quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Who is missing the boat here?

Yes, nature is cruel. that CANNOT be changed. It has been that way since long before humans became the dominant species on the planet. Do the antis rail against motor vehicles? More animals/birds/reptiles/amphibians and insects are killed on America's roadway annually than 5 or 10 years worth of hunting seasons and vehicles are equal opportunity/non discriminatory.

Yet nature is just that and creatures ran over on our roadways are merely collateral damage.

Hunters, not Bushmen in Africa, Indians in the Amazonian Jungles or on the Island of New Guinea, but modern, Civilized SPORT hunters hunt by choice.

I claim to hunt because I was born a hunter, and I really do not want to think about having that ability taken away from me, but over the past 5 years or so, I have noticed that making actual kills is no longer as important as it once was, but I still live to be in the field and if that means guiding someone to a doe or a hog, that is good enough. Anymore if I kill a deer, it is to get a little fresh meat for Lora and myself and to provide some game meat to my two step daughters and their families.

It all keeps revolving back to the concept that modern hunters CHOOSE to hunt, but that choice has to be made in such a manner so as not to offend others, whether they are other hunters or non-hunters that really have no problem with someone hunting, it is just they do not want to hunt.

The thing we really have to stop doing, is alienating each other. The next most important concept is not alienating those that while they may not hunt, do not oppose those of us that do hunt.

We can either all stand together and go under together, or we can police ourselves somewhat and try and get people to realize that practices such as long range hunting require a lot of technology and experience, and not everyone will be capable of making clean kills consistently, without such knowledge and equipment.

Conversely, we cannot fall into the trap of trying to bow to each/every individuals beliefs concerning what is and is not "Ethical" behavior.

I for one, cannot/will not support Long Range hunting, per the definition of the OP of this mess, 800 yards and farther, I will also not support anyone stating that hunting deer at a timed feeder is Unethical.

There comes a point, or should whereby a hunter asks themselves whether a certain hunting practice is hurting or helping the overall image the Public has of hunters/hunting in general. It is my belief that as long as hunters do everything possible to ensure clean, humane kills and not act like they just made a touchdown in a football game, the average citizen has little or no problem with hunting. Antis are not average or normal, end of story on those folks.

Are animals wounded at shorter ranges, yes. Are there "Hunters" that go afield each year that have about as much knowledge and experience as a hunter as they do at conversing in Martian, YES.

This argument has no solution, other than to alienate hunters among themselves and to illustrate just exactly WHY we are losing the Battle(???) over whether or not those coming along behind us will be able to hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Randall,
Killing is anticlimactic to me. It is always about the hunt for me. Killing is just the last phase of a successful hunt.

I hunt because it is who I am. It is in my blood. I love being in nature. I love to shoot as well but killing gives me no thrill. I am equally at home fishing. I like to eat fish as well. But I release the majority of what I catch.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Perhaps I am asking the question inartfully . . . I am not asking what you personally believe . . . I am asking whether in your opinion another hunter should be free to employ whatever method, practice or tool they desire in taking an animal regardless of the potential of the method, practice or tool to wound, maim or result in an inhumane death? From my perspective, I have no problem in saying I condemn such methods, practices and tools and believe that hunters as a group ought to make it clear to those using such methods, practices or tools that their conduct is beneath the standard sportsmen and hunters should aspire to . . . regardless of whether the method, practice or tool is legal.

quote:

First, had I known this thread would be still going after nearly a week, I would have refrained from starting it.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

quote:

First, had I known this thread would be still going after nearly a week, I would have refrained from starting it.

You still would have started it

BTW I love many of your threads. Some may aggravate me to no end but they make me think and see both sides of an issue.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Just to play the devil's advocate for a second...let me portray a scenario for discussion.

We are at home on the ranch feeding cattle with my Dad. We see a coyote 200 yds away. My son can shoot to a 100 yds pretty good. He has never shot one single time further than 100 yards. He wants to see if he can kill that coyote. There are so dang many in Jack Co that my Mother can barely keep a house-cat.

Do we let him shoot?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Just to play the devil's advocate for a second...let me portray a scenario for discussion.

We are at home on the ranch feeding cattle with my Dad. We see a coyote 200 yds away. My son can shoot to a 100 yds pretty good. He has never shot one single time further than 100 yards. He wants to see if he can kill that coyote. There are so dang many in Jack Co that my Mother can barely keep a house-cat.

Do we let him shoot?

I think that depends on which set of values you want your son to pass along to your grandson Lane.

Not right ones or wrong ones, just which ones.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Just to play the devil's advocate for a second...let me portray a scenario for discussion.

