quote:

Originally posted by craig boddington:
I tend to think we should all have our personal ethics because, after all, ours is a very personal passion conducted with very few witnesses (although, despite their creed, PHs will tell!) and no audiences. My problem is when people who have never been there wave their personal ethics in my face. We can and should draw a broad black and white line between legal and illegal hunting. Publicly, we should support legal hunting in all its forms, whether we choose to participate or not. Privately we can draw our own shades of gray, our own personal ethics that give us pleasure in their adherence. But I believe the only black and white should be between legal and illegal. Most methods that are LEGAL are legal in a given area for specific reasons. For instance, dogs are used for leopards primarily in ranch areas where leopards won't come to bait in daylight. My preference (shade of gray) is daylight baiting...but that isn't always possible, and I think hounds beat the shit out of shooting at night (not ethically, PRACTICALLY). Bongo. I've hunted bongo by pure tracking, with one dog, with pygmies and their dogs, and from a machan. The forest varies in density. Where dogs are used, they're used for a reason! Pure tracking is unquestionably more satisfying...but I'd rather have canine friends show me what I'm shooting than shoot a spot of red and wind up with a female bongo. Provided a hunting method is legal, we should support it publicly. Privately, we can participate or not...but don't knock something (that's legal) until you've tried it. Just my opinion. Cheers, Craig

The quote above says it all for me. Interesting as well, the guys who REALLY have the experience always seem to be the most considerate of others, and the differences in opinion. I'll never, ever, understand the real animosity amongst hunters, aimed at each other??

quote:

Still legal in some states

Not meaning to stir things up, but can you give a list of the states that allow internet hunting?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Still legal in some states

Not meaning to stir things up, but can you give a list of the states that allow internet hunting?

There are conflicting numbers of states, but at least 38 have enacted laws prohibiting internet hunting:

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

I'm told there are two more states that recently passed such laws, but I'm not sure which ones. One source lists the following states as not having anti-internet hunting laws:

Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington.

Interestingly, the former operator of the original internet hunting site has reputedly stated his intention to go off shore with his next operation in order to avoid US prohibitions.

Our primeval instincts are geared towards food, clothing & shelter. They are also geared towards protecting ourselves and our family / community. Finally we also have the instinct to procreate.

I would like to compare hunting to food gathering & also sex!

One might legally hunt free range animals in the wilderness for trophies or for meat, legally do a canned hunt or poach on private or public land during or out of season. Or one might poach for profit like a rhino horn etc.

To me free range wilderness hunting is like sex with in marriage! It is hard work, it is not the greatest trophy in the world but it is what I love! It gives me most satisfaction.

I suppose canned hunting is like a single man having an affair. The trophy is good and the costs are higher. The availability is better and the satisfaction is more about bragging rights in most cases I guess. We also do not talk about the misses or the missus .

Poaching animals for the pot or for fun is like cheating on the wife. You get caught and you are in real trouble. It is unethical and risky.

Serious canned hunts are like going to a brothel. You pick and choose and pay for it.

The shooting protected game for profit is just plain rape.

Just because a state or province has not enacted a law preventing such activities, that does not mean anyone is in business anywhere in those places offering such "Hunts".

One thing that can cause as many problems as actual operations like this conducting such "hunts", is mis-information about them actually taking place.

Just because a state has not publicly taken a stand, does not mean they won't should the need arise.

quote:

The shooting protected game for profit is just plain rape.

Not if the species in question can be bred like livestock in captive situations, while in the natural/native environment conditions exist that prevent a natural growth of the species, or may in fact add to the continuing decline of the species.

It is easy for people that have had no actual first hand experience with the concept of high fence ranches and the ranching of various threatened or even endangered exotic hoof stock, to look down on such places, and conversely, there have been more than a few operators that do not provide the best environment for their animals.

However, until a person actual experiences a trip to one of these places and sees in person how things take place, they actual have no basis in fact for their opinion.

Actually many of the states that enacted new laws to specifically cover "internet hunting" already had laws on the books to handle it. The new laws were enacted so some politician could get their name on it and say "look what I have prevented". In what state could they have used anything except domesticated animals due to hunting license and tagging rules?

