to give benefit of the doubt to respondents in the opening phase of such proceedings.

Sadly, it will cost the PH money to get started but he can also sue for lawyer fees, court costs, airline tickets, lost wages and such.

If the PH prevails, suddenly Robin Hood might owe him twice or three times what the sable trophy fee would have been.

It can get quite expensive to break a written contract and stiff a legitimate business for such a childish reason, even if said business is outside the U.S.

This tape measure Robin Hood could also end up "Black Listed" among all these trophy book entities like Pope & Young and the like.

That might hurt his Narcisistic ego more than the money if he is wealthy and money is no object.

Cheers,
Velo Dog.

 

[Nyati]

1- That client (I refuse to call him a hunter) is a damned *!"#@=¿¡

2- Lesson to be learned, is to have very clear written conditions on such possible situations.

3- Can´t judge the PH, just feel sorry for him !

 

[Pondoro]

I holehearthidly concurr in not letting an animal suffer, it should be dispatched asap.
I dont buy that "let the animal choose how to die" crap that a certain PH advocates.

But there are some valid points considerating shooting from a truck.

Basically I am against it, both ethically and from a sporting perspective..

I have a hunting buddy who is partly disabeled. In 1992 he was a very promising construction engineer. That year he had an accident with explosives that blew his left hand clean off, took his right eye and left him with some 35% vision on his left. To make a long story short he trained himself to shoot again with the left eye.

He is a complete rifle and hunting nut, has hunted 13 countries...7 trips to Tanzania in the nineties...and HE is the one pestering me to hunt Africa every year. He shot buff in Tanz with a .308 in his reduced condition....his companion was supposed to back him up with a .458Win. but forgot to bring it in the commotion..

Normally he walks along in the bush with me, but here is my point:

Who can critize him to take some longer shots from the truck in Namibia...?

 

[Royal27]

Hi Royal27,

The following is not meant to be legal advice, because I am no more than an uneducated spectator here, and it is only IMO, nothing more.

If such contract exists, provided some part of it was tended to in the USA, such as a USA credit card used or US bank check written to reserve this hunt, then I believe the PH can sue in a USA Court, located in whatever state the Client resides.
The Courts seem to give benefit of the doubt to respondents in the opening phase of such proceedings.

Sadly, it will cost the PH money to get started but he can also sue for lawyer fees, court costs, airline tickets, lost wages and such.

If the PH prevails, suddenly Robin Hood might owe him twice or three times what the sable trophy fee would have been.

It can get quite expensive to break a written contract and stiff a legitimate business for such a childish reason, even if said business is outside the U.S.

This tape measure Robin Hood could also end up "Black Listed" among all these trophy book entities like Pope & Young and the like.

That might hurt his Narcisistic ego more than the money if he is wealthy and money is no object.

Cheers,
Velo Dog.

Howdy!
I completely agree Velo Dog, in theory.

But I think you're assuming that the person has ethics and believes the law/rules/ethics apply to him. I'm making the assumption, and it is only an assumption, that the "hunter" believes he is above such trivial things.

 

[blackdog001blackdog001]

I find it a bit difficult to understand anything other than you pull the trigger, you are responsible. You wounded it and the PH made a decision to back you up or end the animal's life humanely, that's called being a grown-up and accepting the consequences of your actions. Telling the PH he pays the trophy fee? That is sort of like I don't like your rules so I am taking my toys out of the sandbox and going home.

Ethics? The hunter (and I use that term loosely) needs a long refresher course.

SCI - typical. More important to have that ring, or be in the circle or pinnacle than to hunt under the rules of fair chase.

My first safari I budgeted my trophy fees and had a successful hunt, taking everything on my list by the 8th or 9th day. Went out on the last day to "see what we could see". Told the PH if we saw a sable over 40", I would try for it. We found one that was probably close - missed the shot. Tracked it again for a couple of hours, missed the shot again. Tracked it for another couple of hours, missed the shot. Almost dark. Never saw any blood from any of the three shots. I called off the hunt because it was almost dark, after apologizing profusely to PH and trackers. PH said "If you drew blood, we'd still be out there". And you know what - if that had happened and we could not track it, I'd have paid th t. fee no question asked.

Found out later that barrel came loose from locking nut in forearm (pre-64 Model 70).

Hunting big game is serious stuff. If you don't know the correct thing to do, ask in advance.

