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

[gizmo]

All of this about adapting is self defeatist. We don't give the enemy anything. I can tell you how we win, we win by educating the public. We need a PR campaign that highlights the benifits of hunting and conservation. We need to take an aggressive approach and be proactive not reactive. What do we do though? We now bicker amongst ourselves and find ourselves constantly on the defensive. Then beg to retain rights when it happens. Education is the key. The nonhunting public could be our biggest allies if we would only but educate them.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

The nonhunting public could be our biggest allies if we would only but educate them.

Absolutely agree Erik

 

[sheephunterab]

While the entire Cecil debacle was a short term disaster for hunters I believe it will ultimately turn into a long term win....other than for Walt perhaps. It made groups like the IUCN take a close look at hunting. They gave us all the tools we need to fight the antis and educate the non-hunters yet I doubt many hunters have even read the report. Rather than trying to argue with people about hunting, I just share this link with them. Many have changed their way of thinking. I bet I share it three or four times most days. Why not let a group of respected and unbiased scientists make our case for us. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_informingdecisionsontrophyhuntingv1.pdf

 

[billc]

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.

I myself think if it was brought up here it first it would not have changed a thing with phasa. I know people we both know fought what they did and they were not listen to. Phasa had there mind made up and nothing was going to change what they planned on doing. My problem is not with anyone person but with a group like phasa who cuts and runs because a subject was getting hot.

My problem with what they did was more with the few who have hunted raised lion and took the money before. Then when it looked like the easy way out was to just to give in they did and more or less went against hunts some had just done in that same year.

Maybe I would of had more respect for them as a group if they did reach out to hunters. Let the people who pay there way had some choice in what gets fought for or not. Instead they worried about what they thought would make them look good.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

While the entire Cecil debacle was a short term disaster for hunters I believe it will ultimately turn into a long term win....other than for Walt perhaps. It made groups like the IUCN take a close look at hunting. They gave us all the tools we need to fight the antis and educate the non-hunters yet I doubt many hunters have even read the report. Rather than trying to argue with people about hunting, I just share this link with them. Many have changed their way of thinking. I bet I share it three or four times most days. Why not let a group of respected and unbiased scientists make our case for us. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_informingdecisionsontrophyhuntingv1.pdf

I will download this later and share on FB.

 

[Royal27]

While the entire Cecil debacle was a short term disaster for hunters I believe it will ultimately turn into a long term win....other than for Walt perhaps. It made groups like the IUCN take a close look at hunting. They gave us all the tools we need to fight the antis and educate the non-hunters yet I doubt many hunters have even read the report. Rather than trying to argue with people about hunting, I just share this link with them. Many have changed their way of thinking. I bet I share it three or four times most days. Why not let a group of respected and unbiased scientists make our case for us. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_informingdecisionsontrophyhuntingv1.pdf

This needs to be posted in its own thread so more people see it here. If it has been already I missed it.

Really good stuff.

 

[Dragan N.]

All of this about adapting is self defeatist. We don't give the enemy anything. I can tell you how we win, we win by educating the public. We need a PR campaign that highlights the benifits of hunting and conservation. We need to take an aggressive approach and be proactive not reactive. What do we do though? We now bicker amongst ourselves and find ourselves constantly on the defensive. Then beg to retain rights when it happens. Education is the key. The nonhunting public could be our biggest allies if we would only but educate them.

I'd say the biggest problem facing hunters today or the future generation of hunters is that non-hunters and the "general population" has gotten a lot further from nature, the cycle of life, and where their food comes from than people 100 years ago where. In the past a lot more people lived on farms than today. People raised, killed and butchered animals/livestock for food. They knew were their meat came from. Nowadays the number of people eating meat has not significantly changed, I'd say probably 98-99% of people eat meat, but the average joe on the street doesn't want to know where his steak that he ate for dinner tonight came from. It was once part of a living breathing cow. Which was killed at a slaughterhouse, gutted, skinned, cut up and placed into little Styrofoam packets which he bought at the supermarket. People now a days aren't actually involved in the process of turning animals into food/meat. The killing of animals has been outsourced and is nowadays out of sight and out of mind. If you have killed and butchered animals to get the meat on your table then hunting an animal and the blood and guts that go along with processing won't bother you. However if you only buy already processed meat at the store well the killing, that is obviously part, of hunting will be more likely to bother you.

 

[Philip Glass]

I don't understand why the subject drives the civility or lack thereof of the discussion.

Phoenix Phil,
I agree with you in the sense that if we have a debate/disagreement on hunting ethics it should be civil. My point is that when the ethics (supposed) debate and or solutions infringe on my private property rights then I believe I have a duty to defend what is mine. there are two issues that get intertwined and often times hunters forget about private property rights.
Sorry to be so passionate but we are constantly under attack from people who want to put us out of the hunting business. welcome to my world!
Best Regards,
Philip

 

[Nyati]

Ethics and morals are personal, then there are the predominant ethics and morals in each of our communities which are made into laws.

There are types of hunting which I do not care for, but I will just refrain from doing them myself, and will not infringe the rights of others to do it, as long as they are legal.

In my dealing with non hunters, and even antis, I refuse any discussion based on emotional issues, I am willing to discuss only facts, statistics which prove what legal hunting has done for the good of the different animal species, and how those animals populations have fared for worse where legal hunting has been banned or curtailed in any aspect.

Confronted with hard data, I have seen as some of them cease being against us. They are not becoming hunters, but at least understand our point of view.

 

[35bore]

Certainly not, (let me explain )... we all have values and ethics that we were taught, whether directly or indirectly, from a mentor. They will not always coincide with others values, but no the less, they are values that someone holds dear. Where I think we as hunters fall short is we seem to think that just because we don't do this or that, then it's not acceptable (ethical).

If it's legal where you are hunting, key word legal, then who gives a $hit what anyone else says? There are far too many opinions on what should and shouldn't be done in any given hunting scenario. Unless you are there to make the call then who are you to judge?

So I will sign this saying, if you are hunting legally in any country/ countries, then no one is to judge you... No the antis or fellow hunters.

Scott Smith.

 

[Pheroze]

Certainly not, (let me explain )... we all have values and ethics that we were taught, whether directly or indirectly, from a mentor. They will not always coincide with others values, but no the less, they are values that someone holds dear. Where I think we as hunters fall short is we seem to think that just because we don't do this or that, then it's not acceptable (ethical).

If it's legal where you are hunting, key word legal, then who gives a $hit what anyone else says? There are far too many opinions on what should and shouldn't be done in any given hunting scenario. Unless you are there to make the call then who are you to judge?

So I will sign this saying, if you are hunting legally in any country/ countries, then no one is to judge you... No the antis or fellow hunters.

Scott Smith.

I think the locality aspect of this point is important. Hunters around the world will not form a unified code of ethics. However, I suspect hunters in a particular region will have a right way of doing things. This develops in response to the local environment, type of animal, laws etc. And, like any great trade, is taught apprentice style from father to son, friend to friend etc. I think it takes a real acceptance of other cultures and traditions to understand hinting around the globe. Just another awesome reason to be a travelling hunter