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by craig boddington:
I tend to think we should all have our personal ethics because, after all, ours is a very personal passion conducted with very few witnesses (although, despite their creed, PHs will tell!) and no audiences. My problem is when people who have never been there wave their personal ethics in my face. We can and should draw a broad black and white line between legal and illegal hunting. Publicly, we should support legal hunting in all its forms, whether we choose to participate or not. Privately we can draw our own shades of gray, our own personal ethics that give us pleasure in their adherence. But I believe the only black and white should be between legal and illegal. Most methods that are LEGAL are legal in a given area for specific reasons. For instance, dogs are used for leopards primarily in ranch areas where leopards won't come to bait in daylight. My preference (shade of gray) is daylight baiting...but that isn't always possible, and I think hounds beat the shit out of shooting at night (not ethically, PRACTICALLY). Bongo. I've hunted bongo by pure tracking, with one dog, with pygmies and their dogs, and from a machan. The forest varies in density. Where dogs are used, they're used for a reason! Pure tracking is unquestionably more satisfying...but I'd rather have canine friends show me what I'm shooting than shoot a spot of red and wind up with a female bongo. Provided a hunting method is legal, we should support it publicly. Privately, we can participate or not...but don't knock something (that's legal) until you've tried it. Just my opinion. Cheers, Craig

The quote above says it all for me. Interesting as well, the guys who REALLY have the experience always seem to be the most considerate of others, and the differences in opinion. I'll never, ever, understand the real animosity amongst hunters, aimed at each other??

Just because you don't understand why others have concerns about the practises of others does not mean it's a bad thing. No matter how you spin it by calling it "animosity".

Do you have commercial interests in canned hunting?

Craig Boddingtons logic is fundamentally flawed. For example....

In the UK, bow hunting is banned as it's considered an inhumane way to kill deer.

In the UK, you can use a .243 (So long as you're using a 100 grain bullet or bigger) to hunt red deer. These red deer our the same species as north american elk (Cervus elaphus).

In Norway, a .243 is considered undergunned for red deer and thus illegal. So what makes it right to hunt a red in the UK but not in Norway?

What makes it ethical to hunt with a bow in the US, but not in the UK?

I can appreciate Craigs idea. Aand in an ideal world hunters of all disciplines would unite. But it's 2010. We're a lot more educated and knowledgable when it comes to animal welfare. And some kinds of hunting are simply not ethical, so it's foolish to claim it's OK if it's legal. The example of internet (legal) hunting above blows Craigs argument out of the water for me.

Aaron,

I think you misunderstand with your calling it "animosity against other hunters". It is not against other hunters but against the hunting practice that puts us all in a bad light with the general public. I personally have no animosity to those hunters. The best way to change such a practice is through peer pressure. I look at our opposing such practices as being an educational process to other hunters.

465H&H

MJ I have heard a number of American hunters state that they don't think bow hunting is humane. Sometimes laws/regulations come down to opinion. Now some bureaucrat that works for the fish and wildlife department, who would love to ban hunting altogether, will read this and think hmmmm UK thinks bows aren't ethical and use that in an argument to get bow hunting banned.

If they can quote a few of us saying whatever isn't ethical it's ammo to get it banned. I am sure there may be one or two control freaks on here that has thought of that and that is there goal.

quote:

I'd be willing to bet that every single hunter in the world has technically been relegated to only a "shooter" many times during his or her career. But it's what that person does with that moment that makes it "hunting."

Let's take my first hippo kill for example. I was sitting on my butt with my .300 Jarrett along the bank of the Luangwa River. A 30-minute wait to select the right animal. I drilled the bull in the brain from 91 yards away.

To me that was "hunting", factoring in these elements...A) getting into position B) staying still C) selectivity of trophy animal D) precision shot with 180 grain solid E) recovery of animal. To me these steps along the way, all make up what I consider "hunting."

Now granted in the big scheme of things, I can't say I worked my ass off, like in hunting LDE or Mt. Nyala.

Sometimes they fall right into my lap. Sometimes it's a 6-hour stalk or a 2-hour stakeout. Some are more rewarding than others and because of experience and success the individual bar keeps getting raised what's needed for me to derive ultimate satisfaction. And then there have been moments, where I've had a slamdunk gimme' of a shot and I've muffed it! That's why we call it HUNTING.