 

[Pheroze]

I find this thread, the one about at what point are we causing our own problems, and the one about the shooting of the professional hunter, all extremely challenging and interesting. All three are dealing with aspects of ethical behaviour in hunting but I will post my thoughts here:

I think there is a basic level of conduct that is expected by the majority here. However, when I go into my local hunting store I often hear stories (told with great laughter) that would be frowned upon here. I thank God that I joined up here as I started on my hunting career because I cringe at what I would have thought passed as acceptable behaviour if I did not! I suspect I may have been put off the sport entirely.

Where it gets more challenging is as we move away from basic concepts of honour and cruelty. As I typed this I noticed an ad for a PH on this website in which a beautiful lady is sitting on a dead elephant, the pose being an area of controversy for some. I cannot judge the ad as I am not the one trying to feed my family with hunting being my profession, so there are realities that I am not aware of. But, the risk is that the photograph will appeal to hunters who may not have the same ethical standards as the professional hunter behind the business. Same with the PH when faced with a threat of non-payment. The reality is that access to justice can be elusive, especially when trying to sue from out of the jurisdiction. However, what was done to screen the clientele? We are certainly judged by the company we keep.

I am not sure I can define ethical hunting but I know unethical behaviour when I see it. I will keep to the company that most reflects my values and hopefully my children will learn from that. For the PH, perhaps you can choose your clients better if you set the ground rules before the hunt begins? Otherwise, I fear you are at risk of pimping your ethics when forced into an impossible situation.

 

[Diamondhitch]

The original post here is a perfect example of one more reason among several that I refuse to share camp with people who are fascinated by tape measures and record books, gold medal awards and other meaningless nonsense.

It is unfortunate that you then will not have the opportunity to hunt with an SCI measurer like myself or B&C measurer like Brickburn. We value the tape but value the game even more. Lumping us in with the miscreant this thread was started about is just another wedge driven between hunters with slightly different "tastes" or goals shall we say, despite still having the same morals. When we categorize each other like this to the point of exclusion we become weak, and we all know we need to be strong for all our sakes.

 

[BRICKBURN]

I holehearthidly concurr in not letting an animal suffer, it should be dispatched asap.
I dont buy that "let the animal choose how to die" crap that a certain PH advocates.

But there are some valid points considerating shooting from a truck.

Basically I am against it, both ethically and from a sporting perspective..

I have a hunting buddy who is partly disabeled. In 1992 he was a very promising construction engineer. That year he had an accident with explosives that blew his left hand clean off, took his right eye and left him with some 35% vision on his left. To make a long story short he trained himself to shoot again with the left eye.

He is a complete rifle and hunting nut, has hunted 13 countries...7 trips to Tanzania in the nineties...and HE is the one pestering me to hunt Africa every year. He shot buff in Tanz with a .308 in his reduced condition....his companion was supposed to back him up with a .458Win. but forgot to bring it in the commotion..

Normally he walks along in the bush with me, but here is my point:

Who can critize him to take some longer shots from the truck in Namibia...?

Great tenacity.
As long as he has back up to help him out (which he has obviously arranged) then he is being ethical and respectful to the animals. If his skill set deteriorates to the point where he is not capable of shooting effectively and is going to be constantly wounding animals then I'd suggest his buddies have a chat with him.
Otherwise, go hunting.
I doubt that he is about to sit and wait beside a wounded animal and harangue his PH or friend about not backing him up to get into a book.
Anyone who has gone through that kind of trauma likely has a pretty deep appreciation for life.

 

[UKHunter]

Its people like this (the client in question), that in my opinion should not be allowed to hunt at all. They clearly do it for the wrong reasons (trophy value over animal welfare), leave bad impressions on the hunting community as a whole and give outsiders a very poor view of what we do and why we do it.

 

[BRICKBURN]

..............
The following I will say without going into one of my characteristic and tedious rants:
The original post here is a perfect example of one more reason among several that I refuse to share camp with people who are fascinated by tape measures and record books, gold medal awards and other meaningless nonsense.

Out,
Velo Dog.

I don't mind the rant. It is one of the major down falls of the book and all the rules. They will be misused and abused by some.

The miscreant focusing on being "in the book" to exclusion of responsible behaviour is exactly what gives other hunters a bad name.

If you don't like to hunt with guys jabbering about the details on a tape that's ok. I don't like to hunt with party animals who drink too much and I'm allergic to smokers. To each his own.

