Resignation PHASA President

[BRICKBURN]

A distillation:

............... . I'll tell you it's akin to my pheasant club, where pen raised birds are released upon my request, and I go and find them. It can be fun, but it's not hunting. ...........
......

If it is not hunting, then is it "shooting"?

......... we're left with is legal hunts that some of us may choose to undertake, and others may not. ........... it's not a lot farther to suggest that even if you think this sort of hunting is unethical (and note I have done it), you should support the right of others to engage in it. ............

Help me out... This one needs some discussion.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Dear God. I am at German restaurant with ny bride drinking a cold lager and almost spit it across the table. Truly laughed out loud. Thanks.

My apologies to your wife. Certainly, if she happens to be across the table.

 

[K-man]

Well we are halfway there- (12pgs) Solved the whole world's problem yet? Still fun reading, though... But @redleg, don't waste a good cold beer, and if I was surfing AH while at lunch with my wife wouldn't gain me much points for the next hunt.

 

[Royal27]

Well we are halfway there- (12pgs) Solved the whole world's problem yet? Still fun reading, though... But @redleg, don't waste a good cold beer, and if I was surfing AH while at lunch with my wife wouldn't gain me much points for the next hunt.

Seems like we are on track to goal. I'm just concerned it will slow down.

And I will admit, I got in trouble for reading AH and not listening to the wife just a bit ago.

 

[Royal27]

If it is not hunting, then is it "shooting"?

And if so, is it OK to "shoot" a bird, but not OK to "shoot" a lion?

In other words, if I think you "shot" something and didn't "hunt" something why is that bad? Can I not support your "shooting" and yet still not think it is hunting?

 

[Pheroze]

And I will admit, I got in trouble for reading AH and not listening to the wife just a bit ago.

She should just be happy she is not ignored at lunch and treated to a beer shower like @Red Leg wife..

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Dear God. I am at German restaurant with ny bride drinking a cold lager and almost spit it across the table. Truly laughed out loud. Thanks.

Fredericksburg?

 

[wesheltonj]

Let's see if I can get this to page 7. I have no argument with how other folks hunt, or for that matter what they hunt, as long as its a lawful hunt. And if it is a lawful hunt, even if I would not personally hunt that way, I will support it, even if I find it personally distasteful. The anti's position is they find all hunting morally wrong and want to change the law to suit their "morals" and be damned everyone who disagrees with them. (Some of the Anti's could care less about hunting, its just another way for them to obtain some measure of gun control; if you can't hunt you don't need the gun, so we can add those to the ban list too). Why should hunters give anything up? What are the anti's going give up? (Nothing).

So, is it wrong to raise lions like livestock to be run thru a slaughter plant for the meat and parts. Where is the outcry about that? Is it wrong, for the farmer who raises CBL for the hunting trade to kill off his lions because its cheaper then feeding them because demand and therefor price has dropped to a level where he cannot make a profit. Where is the outcry about that? Is it wrong for the farmer to poison lions to protect their cattle? Where is the outcry about?

Flame on!

 

[gizmo]

@Red Leg, I said apparently I'm the evil bastard for what I have done.
There are few people on here whom I respects opinion more than yours. However, every time this topic comes up your opinion states that I'm some type of immoral unethical asshole for what I have done and what I do for a living. So yes, it does strike a nerve. If that's how you feel fine but I will never apologize for what I have done or what I do for a living. I am blessed to now be able to hunt for a living. The fact is old Africa is mostly gone and that that is left is financially unobtainable for the vast majority of us, so we do what we can to get the best experience for us and our family possible.
My lion hunt was absolutely fair chase and unless someone was there when it happened and saw something unethical happen, which it most certainly didn't, they have absolutely no right to say any different.
I also get pretty damned tired of having to justify my actions and way of life to people who have absolutely no right to judge me.
Anyone who knows me or has hunted with me knows where I stand and what I believe in. If someone wants to judge I challenge them to spend some time with me before passing judgement.
Also for the record, I know how to spell thou however those of us who work 24/7 365 tend to have to post from our iPhones often times and don't always catch auto corrects. (Kind of an oxymoron really as they often are more wrong than right).