My point is we can't be so cynical that we find it to criticize others who don't "tough it out" or "work real hard" for a specific trophy. Is one man less of a "hunter" because he didn't do it the way you did it. Hell, we're all "hunters," aren't we?

People know in their minds, their individual limitations which limit/restrict them to a certain method of hunting. Physical/mental toughness, health, money, shooting skills and age are all factors.

Will I ever do leopards with dogs? No. Will I shoot a bongo from a machan? No. That's my personal preference. Neither will I criticize, put down or devalue a person who chooses those methods of take. It's all hunting. When I'm out there at 90 years of age "shooting" that lion from a blind you guys better not criticize me either. I can hear you now Aaron, "Moja, you need to retire your old ass!"

An excellent post Marc and one that bears revisiting from time to time.

I think the more experienced (read older) I become the more aware I am of the fact that "one size doesn't fit all". Simply because someone doesn't conform to how I might or might not hunt an animal or even to what animal he/she may shoot has no real relevance to that individual's hunt or trophy.

In today's hypercompetitive environment it seems too many take every chance to brow beat others regarding their accomplishments while indulging in chest beating regarding their own. If I have to climb over another's back for my own sense of self-accomplishment and pride can I truly call myself a sportsman?

We all have biases. They are formed from our earliest hunting experiences and by our mentors who spent time afield with us, teaching us in the ways of nature. And we also grow and learn with every outdoor adventure... sometimes in the thing to do, sometimes in the things NOT to do. And as we grow, so must we learn to look at others traveling the path of a hunter with an unhypocritical eye. For at some point a more experienced hunter with different biases might have looked at us and refrained from criticising our trophy or methodology and instead offered encouragement... and made a real difference in our own paths as hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by MJ75:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by craig boddington:
I tend to think we should all have our personal ethics because, after all, ours is a very personal passion conducted with very few witnesses (although, despite their creed, PHs will tell!) and no audiences. My problem is when people who have never been there wave their personal ethics in my face. We can and should draw a broad black and white line between legal and illegal hunting. Publicly, we should support legal hunting in all its forms, whether we choose to participate or not. Privately we can draw our own shades of gray, our own personal ethics that give us pleasure in their adherence. But I believe the only black and white should be between legal and illegal. Most methods that are LEGAL are legal in a given area for specific reasons. For instance, dogs are used for leopards primarily in ranch areas where leopards won't come to bait in daylight. My preference (shade of gray) is daylight baiting...but that isn't always possible, and I think hounds beat the shit out of shooting at night (not ethically, PRACTICALLY). Bongo. I've hunted bongo by pure tracking, with one dog, with pygmies and their dogs, and from a machan. The forest varies in density. Where dogs are used, they're used for a reason! Pure tracking is unquestionably more satisfying...but I'd rather have canine friends show me what I'm shooting than shoot a spot of red and wind up with a female bongo. Provided a hunting method is legal, we should support it publicly. Privately, we can participate or not...but don't knock something (that's legal) until you've tried it. Just my opinion. Cheers, Craig

The quote above says it all for me. Interesting as well, the guys who REALLY have the experience always seem to be the most considerate of others, and the differences in opinion. I'll never, ever, understand the real animosity amongst hunters, aimed at each other??

Just because you don't understand why others have concerns about the practises of others does not mean it's a bad thing. No matter how you spin it by calling it "animosity".

Do you have commercial interests in canned hunting?

Craig Boddingtons logic is fundamentally flawed. For example....

In the UK, bow hunting is banned as it's considered an inhumane way to kill deer.

In the UK, you can use a .243 (So long as you're using a 100 grain bullet or bigger) to hunt red deer. These red deer our the same species as north american elk (Cervus elaphus).

In Norway, a .243 is considered undergunned for red deer and thus illegal. So what makes it right to hunt a red in the UK but not in Norway?

What makes it ethical to hunt with a bow in the US, but not in the UK?

