In this third posting about hunting in South Africa I again borrow a definition from the South African Confederation of Hunting Associations.

Please read on, I assure you that nowhere in this posting will my personal ethics be mentioned at all! Here CHASA’s definition of ethical hunting:

Define “ethical hunting” as hunting conduct that
- obeys legislation,
- complies with the principles of fair chase,
- causes minimal suffering for the hunted animal, and
- conforms to broadly accepted norms of respect for nature and fellow man.

Someone [billrquimby on Accurate Reloading Forum, was the first I ever saw and noted this particular quote, but it might very well be correctly attributed to someone else] once made the very accurate observation and said: "Ethics are in the eye of the beholder." On this forum we are discussing now only hunting ethics. Discuss business ethics and ethics about other matters elsewhere. I have often expressed my views on hunting ethics on forums such as this one.

The main point I want to make is: How do we train young [or older beginners] hunters to ‘see’ ethics. One man looks at a Picasso drawing: He sees a few lines that reminds him of a fat lady. Another man looks at the same drawing, and sees something he is prepared to pay $ millions for! The differences lie in the training and experience of the eye of the beholder. My question is now: What do we really do to in an unbiased manner assist inexperienced hunters to see the ethics properly?

If whatever hunting method is under discussion is, for any one specific individual an acceptable method of hunting, well then it is by that persons own definition quite ethical. Whatever the method, it is acceptable in the eyes of that particular beholder, and, by his definition ethical. I am the last person on earth that will make an unqualified statement to someone that his views are wrong. As a hunter I do consider it my duty to try to persuade him to consider changing his views, but even so his views are not “wrong”, they are just different from my views. Ethics are all in the eye of the beholder! Ethics are not decided by ‘the majority of hunters’ or some other majority! The ‘majority of meat eaters’ buy their meat at the supermarket and would outlaw hunting as I enjoy it in a wink!

I have had many a fierce argument, or 'word fight', with different religious leaders about the right of people to pray, or not to pray, to their God [or the Devil] without anyone like a missionary having the right to say that: "My religion is the only true road to eternal salvation!" Do we decide what religion is the only true road to salvation? If you reply “Yes!” , then I ask if you have any idea of how many Chinese there are that will outvote you? No, just as the ‘correct’ religion cannot be decided by popular vote, so hunting ethics cannot be decided by some majority vote.

What can I say for the "hunter" who argues that: "The lion is going to die in any case, why do I not just shoot him in the cage before you release him, and so make the canned shoot perfectly safe for everyone?" The only thing that one can say is, if it is OK by you, it really is OK by you. It does not make it OK by me. It does not make it OK by most hunters, but they should not force their view of the ethics unto him. This extreme example doe probably not conform to the last attribute in the CHASA definition of ethical hunting. But this is not hunting – it is shooting a canned lion!

We can, and often do, say that such a person has "no ethics at all". This is wrong; his ethics are not the same as ours, but there are those who really believe that shooting something that is going to die in any case in a cage is OK. You may well ask: “Are there really hunters out there that would shoot a lion in a cage”|?” Just to be perfectly honest, I had a client, actually his very young son, shoot a sheep killing caracal in a trap cage. The farmer, after loosing many sheep to this particular caracal, wanted that particular caracal dead. He set a trap cage and caught it one night while we were hunting on the property. That caracal was going to die in any case, and I let young Jimmy shoot it in the cage with my .22LR. Not “hunt” it in the cage, just “shoot” it in the cage. Dispatch an unwanted vermin caught in a cage.

Was my allowing a child to shoot that caracal an example of ethical behavior? I’ll let you answer that one. Was it ‘hunting’? No ways! But I allowed Jimmy to shoot that caracal in the trap cage. Now, I know it sounds terrible: but leave him be if he is acting legally to shoot a canned lion in a cage. Yes, fight to have the laws changed that will make it illegal to shoot a canned lion in a cage. But allow each one to define his/her own personal ethics. Is not something that is decided by democratic vote at all! If it were the hunters of this world would be far outvoted by the anti’s and there would be no hunting allowed.