 

[Hank2211]

A distillation:




If it is not hunting, then is it "shooting"?




Help me out... This one needs some discussion.

First. Hunting vs. shooting. It's a distinction I make between going out looking for (preferably but not necessarily) game which may or may not be there, and going out looking for game which was put there for me to find. In the latter case, I likely can't brag about my hunting ability when I find what's there (or the dog does), but I can brag about my shooting ability if I get it. Both are fine; they are just different. Personally, I am happy shooting birds, but I like a bit more challenge when it comes to mammals, so I prefer to hunt them. If no one else makes the distinction, that's fine with me, but I wanted to be clear about what I was saying. Whether you are hunting or shooting, as long as it's done legally, then I have no trouble with it.

Second. More problematic may be my comment on supporting hunting practices that you believe to be unethical. But I actually don't think it's too much of a stretch. Here's the abridged version (you're welcome - the long version would have finished the allotted 12 pages).

Firstly, we start from the proposition that you are engaged in a legal activity. If not, you should get no support from the hunting community.

So then we come to (a) what you are hunting and (b) the manner in which you are hunting it.

Start with (a). Many people find it unethical to hunt anything you will not eat. I understand that, but I believe it confuses subsistence hunting with sport hunting. You can be a subsistence hunter or both. Some find it unethical to hunt certain types of game, for reasons perhaps best known to themselves. Many on this site say, for example, they won't hunt elephant, and some won't hunt cheetah (if I recall). Fine. If we take "ethics" to be a moral code which govern people's behaviour (a definition I got from Oxford Dictionaries, which I think is useful), then we need to determine whether our 'code' is objective or subjective. For example, "thou shalt not kill people" is a pretty objective moral stand, but "thou shalt not kill baby seals" is a pretty subjective one, I'd suggest. I can give you one reason for that difference - but realize it's a Christian defence so not all may buy into it. In the Book of Genesis, God gave man 'dominion' over the animals. He did not give man 'dominion' over other men. So I can argue one is objective, and one is subjective. If our particular view of ethics is objective, then we can (and likely should) be critical of those who do not share our code, but I'd suggest to do the same where our stand is subjective is to elevate ones own opinions above those of others, which, in this instance, means you likely suffer from some sort of superiority complex. You are always free, of course, to try to convince me why your subjective view is better than mine, or is the 'right' one, but if we disagree, it should come down to two people holding equally valid but differing views.

Now (b), the manner of hunting. We were all brought up with a moral code, or at least I hope we were. Some were brought up to believe that baited hunting is wrong, others that using a scope on a rifle is wrong (many took the view when scopes were first introduced), others that night hunting is wrong, others that shooting with a spotlight is wrong, others that long range shooting is wrong, others that hunting with dogs is wrong, others that hunting from helicopters is wrong, others that shooting near a waterhole is wrong, etc. All of these are practiced in various places, on various types of game, at various times. Again, I'm assuming they are all legal when and where practiced. These may be moral codes we were brought up with, or things we have come to believe. But I would argue that in no case are they objective moral truths, as I have defined those above. The fact that these practices are legal (where and when they are) reinforces the notion that we are not dealing with objective ethics here, but rather with subjective perspective (or an attempt by wildlife managers to reduce off take, for example). So if we are not dealing with objective moral truths, again, you are free to try to convince others that your view is the right one, but you have no right to suggest that your view is the only morally or ethically correct one.