I can appreciate Craigs idea. Aand in an ideal world hunters of all disciplines would unite. But it's 2010. We're a lot more educated and knowledgable when it comes to animal welfare. And some kinds of hunting are simply not ethical, so it's foolish to claim it's OK if it's legal. The example of internet (legal) hunting above blows Craigs argument out of the water for me.

MJ75 - I understand perfectly! And to ask if I have commercial interests in canned lion hunting, would indicate you know nothing about me at all.

Craig's logic is flawed?? Interesting to me how one claims that, as a matter of fact?? So what you say goes, and everyone else is wrong??? That's really my point. Too many hunters say, "do it my way, or its wrong". Well, to me that's just wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Aaron,

I think you misunderstand with your calling it "animosity against other hunters". It is not against other hunters but against the hunting practice that puts us all in a bad light with the general public. I personally have no animosity to those hunters. The best way to change such a practice is through peer pressure. I look at our opposing such practices as being an educational process to other hunters.

465H&H

This I agree with! Problem to me is, too often its not portrayed that way.

I'll go waaaay out on a limb and bet you a Yankee Dollar Craig Boddington has never shot an animal he would be embarrassed to show the entire hunting sequence on TAA.

I used to shoot the steers and hogs every Thanksgiving and Christmas on the farm with a 22. They were in a pen about 12 feet by 12 feet. For some of you, that would be a hunt to talk about.

Some of the rest of you don't seem to grasp the difference between legal and ethical.
If you can live with it and tell the truth in public, you got a bigger set than I do.

regards,

Rich
DRSS

Legal is simply what is allowed by law without crossing a particular and at times arbitrary line within the area hunted.
Ethics are relative to each particular country and culture. These rules of right and wrong are determined typically by the dominant culture in the area. This can then be divided into various subcultures each with their own set of beliefs. The problem comes when the ethics of one group conflicts those of another. This can be between various cultures or even closely related sub groups within the dominant group. To further add to the confusion is the fact that there are many overlapping as well as opposing views. Yet the majority of these beliefs will be legal. As long as it is legal it is ok but only from that vantage. Now one has to look at their own personal views. Do they fit within the legal framework? If they dont then they are out at least for hunting in this particular area. If legal then do they fit the ideals of your group or groups, then sub groups, then down to the invidual level. If there is conflict in belief in the various processes the individual must make a personal decision to go along or avoid the hunt in question. This decision will be made on each individuals beliefs and the beliefs of the groups and subgroups they belong to. Age and experience also play into this.Nothing is as black or white as many would like to portray but run the whole gamut from white to black with all the myriad shades of gray in between. Looking for absolute right and wrong in a matrix like this is futile at best.

Hell Rich I did the same thing and was always excited and talkative about it. Of course it started when I was 4. Truthfully I still get excited about it today. A hunt? No but a duty and tradition of the family that was very important to me as a child. I have never lost that sense of excitement and the responsibility and trust that went with it.

Put the same question on the European forum and you will be told simply that you may wear tweed for shooting but you need to be in the pink for hunting.

Well gentlemen, I am sorry to be late to the game. This one is easy for me. I knew I liked Craig for his insightful and interesting writing but now I like and respect his postion on this subject. As to Fair Chase "ethical, sportsmanlike" is why there is a group called lawyers, many shades of gray, "lawful" has a bit more rigity not to say one can't argue over that word.

Here is a somewhat lengthy, but very interesting article on "hunting ethics" by James A. Tantillo who teaches ethics and environmental philosophy at Cornell University. He contends that what many people believe are ethical considerations are, in realty, based on aesthetics, or preferences: http://www.huntfairchase.com/docs/7aa88a58.pdf

