The Morals and Ethics of Hunting - Why Should We All Agree?

[PHOENIX PHIL]

True but let's not forget that in the mind of the antis, the only clean house is a house that does not include hunting. At what point to we stop giving pieces away before we realize this?

I don't think I've ever suggested giving any pieces to the anti-hunters and I'm not about to begin. I don't doubt what you say about them wanting absolutely no hunting or even fishing.

My thoughts are do what we can to avoid pushing non-hunters into the anti camp or if possible introduce them to hunting and bring them over. This is far different than placating the anti's.

 

[Royal27]

I always look to the NRA as a success story for staying the course. Perhaps we don't need to adapt to survive? Perhaps adapting will be our demise?

Possible...

I think much less likely.... people, animals, companies, and cultures change over time or go away. It just happens. Perhaps the real key is that we drive the change and not allow others to do it? Back to policing ourselves?

 

[sheephunterab]

Possible...

Back to policing ourselves?

But again, what is it we are policing? Who sets the acceptable and unacceptable standards? What are we willing to give up?

 

[billc]

Great point Phil. LOTS of companies have gone out of business because they weren't able to adjust to trends. Lots of really good strong companies. If we think we are any different we're fooling ourselves.



I agree, but man is it a difficult question on the point. One to which I don't know the answer. We do have to adapt in order to survive. That I do know....

No places go out of business because people don't use them anymore for one reason or another. Would people still hunt if all the outfitters went out of business or even if there was no place to buy weapons to go hunt. Answer is yes people will still hunt.

Changing the way we do stuff because of a few make us look like we are wrong and they are right. Again taking other hunters rights away because you may not like them is helping the other side.

Everyone needs to ask themselves with out worrying about if it is a hunt they like or dislike. If I fight to stop this form of hunting will the anti's leave us alone or will they just move on to the next project they want stopped. If everyone is honest with themselves we know the answer is next animal up to save. When will they stop well that is when we don't hunt anymore.

 

[billc]

Possible...

I think much less likely.... people, animals, companies, and cultures change over time or go away. It just happens. Perhaps the real key is that we drive the change and not allow others to do it? Back to policing ourselves?

Hunting is one of the few things around yet that has been here for all of time. Was not always about enjoyment or as a hobbie but hunting will never go away.

Just ask yourself what would you do if they ban hunting. I know what I would do.

 

[sheephunterab]

And this is where this discussion typically stalls. It's easy to say we need to be more politically correct and sensitive to the non hunters but no one can answer what that really means and who it is we are willing to throw under the bus. Political correctness isn't without casualties.

 

[Royal27]

But again, what is it we are policing? Who sets the acceptable and unacceptable standards? What are we willing to give up?

The hunting "society" as a whole perhaps sets the standards and polices to them? What "we're" willing to give up, or what new and creative ways "we'll" hunt even.

I don't necessarily think we give up anything. Please don't take me wrong on that. I'm not advocating stopping a particular form of hunting at all. I do think we should constantly ask why we do anything though, not just hunting. And its always been done that way isn't always a good enough answer for me personally (again not an absolute statement - I very much love hunting tradition).

When we don't have these conversations though we don't learn anything new, back to the points @BRICKBURN made about cultural differences.

Great points by the way, and I bet we're a lot closer on this than you might think.

 

[sheephunterab]

The hunting "society" as a whole perhaps sets the standards and polices to them?

While I appreciate your faith in the hunting community, I think even you would have to agree that consensus by the entire hunting society on anything, let alone a blanket set of standards is never going to happen. In a perfect world it would be the ideal solution no doubt but sadly we don't live in a perfect world. I think the best we can hope for is hunters resisting the temptation to feed on their own when they do things differently. But sadly even that seems too much to ask of many. I do agree, this has been a good discussion.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

And this is where this discussion typically stalls. It's easy to say we need to be more politically correct and sensitive to the non hunters but no one can answer what that really means and who it is we are willing to throw under the bus. Political correctness isn't without casualties.

Well it is a bit like someone who once said, I think it was a judge, about pornography. He didn't know how to define it, but he clearly knew what it was when he saw it. So one example I've mentioned before on AH.

A friend of mine and I back when we were in high school were talking about hunting at his house one evening. His mom who grew up in central Louisiana where hunting is a big part of the culture, mentioned something that bothered her. And that was when still in La, she didn't like it when one of the locals would kill a deer, throw it in the bed of his truck and then parade around town with the tailgate down so everyone could see and witness the mighty hunters prowess. Is it really too much for you to close the tailgate and go directly home with your deer? Is it really giving into the anti's and giving something up by treating the deer with more respect? I think not and this in my mind is an example of hunting pornography. By the way my friends mom to this day is not an anti-hunter, she's just a non-hunter.

Another thought:
From the lion thread that started on Saturday, it would seem that in 2012 it was legal in RSA to shoot a lion from the truck, but now it is illegal. If that is the case, how and why did this change come about? Somebody or some people must have spoke up and said it was wrong. Regardless of what I or you may think of that change, were they wrong simply for speaking up about the issue?

