Resignation PHASA President

[BRICKBURN]

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

Personal ethics are a subjective matter. I pass. Yeah.

 

[billc]

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

Hey now I was just starting to really like you. All because you can't read mine as clearly as your is no reason to hurt my feeling. but you did make me smile and laugh with this post

 

[BRICKBURN]

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.

.......... .

This comes to mind.

"Tyranny of the majority refers to an inherent weakness of direct democracy and majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can place its own interests above, and at the expense of, those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups."

We, being that minority had best be attentive.

 

[cagkt3]

Very interesting discussion.

@billc, in the future please make use of your personal translator @Hank2211 when communicating with @Royal27

 

[BRICKBURN]

Very interesting discussion.

@billc, in the future please make use of your personal translator @Hank2211 when communicating with @Royal27

That just about caused another beer incident!

 

[BRICKBURN]

...........
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.
..................

Logically speaking, I agree.

Killing some animals and not others merely on it's face. No. There is no logical distinction.

Only the ugly ones and not the cute ones. Subjective.
We may need to protect (not kill) some critters for species preservation. Subjective.
We choose to kill cleanly (humanely) Subjective.

 

[Hank2211]

Logically speaking, I agree.

Killing some animals and not others merely on it's face. No. There is no logical distinction.

Only the ugly ones and not the cute ones. Subjective.
We may need to protect (not kill) some critters for species preservation. Subjective.
We choose to kill cleanly (humanely) Subjective.

I agree - I was speaking in generalities. It may be that animal cruelty is an objective matter - causing unnecessary suffering is not necessary to what we do. Same for conservation. Quotas, closures, etc., may be necessary to protect animal numbers and biodiversity.

Oh, and by the way, C+ on the quiz.

 

[Royal27]

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.

So @billc, I mean @Hank2211....

After reading this several times I think I agree with the premise that personal ethics are subjective, and even that we should "support" another's ethics when legal. This may all come down to the definition of support.

If by support you mean I do not have the right to physically stop someone from conducting a legal activity, or even that I don't have the right to tell them they are an evil bastard destined to hell for doing something legal then we are in agreement.

I do however; think this statement of Hank-Bill's is key.

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.

We can and perhaps even should still disagree. I don't ethically have to tell others you're right and "shut up" simply because we disagree. In fact, if my personal ethics are strong enough I should both "support" you, while at the same working to convince enough people to change the law, should I not?

 

[billc]

Royal to me it all comes down to how it is done. Yes if you feel the need to try and stop something by all means do it. To me the catch is not doing it in such a public way that it hurts us as a group.

Just think about how many times have you seen anti's publicly fight against each other. You just don't see it because they know it will do no good for there side. You know with as many groups and anti's as there is they do not all see eye to eye but they just don't bash on one another and show a more united front.

Ok hank please translate so all get my point.

 

[BRICKBURN]

....... It may be that animal cruelty is an objective matter - causing unnecessary suffering is not necessary to what we do. Same for conservation. Quotas, closures, etc., may be necessary to protect animal numbers and biodiversity.
.........

Cruelty is subjective, certainly not necessary and has no place in hunting in my view. There are certainly other views held in this world about what is cruel. A key feature of our problem with some Anti's. Some hunters here have certainly voiced disagreement about Green Mile Safaris methods.

Quotas and closures:
Starving humans; Bushmeat vs poaching. Farmed crops vs Elephants, Cattle vs Lions.
Third World vs First World.
This will expose opposing views (subjective) in a big rush.

Biodiversity, is that a science thing?

 

[Hank2211]

We can and perhaps even should still disagree. I don't ethically have to tell others you're right and "shut up" simply because we disagree. In fact, if my personal ethics are strong enough I should both "support" you, while at the same working to convince enough people to change the law, should I not?

Royal, I'm trying very hard to get past the Hank/Bill thing . . . you always seemed so reasonable up to that point!

You are correct (seems I got past it pretty quickly). When you and someone else disagree on an issue of subjective ethics, like most hunting (apart from animal cruelty, for those keeping track) issues, you don't have an obligation to actively support them, or to tell them you agree with what they are doing. You don't have to check your ethics at the door.

What I believe you can and should do, is either (a) say nothing when asked by third parties, or (b) say that there are different views on the matter, but so long as it is legal, hunters stand together.

In today's world where it seems everything is public I'm not sure how to maintain this distinction all the time. I think we are fully entitled to air our differing views in this forum (public though it is), for example, but I think if we want to air our views in a "public" forum, we need to avoid making another hunter wrong for making a different choice than we would have made. I think you can be supportive without being in agreement. I support your right to hunt as you see fit, and you support mine, even though we may not agree on all of the details.