The article is well thought out and his arguments are "spot on" in regard to this topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by MJ75:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by craig boddington:
I tend to think we should all have our personal ethics because, after all, ours is a very personal passion conducted with very few witnesses (although, despite their creed, PHs will tell!) and no audiences. My problem is when people who have never been there wave their personal ethics in my face. We can and should draw a broad black and white line between legal and illegal hunting. Publicly, we should support legal hunting in all its forms, whether we choose to participate or not. Privately we can draw our own shades of gray, our own personal ethics that give us pleasure in their adherence. But I believe the only black and white should be between legal and illegal. Most methods that are LEGAL are legal in a given area for specific reasons. For instance, dogs are used for leopards primarily in ranch areas where leopards won't come to bait in daylight. My preference (shade of gray) is daylight baiting...but that isn't always possible, and I think hounds beat the shit out of shooting at night (not ethically, PRACTICALLY). Bongo. I've hunted bongo by pure tracking, with one dog, with pygmies and their dogs, and from a machan. The forest varies in density. Where dogs are used, they're used for a reason! Pure tracking is unquestionably more satisfying...but I'd rather have canine friends show me what I'm shooting than shoot a spot of red and wind up with a female bongo. Provided a hunting method is legal, we should support it publicly. Privately, we can participate or not...but don't knock something (that's legal) until you've tried it. Just my opinion. Cheers, Craig

The quote above says it all for me. Interesting as well, the guys who REALLY have the experience always seem to be the most considerate of others, and the differences in opinion. I'll never, ever, understand the real animosity amongst hunters, aimed at each other??

Just because you don't understand why others have concerns about the practises of others does not mean it's a bad thing. No matter how you spin it by calling it "animosity".

Do you have commercial interests in canned hunting?

Craig Boddingtons logic is fundamentally flawed. For example....

In the UK, bow hunting is banned as it's considered an inhumane way to kill deer.

In the UK, you can use a .243 (So long as you're using a 100 grain bullet or bigger) to hunt red deer. These red deer our the same species as north american elk (Cervus elaphus).

In Norway, a .243 is considered undergunned for red deer and thus illegal. So what makes it right to hunt a red in the UK but not in Norway?

What makes it ethical to hunt with a bow in the US, but not in the UK?

I can appreciate Craigs idea. Aand in an ideal world hunters of all disciplines would unite. But it's 2010. We're a lot more educated and knowledgable when it comes to animal welfare. And some kinds of hunting are simply not ethical, so it's foolish to claim it's OK if it's legal. The example of internet (legal) hunting above blows Craigs argument out of the water for me.

MJ75 - I understand perfectly! And to ask if I have commercial interests in canned lion hunting, would indicate you know nothing about me at all.

Craig's logic is flawed?? Interesting to me how one claims that, as a matter of fact?? So what you say goes, and everyone else is wrong??? That's really my point. Too many hunters say, "do it my way, or its wrong". Well, to me that's just wrong.

Aaron, to me you're just a poster on a forum. Why do I need to know anything at all about you to discuss something on a forum? Whats the relevance?

And yes, Craig's logic is flawed. He says we should support all forms of hunting in a black and white way. Including canned lion shooting and internet hunting where it's legal. So are you saying that those (like me) who have genuie concerns should not question internet hunting etc?

I see you side stepped all of my questions which is a shame. I would not have thought you'd have found them too challenging after all?

It's the kill 'em anyway you want brigade that neverr do have any real substance to their arguments.

For the record it doesn't have to be my way. Whatever it is you have assumed that to b e. But I'm more than happy to condemn those ways which are barbaric, unethical or just plain stupid.

Thanks for making me smile though. I always find it amusing to chat to people with a "Don't you know who I am?" mentality! lol

All the best
MJ

MJ75, who are you and what are your bonfides. Other than you can peck at a key borad.

Ramhunter Thank You, Thank You. I love the post script 16 vs 12 and pointer vs flusher. As usual we use words not to their true meaning.

Thanks Ramhunter. Great article.

Reminds me of the time I spend each summer in the Texas heat filling my feeders and repairing the damage done by the Raccoons to them. Knowing that they will attract most hogs and Raccoons, but hopefully a few doe. The mature bucks are just too smart.

quote:

Originally posted by just-a-hunter:

You're asking the difference between Euro eithics and Americans?......

It's simple. It's the accent. I swear 3/4 of the American elitest hunters that want more laws/rules/regulations towards hunting to regulate us trashy folk (who by the way think there are plenty enough already and we are getting sick of the snowball effect) speak with a Brittish/Euro accent. They at least type with one....

No offence to the Europe folks in the crowd....

Todd

No. Not at all. Craig Boddington is saying that if it's legal it's OK. But look at the big picture here....

What makes it morally acceptable to kill a buck with a bow in one country but not in another?