 

[sheephunterab]

Are you implying that all changes in law are good? The province I live in is set to ban spear hunting in response to the cries of antis. Should hunters look upon that as positive change? Just because someone said is was wrong doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Was banning hound hunting in California a positive step? What if they ban trapping in Montana as proposed?

 

[Royal27]

, I think even you would have to agree that consensus by the entire hunting society on anything, let alone a blanket set of standards is never going to happen

Oh I never said consensus or blanket standards! You're right, even I don't think that.

There is a difference between generally accepted standards that vary by geographic area even, and consensus.

 

[Scott Slough]

Your both wrong my way is so much better. Ask me I will tell you

Finally billc has proven the fallacy of the "we should all agree" ... there is only one way for us to all agree on everything ... and that is to pick a single authoritarian person ... billc ... and follow everything that they say!

 

[billc]

Another thought:
From the lion thread that started on Saturday, it would seem that in 2012 it was legal in RSA to shoot a lion from the truck, but now it is illegal. If that is the case, how and why did this change come about? Somebody or some people must have spoke up and said it was wrong. Regardless of what I or you may think of that change, were they wrong simply for speaking up about the issue?

The good thing about this it maybe one of the laws that changed for the better. The even better part it was changed and not bragged about by anyone taking credit for it. Was done in house and not because of anti pressure.

See we can make changes with out trying to help them banned some form of hunting. I myself do not see that change as hurting any hunter because they can still hunt a raised lion.

 

[billc]

Finally billc has proven the fallacy of the "we should all agree" ... there is only one way for us to all agree on everything ... and that is to pick a single authoritarian person ... billc ... and follow everything that they say!

That's a good one.

 

[Clayton]

Taking applications for the position of BENEVOLENT DICTATOR?

 

[Royal27]

Finally billc has proven the fallacy of the "we should all agree" ... there is only one way for us to all agree on everything ... and that is to pick a single authoritarian person ... billc ... and follow everything that they say!

@BRICKBURN

Please lock the thread. The reason for this entire discussion is no longer valid.

 

[billc]

@BRICKBURN

Please lock the thread. The reason for this entire discussion is no longer valid.

I just wonder if I can get them all to pay for my hunt also. Royal it did look like you maybe the one second down on the right side. Haha

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

The good thing about this it maybe one of the laws that changed for the better. The even better part it was changed and not bragged about by anyone taking credit for it. Was done in house and not because of anti pressure.

See we can make changes with out trying to help them banned some form of hunting. I myself do not see that change as hurting any hunter because they can still hunt a raised lion.

Well your memory may be better than mine as I can't say whether or not that issue was brought up here on AH or anywhere else.

So what if the decision was made in house and due to anti-hunting pressure, but it got done without anyone else's knowledge because someone who was in the know didn't want to catch a ration of shit for starting a controversial thread on AH? Would that be good?

I do have a memory of you heavily criticizing PHASA earlier this year with their decision regarding RSA lions. Do you think having prior knowledge about that decision and perhaps some ability to influence it may have been a good thing?

 

[billc]

Well your memory may be better than mine as I can't say whether or not that issue was brought up here on AH or anywhere else.

So what if the decision was made in house and due to anti-hunting pressure, but it got done without anyone else's knowledge because someone who was in the know didn't want to catch a ration of shit for starting a controversial thread on AH? Would that be good?

I do have a memory of you heavily criticizing PHASA earlier this year with their decision regarding RSA lions. Do you think having prior knowledge about that decision and perhaps some ability to influence it may have been a good thing?

If anyone would have got the change like an anti group or phasa they would have been out pumping there chest. It was a law changed in house is my guess but it is just a guess. Laws get looked at all the time and changed by the goverment or wildlife departments.
Any thing more serious then a law like this which is kind of common sense would have been talked about.

Yes you did remember one think right I think phasa is a joke. The cowards that tried to throw some legal raised lion hunting under the bus to try and save there backside. A group that trys to take credit for anything they like but run from everything else. Plus more then one phasa member is still hunting lions so how did that all work out for them. Once again went for the look with no power to do a thing to anyone.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Yes you did remember one think right I think phasa is a joke. The cowards that tried to throw some legal raised lion hunting under the bus to try and save there backside. A group that trys to take credit for anything they like but run from everything else. Plus more then one phasa member is still hunting lions so how did that all work out for them. Once again went for the look with no power to do a thing to anyone.

Be that as it may Bill regarding your comments on PHASA, you didn't address my point. As I recall that decision from PHASA caught many by surprise, and was certainly in response to Cecil. If it had been out there with enough time that PHASA was considering that decision, would you have thought it good to have it make it here on AH?

If so, I'm sure you'd agree that it would have been a debated topic. And perhaps just maybe, AH could have influenced the decision and prevented PHASA from making the one they did. I kind of doubt it, but maybe.

Furthermore had that topic gone a bit heated, I can say there is at least one member of AH who I know from previous posts is not in favor of the RSA raised lion hunts. I happen to disagree with him, but I also have a great deal of respect for his opinions and posts here. So for me, I'm not afraid to deal with topics where we may not all agree perhaps even strongly so, but I don't take it personal and I sure don't let that be a reason for thinking less of someone.