Thus my conclusion. When it comes to species and manner of hunting, provided always that we are dealing with legal behaviour, our personal ethics are subjective matters, and not objective moral truths. It is only in supporting and reinforcing the rights of others to hold the differing ethical views with respect to hunting which they do that I will find support for my own. I must therefore support your manner of hunting even if I don't agree with it, provided it is legal. Note please that at no time have I said that one who holds different views is wrong, nor that such a person is obligated to hunt any species or in any manner that they find 'unethical.' But by undermining my right to do the same, you effectively undermine your right as well.

I hope you paid attention. There will be a quiz.

 

[billc]

Hank that was a great post and more or less what I was trying to say. You the man

 

[Red Leg]

Fredericksburg?

Good guess, but no, this one is local - in Walburg - and they do an authentic jaeger schnitzel with a great craft pilsner or lager.

 

[Pheroze]

What is strictly speaking legal and ethical is only part of the story. Like it or not we are subject to the will of the general public, most of whom don't hunt.

My analogy: Many professionals and trades are 'self-governing'. The advantage of being a self-governing profession is that you avoid having rules imposed by the majority of you fellow citizens through governmental decree. The theory being that those in the profession know better how to impose limits on their colleagues than the government.

It is also very common for these self-governing bodies to impose rules that are reflective of concerns held by the public. If they fail to act then they risk losing their legitimacy and the government could step in. A small sacrifice for a greater good as it were.

I strongly suspect we will have to impose limits on hunting that are more restrictive than what is strictly speaking legal, or ethical, in order to keep it legitimate in the eyes of the majority. If we don't I think we will have rules and restrictions imposed by those who don't know squat about it. Access to land, import laws etc. are current manifestations of this threat.

 

[wesheltonj]

What is strictly speaking legal and ethical is only part of the story. Like it or not we are subject to the will of the general public, most of whom don't hunt.

My analogy: Many professionals and trades are 'self-governing'. The advantage of being a self-governing profession is that you avoid having rules imposed by the majority of you fellow citizens through governmental decree. The theory being that those in the profession know better how to impose limits on their colleagues than the government.

It is also very common for these self-governing bodies to impose rules that are reflective of concerns held by the public. If they fail to act then they risk losing their legitimacy and the government could step in. A small sacrifice for a greater good as it were.

I strongly suspect we will have to impose limits on hunting that are more restrictive than what is strictly speaking legal, or ethical, in order to keep it legitimate in the eyes of the majority. If we don't I think we will have rules and restrictions imposed by those who don't know squat about it. Access to land, import laws etc. are current manifestations of this threat.

The problem with that is, it changes over time until one day it's all gone.

To use a legal analogy, when your opponent is destroying himself, sit back, shut up and let him. And that's what we do, we destroy ourselves over what we believe is the right way to hunt.

And we still not have made page 7 yet!!!

 

[BRICKBURN]

And if so, is it OK to "shoot" a bird, but not OK to "shoot" a lion?

In other words, if I think you "shot" something and didn't "hunt" something why is that bad? Can I not support your "shooting" and yet still not think it is hunting?

That gets to being the question.

 

[K-man]

O.K. here goes my take on this..
(1 anti - hunters are actually anti-killing anything, regardless of where, when, what method. Look at the Cecil issue - fair chase, wild animal, licensed P.H., quota, all in order. They didn't care!!!
(2 The only (well maybe not only) people that care about the method of LEGAL hunting are hunters and the industry
(3 Some of this was brought about by groups like Boone and Crockett, SCI, Etc. Not that they are wrong, just the whole early ideas of fair chase, scoring, etc. I agree the "wild" whitetail I have watched out my backyard for the last 3 years grow into a 180 inch trophy deserves its place in the record books, the game farm genetically engineered raised whitetail in the pen does not. notice I am only talking about records, not hunting them.
4) If you have taken a black wildebeest, scimitar oryx, etc, or a red stag or tahr in New Zealand, etc, etc, you can thank the game farmer/game breeder industry. none of these would be possible without them.
(5 Vote for the style of hunting you think is proper with your pocketbook. Vote soon, Vote often. but not to your fellow conservationist. After all, that is what we are - conservationists.
(6 Society is trying to tell us that hunting is morally wrong. We need education, professionalism, and level heads to combat this idea, not rants and stupid pictures on facebook that don't explain WHY we are conservationists. This also includes some of the stupid shows about hunting on TV.
(7 Unfortunately, not all of us have the talent/personality/ability to effectively communicate with society about WHY we hunt. That mean the ones who CAN must speak, and the ones who can't must use a code of ethics to stand with, a shield of sorts to point to our actions.
(8 our group is made up of people from all parts of the world, with different codes of ethics, methods and standards. We are unlikely to have a worldwide standard that all will agree to.