Why can I shoot an elk in the US with my .243 but not in Norway?

Why can I usea moderator on my guns in Australia, Finland the UK but not in Africa?

Aaron, if you're reading, try and keep up with this one....

Craig Boddington will have forgotten more about hunting than many on here will ever know. No one's going to dispute that. And you have to respect the man for trying to provide an answer as to whats right and what aint. He's had a go and at least came up with one theory, which is a lot better than some others. Of course, you ain't got to agree with him. And I don't. The "if it's legal, it's ok" is too black and white. Too simplistic.

We all hate the antis. I'd love to hunt some PETA members in RSA. But the "more controversial" forms of hunting only give anti's ammon to fire at us.

You still keeping up Aaron????

Now, you say I'm all matter of fact. Craigs idea is much more matter of fact. Can you see the irony in your posts?

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:
MJ I have heard a number of American hunters state that they don't think bow hunting is humane. Sometimes laws/regulations come down to opinion. Now some bureaucrat that works for the fish and wildlife department, who would love to ban hunting altogether, will read this and think hmmmm UK thinks bows aren't ethical and use that in an argument to get bow hunting banned.

If they can quote a few of us saying whatever isn't ethical it's ammo to get it banned. I am sure there may be one or two control freaks on here that has thought of that and that is there goal.

You really think the law would change because they're banned on some tiny little island across the pond?

Internet hunting falls outside the lines of what I was addressing in the starter post. And I would be willing to state that it falls outside the lines of reference to everyone's post prior to KPete's. Kim you raise an issue I had overlooked, and your post has wisely given us all reason to re-think this thing.

This form of hunting had escaped my mind such that I don't even consider it hunting when I address topics of debate surrounding hunting. But I guess it is "hunting", if it's still legal in some places.

I am not a proponent of Internet hunting and in my intro post I am referring to hunting done with rifle, pistol, bow, pistol. etc.. Not hunting done with a click of the mouse.

Only you KPete could have flushed it out like this!

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
MJ75, who are you and what are your bonfides. Other than you can peck at a key borad.

An advocate of the devil. Who can spell.

I have always viewed the law as the MINIMUM standard by which people should act. The same way building codes define the MINIMUM of what should be expected by a builder. In BOTH cases, I choose to act in a way that exceeds these standards. Call me pretentious, pompous or what you will, but that's the way I do it. I give the benefit of chase to the animal in all cases, else the internal meter goes off.

It's the same semantic argument I got into with a friend when he wanted to stop the truck, step over a fence (still about 15 feet from the road) and shot a coyote. Yes, the law says "No Shooting from the Road" but to my ethics, a foot off the road is no different than the road itself.

quote:

Originally posted by SableTrail:
Internet hunting falls outside the lines of what I was addressing in the starter post. And I would be willing to state that it falls outside the lines of reference to everyone's post prior to KPete's. Kim you raise an issue I had overlooked, and your post has wisely given us all reason to re-think this thing.

This form of hunting had escaped my mind such that I don't even consider it hunting when I address topics of debate surrounding hunting. But I guess it is "hunting", if it's still legal in some places.

I am not a proponent of Internet hunting and in my intro post I am referring to hunting done with rifle, pistol, bow, pistol. etc.. Not hunting done with a click of the mouse.

Only you KPete could have flushed it out like this!

Moja:

I confess to being guilty of employing the extreme example of internet hunting to push the envelope on this topic. But when testing a theory for validity, one of the classic ways is to search for extreme but logical consequences of that theory. If the notion, "if it's legal, we should support it" was valid, then its adherents would necessarily have to accept even the most extreme - and repugnant - consequences of that notion.

The truth is that internet hunting is neither popular nor prevalent. It serves here only as a reminder that there is a line that, when crossed, even the most laissez-faire proponents of "if it's legal, we should support it" will gag and say "NO". Were that not the case, someone by now would have accepted the logical consequence of this argument and given their tacit support to internet hunting, even if it's more theoretical than real.

To that degree, internet hunting serves as a symbol and a warning: Absent vigilance on all of our parts, there are those lacking in all decency and sense of sportsmanship that will - for reasons of avarice or stupidity - try to corrupt our sport. So long as we recognize that there are limits to the ideal of 'to each his own' when it comes to hunting, and accept that the principles of Fair Chase are both reasonable and protective of hunting, we help to protect ourselves, our sport, as well as the animals we hunt.