The fact that a certain “hunting” method, for example baiting for leopard and having a light to shoot by, is regarded by many as an ethical method of “hunting” a leopard does not make it right in everyone’s eyes. In their eyes it is right and an acceptable ethical hunting method. Not so in other eyes. Not so in the eyes of millions of anti-hunters either. In the reference frame work of each individual who does regard it as an acceptable practice it is indeed “right” and ethical. But if others do not accept it as a method that they want to use it also does not make them “wrong”. Ethics are in the eye of the beholder!


I'm not forcing my ethics onto anyone, and will not allow anyone to force his or her ethics onto me. We can talk about it, even argue about it, we can even try to convince each other of the "correctness" of our respective views, but in the end it remains very personal views that are neither right nor wrong. Different maybe. but if you really deep down and honestly feel that it is OK to shoot a lion in a cage and claim that you have hunted it, well, those are your views! Quite different from other’s view, but not "wrong", just because it is different from theirs. Even if this man is the only one on earth that thinks it is OK to shoot a lion in a cage, it may still be his own honest view, and for him, and him alone, it would be ethical to do so and claim that he has hunted a lion. There is no democracy in ethics: What the majority thinks is right and acceptable is not right for someone who disagrees. But by exactly the same token his minority view can also not be forced on the majority. So, if some disagree with the view that it is OK to call for or use bait on a leopard “hunt”, let them be! I’m most definitely NOT saying that others are “wrong”. All of us are right, although our views are different. That sure sounds, and really is, stupid! But it is how one should feel about ethics: It is in the eye of the beholder!

What about ethics of daylight plains game hunting? Hunting game that are retained behind fences? Hunting game that was recently released from captivity, or Put &Take shooting? Hunting with black powder weapons when there are modern high power rifles available? Hunting with handguns that have less power than rifles? Bow hunting? Crossbow hunting? Modern compound bow versus traditional longbow hunting? Bow hunting from a blind? Spear hunting? Hunting at a feeding stations? Hunting at a waterhole? Searching for game with a vehicle – the so-called “spot and stalk” method? Shooting from a vehicle? Shooting at a waterhole? Shooting at a timer operated feeder?

A well known South African PH has posted a statement to the effect that "I like shooting something when hunting." in response to a posting on ethics in which some lack of hunting success was stated. I believe that the whole essence of all ethics while hunting can be explained by the statement that ethics applies only the search, stalk and trophy evaluation part of the hunt. Once the hunter has decided to kill a particular animal the "hunt" is over and only the "killing" remains to be executed.

I'll explain what is meant by the hunt is over by way of example: An elephant hunter decided he wants a 100lb elephant. He hunts hard, finds a set of very big tracks and follows these on foot. Eventually he overtakes the elephant and stalks to very close to see the ivory clearly. He can very easily take a killing shot by this time. However the elephant has both tusks broken of to little stumps and he declines the opportunity to take a shot. He had a fully successful hunt, but decided at the end of the hunt not to make a kill. If the elephant was indeed a true 100lb one he would have ended the hunt by deciding to take the shot and after the true ethical "hunt" was over taken the shot to kill the elephant. He would have had a successful hunt and killed an elephant.

In my book hunting means finding and getting close to an animal to evaluate if you really want to kill it, get in a good enough position to be 100% sure that you can with minimum suffering kill it with whatever weapon/equipment you have chosen.

Methinks I’ve said enough: Ethics are in the eye of the beholder!

But how are the views of each beholder formed? Tradition wants us to learn these views from our fathers and elders when we are young hunters. It has been this way for millennia: Young hunters learning the ways of hunting from their fathers, uncles and older siblings & nephews. Probably still the ideal way of learning about ethics and forming your own views about ethics. But, in our modern society, is that the only way?

In our modern society politicians tells us via TV, radio, printed press and Internet how we should feel about a whole range of subjects: Abortion, capitol punishment, the war in XYZ, sex education at school, homosexuality and a whole range of other things. That we find OK. Each politician is free to express his views and sell those as the ‘ideal norm’. The guy who can buy the most TV coverage probably sways the views of the majority to vote for him. We accept that as how our views are formed on religion, homosexual behavior and a great many other controversial subjects! That is the way things are!