I've never entered my "record book" animals in ANY book. I just use the science to help tell me what kind of animal I have. Trophy hunting allows me to be more selective and increases the challenge of MY hunt. That is how I expand my hunting experiences.

The miscreant in this sad tale is more interested in the ink in the book than the animal. That is not me.
However, I can see how you might generalize and associate other with hunters who can use a tape measure as a tool.

 

[Hank2211]

My original intention in starting this thread was to focus on the position the PH was put in. I think (hope?0 we can all agree that the hunter acted in a manner that was devoid of concern for the animal and the ethics of hunting.

PHs are often put into difficult circumstances by demanding clients, and they have to choose between going along or perhaps losing a client and potentially a job. And before we say they need to "man up", I would point out that most of us, as I mentioned before, probably went along with a boss at some point in time, or didn't tell the boss he or she was wrong to protect our jobs. Hopefully we all have a line we won't cross, but where that line is will differ, and I for one will be hesitant to criticize unless it is so far beyond that pale that "I know it when I see it".

I've never entered my "record book" animals in ANY book. I just use the science to help tell me what kind of animal I have. Trophy hunting allows me to be more selective and increases the challenge of MY hunt. That is how I expand my hunting experiences.

As for record books, I'm not a big fan, though I understand that many are. If it helps, the information collected is actually vital for conservation decisions. I have only entered one animal in the record book, a big sable, because my PH asked me to. He gets credit in the book for the hunt, and that helps him with certain types of hunters. I was happy to oblige, and would likely do so again if asked again.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

I don't mind the rant. It is one of the major down falls of the book and all the rules. They will be misused and abused by some.

The miscreant focusing on being "in the book" to exclusion of responsible behaviour is exactly what gives other hunters a bad name.

If you don't like to hunt with guys jabbering about the details on a tape that's ok. I don't like to hunt with party animals who drink too much and I'm allergic to smokers. To each his own.

I've never entered my "record book" animals in ANY book. I just use the science to help tell me what kind of animal I have. Trophy hunting allows me to be more selective and increases the challenge of MY hunt. That is how I expand my hunting experiences.

The miscreant in this sad tale is more interested in the ink in the book than the animal. That is not me.
However, I can see how you might generalize and associate other with hunters who can use a tape measure as a tool.

Totally agree with one slight correction......

"The miscreant in this sad tale is more interested in you knowing his name is in the ink in the book than the animal."

Simply having his name in the book is meaningless unless this person suffering from some self-esteem issues can tell everyone he knows that he is feeling a bit inferior to that he's in there. How's that psychological analysis councilor?

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

My original intention in starting this thread was to focus on the position the PH was put in. I think (hope?0 we can all agree that the hunter acted in a manner that was devoid of concern for the animal and the ethics of hunting.

PHs are often put into difficult circumstances by demanding clients, and they have to choose between going along or perhaps losing a client and potentially a job. And before we say they need to "man up", I would point out that most of us, as I mentioned before, probably went along with a boss at some point in time, or didn't tell the boss he or she was wrong to protect our jobs. Hopefully we all have a line we won't cross, but where that line is will differ, and I for one will be hesitant to criticize unless it is so far beyond that pale that "I know it when I see it".



As for record books, I'm not a big fan, though I understand that many are. If it helps, the information collected is actually vital for conservation decisions. I have only entered one animal in the record book, a big sable, because my PH asked me to. He gets credit in the book for the hunt, and that helps him with certain types of hunters. I was happy to oblige, and would likely do so again if asked again.

I think you're making great points Hank.

 

[BRICKBURN]

We can all quickly associate with position of being "the hunter", it is harder to jump into the PH's shoes in this case.

Without launching into a theoretical discussion on feminism; being threatened by people in a powerful position is dilemma that people encounter on a daily basis. People avoid the consequences for a variety of reasons, too numerous to recount. At what juncture they are justified in acquiescence is easy to state when we are not in the immediate position of having our livelihood threatened.
I hope I never have to toss that particular coin: My livelihood or an animals suffering.

 

[Velo Dog]

Howdy!
I completely agree Velo Dog, in theory.

But I think you're assuming that the person has ethics and believes the law/rules/ethics apply to him. I'm making the assumption, and it is only an assumption, that the "hunter" believes he is above such trivial things.

Not sure if I'm reading you accurately, in regards to my assumptions toward this Client but, I do not assume he is possessed of any ethics as we know the meaning of that word, whatsoever.