We are at home on the ranch feeding cattle with my Dad. We see a coyote 200 yds away. My son can shoot to a 100 yds pretty good. He has never shot one single time further than 100 yards. He wants to see if he can kill that coyote. There are so dang many in Jack Co that my Mother can barely keep a house-cat.

Do we let him shoot?

I think that depends on which set of values you want your son to pass along to your grandson Lane.

Not right ones or wrong ones, just which ones.

And I think your answer sums up this whole thread.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Just to play the devil's advocate for a second...let me portray a scenario for discussion.

We are at home on the ranch feeding cattle with my Dad. We see a coyote 200 yds away. My son can shoot to a 100 yds pretty good. He has never shot one single time further than 100 yards. He wants to see if he can kill that coyote. There are so dang many in Jack Co that my Mother can barely keep a house-cat.

Do we let him shoot?

quote:

FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.
HUNTER ETHICS
Fundamental to all hunting is the concept of conservation of natural resources. Hunting in today's world involves the regulated harvest of individual animals in a manner that conserves, protects, and perpetuates the hunted population. The hunter engages in a one-to-one relationship with the quarry and his or her hunting should be guided by a hierarchy of ethics related to hunting, which includes the following tenets:

1. Obey all applicable laws and regulations.
2. Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.
3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.
4. Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.
5. Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.
6. Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Just to play the devil's advocate for a second...let me portray a scenario for discussion.

We are at home on the ranch feeding cattle with my Dad. We see a coyote 200 yds away. My son can shoot to a 100 yds pretty good. He has never shot one single time further than 100 yards. He wants to see if he can kill that coyote. There are so dang many in Jack Co that my Mother can barely keep a house-cat.

Do we let him shoot?

You are justifying a high-percentage wound shot by your devaluing of the coyote. Replace coyote with mature mule deer and see what your answer is.

My answer is this: I would definitely let him try the coyote. If the deer was in season, my son properly licensed, the gun capable, and we had no option to stalk closer...I would let him try it as well.

Let's keep playing the game. One of your cows steps in a hole and breaks its leg. Do you allow your grandson to back up and take pot shots at it at 200 yards to see how he does? Or do your ethics tell you to tell him to move closer so he can make a more certain, clean kill and "put it out of its misery"?

No...we would walk right up and shoot the cow in the frontal cortex at feet because to do otherwise would be plain stupid and we are not stupid people.

All of this is of course mental masturbation, but if, because you value coyotes less than cows, you would allow more suffering with one than the other, you need to re-evaluate your ethics.

I have caught many a coyote in a #3 longspring victor only to shoot it the next day. I try to keep cows from breaking their legs cause they are worth money. Maybe that explains how I feel about your summary.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

Seriously? You have a number of long range target shooters on this thread who have said shots on game at these distances cannot be reliably depended on to be quick and efficient kill shots even with the best shooters. So now some are advocating that taking shots at distances with a high potential to wound or maim are okay because nature can be cruel. So animals that are wounded or maimed by poor long range shots should be thankful they have been spared a natural end. Talk about turning logic on its head. Now hunting is not about a quick and humane kill. Anything goes since nature can be cruel, including hunters taking actions that result in needless suffering. This is precisely why ethics are an essential part of the conversation.

Yeah and we all know there is more animals wounded by just every day hunting from guys who cant shot a 100 yds or shit just happens sometimes to. With your great logic I guess we should stop hunting because ethics just make it wrong for some to like hunting. Silly me we should just use your ethics as they must be the right ones. I wish some would just take there ball and go home since they cant play with others who may want to do something they don't like.
I just hope as some worry about if there ethics are better then other we don't lose any more ground fighting with each other over all the bs.

Do you believe that the odds of a clean and humane kill are the same for a 100 yard shot as they are for 1000 yard shot? Relatedly, do you believe that hunters should engage in conduct that has a high probability of wounding or maiming animals?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Merry Christmas Steve! Merry Christmas Mike Jines. Merry Christmas Randall. Merry Christmas Mike Burke. Merry Christmas all.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

Seriously? You have a number of long range target shooters on this thread who have said shots on game at these distances cannot be reliably depended on to be quick and efficient kill shots even with the best shooters. So now some are advocating that taking shots at distances with a high potential to wound or maim are okay because nature can be cruel. So animals that are wounded or maimed by poor long range shots should be thankful they have been spared a natural end. Talk about turning logic on its head. Now hunting is not about a quick and humane kill. Anything goes since nature can be cruel, including hunters taking actions that result in needless suffering. This is precisely why ethics are an essential part of the conversation.