Finally, the very public examples of hunters on video such as you, Moja, along with Craig and Aaron, among others, provide important and valuable examples on ethical comportment. Your frequent discussions on taking only a shot you're confident will deliver a humane kill, is a great example. Craig's efforts to divert hunters from shooting young but high-scoring trophies to instead older, mature animals, is yet another example of a lesson in ethics. It's certainly not illegal to take a haphazard shot on game, anymore than it is to shoot young, 'green' buffalos with a wide spread. But how many of us believe those to be 'ethical' hunting practices?

We cannot afford to be agnostic on the subject of ethics, and indeed ethics should remain high on our list of topics to be discussed, debated, and acted upon. Thanks, Moja, for helping do just that!

quote:

Originally posted by MJ75:

quote:

Originally posted by just-a-hunter:

You're asking the difference between Euro eithics and Americans?......

It's simple. It's the accent. I swear 3/4 of the American elitest hunters that want more laws/rules/regulations towards hunting to regulate us trashy folk (who by the way think there are plenty enough already and we are getting sick of the snowball effect) speak with a Brittish/Euro accent. They at least type with one....

No offence to the Europe folks in the crowd....

Todd

No. Not at all. Craig Boddington is saying that if it's legal it's OK. But look at the big picture here....

What makes it morally acceptable to kill a buck with a bow in one country but not in another?

Why can I shoot an elk in the US with my .243 but not in Norway?

Why can I usea moderator on my guns in Australia, Finland the UK but not in Africa?

Aaron, if you're reading, try and keep up with this one....

Craig Boddington will have forgotten more about hunting than many on here will ever know. No one's going to dispute that. And you have to respect the man for trying to provide an answer as to whats right and what aint. He's had a go and at least came up with one theory, which is a lot better than some others. Of course, you ain't got to agree with him. And I don't. The "if it's legal, it's ok" is too black and white. Too simplistic.

We all hate the antis. I'd love to hunt some PETA members in RSA. But the "more controversial" forms of hunting only give anti's ammon to fire at us.

You still keeping up Aaron????

Now, you say I'm all matter of fact. Craigs idea is much more matter of fact. Can you see the irony in your posts?

The only irony I see for sure is, its hunting & ethics according to you!!! No other opinions matter, ethics are as you see em, and anything else is just plain wrong. I don't claim to have all the ethical answers, and my original post was more geared to guys like you, than the question at hand. I find it sad how often we hunters are taking shots at each other over issues that some don't agree with. Then further, they start to make it personal, as if their own ethics and opinions, trump all others.

First off, the only question you asked that I can really answer, is the reference to my association with canned hunting. Obviously I answered that already. The rest are questions that really are a matter of opinion. Why can I do this here, but can't do it there, etc????

Lastly, your insinuations to some here that they can't spell, they can't keep up, etc. Is just plain chicken-shit stuff, that really has no place here on AR. Sometimes I don't check every thread 24 hrs a day, sometimes I don't have time to answer every question posed, etc. But one thing I am sure of, if you want to get personal, do it in person!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
I have always viewed the law as the MINIMUM standard by which people should act. The same way building codes define the MINIMUM of what should be expected by a builder. In BOTH cases, I choose to act in a way that exceeds these standards.

Did anyone read the article referred to above, this is a debate over aesthetics not ethics. I agree with Craig about "hard bosses", but to me that is more about conservation of the breed and the future of "better trophies", than ethics. I am glad ramhunter posted the link as it helped me to a better understanding of the subject at hand. Like many say you hang around here you may learn something.

I have been out of the loop for a whikle but can Someone/Anyone provide any evidence as to "Internet Hunting" being legal ANYWHERE.

From what I have read, trying to catch up on this topic, it seems that too many folks have lost site of the fact that not all people in any single group have the same set of personal ethics.

That is one of the reasons that there are laws, but it is also one of the reasons that some laws have been brought about by the vocal efforts of a few people in an area because of their concept of what is or is not ethical.