This is not a personal attack on anyone here, just MY summation of what we are talking about.
Sorry if I went all Velo on you, just needed to vent a bit. (Sorry Velo, see above)
Thanks for reading, on to page 7!

 

[BRICKBURN]

Hank that was a great post and more or less what I was trying to say. You the man

I'm glad Hank was able to paraphrase for you Bill. More or less.

 

[Hank2211]

That gets to being the question.

Of course you can support my shooting while not thinking it's hunting. I believe not only can you, but you should.

What all of this really comes down to is whether you believe it is morally acceptable to kill an animal. If the answer is yes, I don't believe you can logically suggest that you can only kill some animals, or only kill animals in a certain way.

What is strictly speaking legal and ethical is only part of the story. Like it or not we are subject to the will of the general public, most of whom don't hunt.

@Pheroze is quite right, as a practical matter.

I can imagine a situation where you will agree to a restriction, as illogical as it may be, to obtain "peace in the valley," so to speak. However, in giving anything up, you need to also consider the impact of another old saying: "give them an inch . . . and they'll take a mile." The anti hunters will not be placated by the end of captive bred lion hunting. There will not be peace n the valley. They will move on to another type of hunting, or another type of animal. They have to - their goal is either to end the killing of all animals or to raise money. Nothing is achieved by stopping lion hunting.

So what about the majority who are non-hunters? They've been convinced that captive bred lion hunting is wrong, and that it's the same as canned hunting. And once we give in to the anti's arguments, and the anti's have moved on to another animal, the public will be convinced in the same way that what we're doing there is wrong to.

How will that happen? In part, by dividing hunters, and using our own views against us. That's what they've done with lion hunting, and it's worked!

I believe if we had gotten ahead of the captive bred lion issue, we could have shown the public the good that raising lions can do; how it can ensure that lions never go extinct, how it relieves pressure on wild lions, how it creates employment, etc. Even if you don't agree with these views - and I'm not sure I accept all of them - they certainly hold more water than what I hear on the other side. If we had been united against canned hunting (it is illegal, after all) but in favour of captive bred hunting (which is legal if done properly), and made our arguments as well and as early as those against us have made theirs, I believe we could have won some major victories.

So is it too late now? I believe if we give in on this issue, we will be giving in on the next one, and the one after that, until like the frog in the boiling water, we discover that we're out of business.

Hunters need to get on the record, early, often and professionally, about what our sport does for conservation and for people. A global push. If not, we will lose our sport one animal at a time.

 

[Hank2211]

I'm glad Hank was able to paraphrase for you Bill. More or less.

If Bill is on my side, am I in trouble?

 

[billc]

Dam hank your on a roll. I am just calling you next time so you can write what I want to say because it is the same.

I do get the points about the general public but we need not kid our selves that they care as much as some are trying to make it out to be. Yes if the anti's spread the lies some take there side for a few days but when the story goes away the public moves on. The fight is to stop the anti's from dividing us and saying why we have a better plan then they do. Show who puts the real money in to helping animals and habitat.

We need a group started that is based on hunting rights and showing what hunting does for all wildlife. The groups we have now are based on awards and to much bs that they forgot the goals themselves. No they don't do all bad but we need new blood for a fresh start to help with this battle.