Yeah and we all know there is more animals wounded by just every day hunting from guys who cant shot a 100 yds or shit just happens sometimes to. With your great logic I guess we should stop hunting because ethics just make it wrong for some to like hunting. Silly me we should just use your ethics as they must be the right ones. I wish some would just take there ball and go home since they cant play with others who may want to do something they don't like.
I just hope as some worry about if there ethics are better then other we don't lose any more ground fighting with each other over all the bs.

Do you believe that the odds of a clean and humane kill are the same for a 100 yard shot as they are for 1000 yard shot? Relatedly, do you believe that hunters should engage in conduct that has a high probability of wounding or maiming animals?

I believe depending on the hunter some maybe better even at a 1000 yds then some at 100 yd. There is no one fits all with anything and your trying to make it like there is.My point is I should not stop you from shooting pregnant elephants like you should not try and stop long range guys or raised animals because your ethics don't agree.

As soon as you put your ethics above someone because of your belief your no different then a narrow minded anti who's ethics do not believe in the hunting and killing of animals.

I know it is hard to believe but you could always just not do what you don't like and leave others do what they like. Maybe worry about other hunters rights over if someone who does not care may be upset.

quote:

that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.

Well, there it is, the whole fallacy of "Ethical" hunting. The ONLY way humans survived to become the dominant species on the planet, was the ability to learn too use things that gave them an improper advantage.

!. We do not run that fast.

2. We are not on average all that strong.

3. We only have a slightly more than rudimentary sense of smell.

4. We have fairly decent eyesight.

And the list goes on and on as to why we evolved having a brain complex enough to be able to out think animals and find tools and figuring out how to use them so we could kill animals for food or protection.

So by the definition given in the quoted sentence, bows and firearms of ANY kind, gives a hunter an IMPROPER advantage.

We can continue on with this "discussion" and accusing each other of various things, but at some point hunters as a group must realize they are being watched and Public opinion is shifting, and to many of us, it is not shifting in a Good direction.

Some are trying to convince everyone to stop posting pictures on Social Media, while others seem to want to flaunt what they are doing and treat it like it is some form of competition and they are looking to see who wins.

One thing I see that people are missing in this "discussion", is that shooting targets i.e. paper/metal gongs and other such inanimate objects is not what is being scrutinized, it is the concept of taking such shots at living animals, intentionally that causes the concern.

Couple that with the FACT that humans as a group have an incurable "Monkey See - Monkey Do" mentality and all too often, with out the proper training/discipline or equipment, try to duplicate the results of those with the knowledge/training/equipment etc.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know it is hard to believe but you could always just not do what you don't like and leave others do what they like. Maybe worry about other hunters rights over if someone who does not care may be upset.

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

The antis use our own practices to it to once again make us look like fools and we run away like fools.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know it is hard to believe but you could always just not do what you don't like and leave others do what they like. Maybe worry about other hunters rights over if someone who does not care may be upset.

This is where (at least one place where) you miss the bus in my opinion. Why should we be concerned about what other people do and whether other people hunt in an ethical and responsible manner . . . because the actions of those other hunters impacts in a tangible way the ability of other hunters to continue to hunt, e.g., Dr. Palmer did his own thing and canned lion operators did their own thing and both helped bring about the lion import ban we currently have. So it is actually pretty simple . . . why am I concerned about the unethical and irresponsible actions of other hunters . . . because their actions threaten to jeopardize my ability to continue to hunt. Their actions focus negative attention on a sport that hardly needs such attention.

[By the way, there is a material difference between "shooting pregnant elephant" as you refer to it and practices like canned lion hunting and long range hunting. The former has a demonstrable conservation and herd management benefit. The value of taking cows, ewes, does, hinds, etc. is well settled. I have no problem defending or explaining to non-hunting third parties the practice of taking cow elephant. The latter are entertainment. There is no compelling conservation or other benefit associated with the practices. Consequently defending or explaining the practices to non-hunters essentially becomes either (i) a just-let-everyone-do-what-they-want discussion which is hardly convincing for entertainment involving the killing an animal, or (ii) a can-we-please-talk-about-something-else discussion since this issue makes me uncomfortable trying to defend it.]

quote:

First off we are being watched by anti's not the general public like some try to use to scare

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know it is hard to believe but you could always just not do what you don't like and leave others do what they like. Maybe worry about other hunters rights over if someone who does not care may be upset.