Mark Twain once said "man is the only animal that blushes, or needs to...".

If you can't or won't differentiate between legal and ethical, you should be.

I am going to disagree with Craig on this one.

It's the equivalent of a man who cheats on his wife and tries to justify it by saying "only a queer turns down free boodie..."; and then wants to kill some other guy for screwing his wife.

Bill Klinton coined the phrase "situational ethics" to cover his lying, cheating, whoremongering ways.
Some of you are right there with him.

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by MJ75:
Why can I shoot an elk in the US with my .243 but not in Norway?

Because there is no elk in Norway

Rich, can "Ethics" be a world wide, one size fits-all, concept.

Do you feel that it is ethical to hunt Black Bear with hounds or over bait?

Do you think it is ethical to hunt a lion or a leopard over a bait?

Do you feel that it is fair or ethical to hunt elk or caribou along a migration route.

What about hunting Elephant/Buffalo/Kudu ad infinitum around a water hole?

Do you feel that it is not ethical?

Or do you feel that it is ethical as long as you are "X" yards/meters away from the waterhole.

Do you think hunting deer or cats with dogs is ethical?

What about Elk/Moose in the Scandinavian countries?

What about shooting wild boar and red stag from a high stand/hide by the light of the moon?

What about the ethics of usings rattling horns/bugles/calls/whistles for deer/elk/moose during the rut?

What of these cases to YOU are ethical,I am not talking legalities here, just ethics?

quote:

Originally posted by CharlesL:
MJ,

If you hunt east Texas riverbottoms, very dense brush, there isn't any place that deer come to feed. The feeders are more for the doe. Each year the state gives us a quota of doe to harvest, notice I didn't say hunt, and those are normally taken over the feeders. The legal bucks, 13" inside width and 4 1/2 years old or more, don't come to feeders here. The brush is so thick here that none of the deer have to come to feeders. In our most recent night deer survey, required by the state biologist, we counted 44 deer in roughly a 5 mile loop, but according my game camera I have not had a deer come to the feeder in months. Now during deer season our best bet is to walk and stalk or setup treestands near the oaks. The deer like the acorns much better than corn.

This is how (and where) I started hunting--

(though we had no feeders )

I consider Skeet, paper, cans--Shooting

If it breaths--it's hunting.



I'm also in line with Mr. Boddington--

as to legality and particularly--

the--- if you have not tried it part.

I know I am late to this discussion. I agree with Craig but, I think there needs to be a distinction made. If we, as a group, disagree with a method of hunting I have no problem with pushing to make it illegal but, I don't think we should criticize people for participating in it as long as it is legal.

But if you don't feel that a form of legal and accepted hunting is ethical, and you have never tried it, how can you make the conclusion that it should be outlawed?

I should have made myself more clear. I meant that if a majority of hunters, even those who have tried whatever form of hunting thought it should be outlawed then I have no problem with a push for that. I for one will not pass judgment on any type of hunting without having tried it.

But many folks do and are.

Bear hunting over bait and with dogs was outlawed in Colorado due to the thoufghts and feelings of the uninformed or unexperienced.

The same thing can happen anywhere.

You don't list where you are from, but I will ask you the same questions I asked Idaho Sharpshooter:

Do you feel that it is ethical to hunt Black Bear with hounds or over bait?

Do you think it is ethical to hunt a lion or a leopard over a bait?

Do you feel that it is fair or ethical to hunt elk or caribou along a migration route.

What about hunting Elephant/Buffalo/Kudu ad infinitum around a water hole?

Do you feel that it is not ethical?

Or do you feel that it is ethical as long as you are "X" yards/meters away from the waterhole.

Do you think hunting deer or cats with dogs is ethical?

What about Elk/Moose in the Scandinavian countries?

What about shooting wild boar and red stag from a high stand/hide by the light of the moon?

What about the ethics of usings rattling horns/bugles/calls/whistles for deer/elk/moose during the rut?

What of these cases to YOU are ethical,I am not talking legalities here, just ethics?

Legalities are cut and dried, ethics are INDIVIDUAL CONCEPTS, that vary from person to person and region to region.

A person in one location a county, a state, a country or a continent away should not be able to dictate what is ethical in another totally unrelated region.