But let just one hunter post his views about the ethics of something reported on some hunting forum: Then about one half of all the members of the forum community jumps in and condemns each other and everyone else. We then hear that one should not impose his ethics onto anyone else. The other half of the forum members therefore keeps quiet!

But how, were and when should adult but inexperienced hunters become exposed to different views on hunting ethics?

In good hunting.

Great post Andrew!

Andrew:

As far as I know, "ethics are in the eye of the beholder" is an original phrase.

Ethics differ also according to where you are. For example, in your corner of the world it is considered unethical to hunt an animal near its source of water but we have no such stigma here in the American West.

Even here, though, there are regional differences. In Arizona, it is illegal (and therefore unethical) to use bait to draw bears to a gun. Elsewhere in the U.S. and in Canada, baiting is the only way bears are hunted.

Knowing that, I once wrote a definition that said, "ethics are the standards acceptable to the majority of people in a region."

It works in most cases.

Bill Quimby

People condemn each other's behaviors or characteristics, in some fashion or another, for a host of reasons.

For example, I have been known to wrinkle my nose from time to time at the stench caused by another's lack of personal hygiene.

Yet, in the region in question, the level of stench that I found objectionable was quite acceptable to the indigent population.

Why should ethics be any different?

Excellent post Andrew.

From my limited experience hunting ethics fall into 3 categories. Personal, the ones we have to live with as individuals, Peer/Group, the ones those around us accept/promote, Situational, the ones where peripheral factors cause or force us to re-evaluate or modify our Personal ethics.

Andrew:
I enjoyed your post and have a question perhaps you can answer as you live there. Why is there such a strong concern about "canned" lion hunting but I don't hear anything about "canned" impala or elk hunting when both (may) take place behind a fence and on limited acreage. Is it because the lion is considered more "noble" than common game?
Cheers,
Cal

Andrew

You contradicted yourself at least twice-

I mostly agree with you but the "ethical hunt" does not stop at bring the quarry to bay but can and should include the Kill. To exclude the kill from the hunt is to belittle both you and the quarry IMHO.


SSR

I hope that at least a few aspects that I feel strongly about got over well. I’m not:
1. Trying to force my ethics onto anyone!
2. Condemning anyone for their behaviour.
3. Defining “my” ethics. I have given many thoughts about ethics, but I do hope that I’ve not said anything like: I think it is unethical to hunt like this….. Or: I say you can only hunt ethically like this……


I have however made a plea to allow anyone to provide guidance about the generally accepted ethics in his area by stating something like: Youngsters and beginner hunters or hunters new to an area, here follows “my” ethics, as possible guidance to what the majority of hunters is “my” area accepts. In my next posting, in which I do intend putting my thoughts about the ethics of Put & Take practices on record, I do not want to be attacked for stating what my views about the ethics are. Sure attack my views, but do not attack me for stating them.

cal pappas, In my eyes the hunting of every animal should be done with equal respect for the fact that a life is taken. But, in the eyes of the greenies and the uninformed anti-hunters there is a perceived ranking of the “nobility” of animals: lion on top, followed by elephant [or maybe rhino is now second?] then the next slightly less noble animal, then the next and somewhere low down man fits in. Then some “lower forms of life, like fish, and human hunters are right at the bottom of this list! Remember that most of the fuss about canned hunting was kicked up by the antis and greenies – hunters only reacted to the fuss made by these misguided souls.

Cross L, Can one separate the “hunt” and the “Kill”? The definition of “hunt” on which I grew up – given in Ordinance 12 of 1983 of the former Transvaal Nature Conservation Ordinance and Regulations requires only a “……. the intent to kill or shoot, to disturb wilfully…….” to have hunted. In this definition the guy looking for his elephant has hunted as he had the “intent to kill it if it is a 100lb’er!” 3.

The definition of “hunt” proposed by CHASA reads: Define “hunt” as to lie in wait or pursue an animal and intentionally take its life in an ethical way. I have put the bold on the word ‘and’ as the inclusion of that word makes you quite right – you cannot separate the hunt from the kill! Sorry, but remember I wrote my first PH exam based on the old definition!

Maybe the time is now right to actually post my views about the ethics of seeking with the intent to kill a Put & Take animal?

In good hunting.