This is where (at least one place where) you miss the bus in my opinion. Why should we be concerned about what other people do and whether other people hunt in an ethical and responsible manner . . . because the actions of those other hunters impacts in a tangible way the ability of other hunters to continue to hunt, e.g., Dr. Palmer did his own thing and canned lion operators did their own thing and both helped bring about the lion import ban we currently have. So it is actually pretty simple . . . why am I concerned about the unethical and irresponsible actions of other hunters . . . because their actions threaten to jeopardize my ability to continue to hunt. Their actions focus negative attention on a sport that hardly needs such attention.

[By the way, there is a material difference between "shooting pregnant elephant" as you refer to it and practices like canned lion hunting and long range hunting. The former has a demonstrable conservation and herd management benefit. The value of taking cows, ewes, does, hinds, etc. is well settled. I have no problem defending or explaining to non-hunting third parties the practice of taking cow elephant. The latter are entertainment. There is no compelling conservation or other benefit associated with the practices. Consequently defending or explaining the practices to non-hunters essentially becomes either (i) a just-let-everyone-do-what-they-want discussion which is hardly convincing for entertainment involving the killing an animal, or (ii) a can-we-please-talk-about-something-else discussion since this issue makes me uncomfortable trying to defend it.]

Mike, I believe this exemplifies where you're confused on this subject. The anti's aren't motivated by a singular event or even a collection of events that took place in the field. Further, the lion ban did not occur as a result of a singular event or even a collection of events that took place in the field. The anti's and the regulators who are being influenced by the anti movement simply use seemingly inflammatory events to execute their plans. They could invent or use any hunting encounter to make excuses for their continual attack. But don't be confused, we could impose massive regulations and ethical standards upon ourselves, and it would matter not in the least to the anti movement and wouldn't slow down their march towards loss of hunting rights. As the liberals say, You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

Now if you just want to push your standards of ethics on everyone else, please do so, but don't confuse that with winning the war on our hunting rights.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

The antis use our own practices to it to once again make us look like fools and we run away like fools.

. . . fixed it for you.

By the way, I am not for "stopping" anything. I am for certain hunters "starting" to behave in a more thoughtful, ethical and responsible manner, a manner that is becoming of the sport. A good read of the Boone and Crocket fair chase and hunter ethics tenets above would be a good start.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

I know it is hard to believe but you could always just not do what you don't like and leave others do what they like. Maybe worry about other hunters rights over if someone who does not care may be upset.

This is where (at least one place where) you miss the bus in my opinion. Why should we be concerned about what other people do and whether other people hunt in an ethical and responsible manner . . . because the actions of those other hunters impacts in a tangible way the ability of other hunters to continue to hunt, e.g., Dr. Palmer did his own thing and canned lion operators did their own thing and both helped bring about the lion import ban we currently have. So it is actually pretty simple . . . why am I concerned about the unethical and irresponsible actions of other hunters . . . because their actions threaten to jeopardize my ability to continue to hunt. Their actions focus negative attention on a sport that hardly needs such attention.

[By the way, there is a material difference between "shooting pregnant elephant" as you refer to it and practices like canned lion hunting and long range hunting. The former has a demonstrable conservation and herd management benefit. The value of taking cows, ewes, does, hinds, etc. is well settled. I have no problem defending or explaining to non-hunting third parties the practice of taking cow elephant. The latter are entertainment. There is no compelling conservation or other benefit associated with the practices. Consequently defending or explaining the practices to non-hunters essentially becomes either (i) a just-let-everyone-do-what-they-want discussion which is hardly convincing for entertainment involving the killing an animal, or (ii) a can-we-please-talk-about-something-else discussion since this issue makes me uncomfortable trying to defend it.]

Mike, I believe this exemplifies where you're confused on this subject. The anti's aren't motivated by a singular event or even a collection of events that took place in the field. Further, the lion ban did not occur as a result of a singular event or even a collection of events that took place in the field. The anti's and the regulators who are being influenced by the anti movement simply use seemingly inflammatory events to execute their plans. They could invent or use any hunting encounter to make excuses for their continual attack. But don't be confused, we could impose massive regulations and ethical standards upon ourselves, and it would matter not in the least to the anti movement and wouldn't slow down their march towards loss of hunting rights. As the liberals say, You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.

Now if you just want to push your standards of ethics on everyone else, please do so, but don't confuse that with winning the war on our hunting rights.

As I have said, repeatedly, in my view this is not about convincing the anti-hunting community of anything. It is about not alienating the large majority of people that are largely indifferent to or agnostic toward hunting. The group that the anti-hunting community seeks to coop using examples of our own egregious behavior, like they did with Cecil and canned lion hunting. Of course I do not expect you to stop mischaracterizing that view to fit your narrative.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

Personally, my hunting ethic is - Don't screw up but if you do, do everything in your power to fix it. The end.