And as an aside, I really don't see why we can't agreeably disagree about this or any other issue. It's hard to stand with someone who calls you names, or impugns your motives or your ethics. Those who take that position in the name of ethics are doing no one, least of all hunting, a service. Having said that, I wouldn't ask people to censor themselves too much - reading these things could become awfully dull if we did that.

 

[Royal27]

Ok hank please translate so all get my po

Beat me to it.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Royal, I'm trying very hard to get past the Hank/Bill thing . . . you always seemed so reasonable up to that point!
.......

The AH Get together just became a show down. Will Pink be the color of the day?

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Royal to me it all comes down to how it is done. Yes if you feel the need to try and stop something by all means do it. To me the catch is not doing it in such a public way that it hurts us as a group.

Just think about how many times have you seen anti's publicly fight against each other. You just don't see it because they know it will do no good for there side. You know with as many groups and anti's as there is they do not all see eye to eye but they just don't bash on one another and show a more united front.

Ok hank please translate so all get my point.

Bill,

I wouldn't even know where to go see the Anti's fighting. Do they have the AH equivalent........looniesareus.com maybe?

You say go ahead and try to stop something you think is important, but don't do it in a public way, is this what are you suggesting?

 

[Hank2211]

Cruelty is subjective, certainly not necessary and has no place in hunting in my view. There are certainly other views held in this world about what is cruel. A key feature of our problem with some Anti's. Some hunters here have certainly voiced disagreement about Green Mile Safaris methods.

Quotas and closures:
Starving humans; Bushmeat vs poaching. Farmed crops vs Elephants, Cattle vs Lions.
Third World vs First World.
This will expose opposing views (subjective) in a big rush.

Biodiversity, is that a science thing?

Biodiversity? Something I heard from Ron Thomson. I think he's really smart, so thought I would throw that in.

You are right about some of this, but in making an argument, I necessarily have to use some generalities or I would use up the whole allotted 12 pages. Can we agree that subject to a zone that is somewhat grey, causing unnecessary (which is the adjective I used) suffering to an animal is wrong?

As for quotas, since every person typically knows only what he or she is doing, by definition we don't know the impact of what we are doing on the whole. Or what others are doing. Tragedy of the commons, in other words. So we need someone who can look at the big picture and say we are down to a number of this or that species which is so low it is at risk of becoming unsustainable. Therefore we will stop killing them for a bit, until the population recovers. Applies to everyone, even starving humans (that is another problem - for which the blame and the solution typically resides with government). I for one would not want to argue that we have a right to hunt animals into extinction, even if hungry.

 

[Royal27]

oyal, I'm trying very hard to get past the Hank/Bill thing . . . you always seemed so reasonable up to that point!

Please forgive me, I lost my head for a second there.

I also hope that @AfricaHunting.com doesn't ban me for name calling.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Biodiversity? Something I heard from Ron Thomson. I think he's really smart, so thought I would throw that in.

Always quote the smart guy in the room. I think you had spelling error though. Ron Thomson? @billc is the correct spelling since you are paraphrasing today.

You are right about some of this, but in making an argument, I necessarily have to use some generalities or I would use up the whole allotted 12 pages. Can we agree that subject to a zone that is somewhat grey, causing unnecessary (which is the adjective I used) suffering to an animal is wrong?

You and I are fine with the generalities. I am on side and we will likely agree quite quickly on the unnecessary, it's those other guys we have to worry about.

As for quotas, since every person typically knows only what he or she is doing, by definition we don't know the impact of what we are doing on the whole. Or what others are doing. Tragedy of the commons, in other words. ........

We just have to trust that authority to actually be looking out for the common good.
Damn, now we are up to a United Nations Committee level.

 

[billc]

the cone of silence is awesome. I wish I had the answer on how to do many of the things we are all talking about on here. I guess for me a public forum were hunters go at one and another is not the place I like to see some of the stuff happen. I would care less if it was say at a sci or dsc meeting were guys have there say and in stays with in the hunters group.

Some how we needed a better united front and handle some of this stuff between hunters. As for were to see anti's fight I have no idea either. I just know when it came to cecil they all went one way and won that battle. What did hunters do? Some with out all the facts took there side by bashing the guy with some others taking his side so who looked better?


Hank if getting you a nice pink shirt will make it easier on you to join my side and help me I will send one your way

 

[Jfet]

At the DSC AH get together I can make the wrestling mats at my school available.

 

[Hank2211]

At the DSC AH get together I can make the wrestling mats at my school available.

I have never been to DSC . . and now, will never go. Ugh.