quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by 1BigDeer:
The hunters, trappers and fishers who insist on condemning currently legal methods of hunting, trapping and fishing will no doubt be pleased when the methods they oppose are made illegal. They should also not be surprised when their "ethical" method of hunting is declared illegal.
The lines have been drawn - you either support hunting, fishing and trapping or you don't. I hope we can save what we cherish from ourselves.

Deer season opens in Texas in a couple of weeks. I think on opening morning I will see if I cannot harvest some "tender" venison and take out a couple of fawns. Maybe I can even find a doe with twin fawns and whack both of the twins. After all, it is legal and ethical considerations are irrelevant. It is good to know though that if I am attacked by non hunters for putting a little pre-adolescent venison in the freezer the good folks on AR will rush to my defense and cover my back.

Sort of unremarkable that we find ourselves where we do today when you hear folks say what is legal should define right and wrong and hunters should not challenge other hunters for poor ethical judgments.

I am surprised the "I support all hunting that is legal without any moral or ethical standards" crowd did not come to the rescue of bushwack safaris when he legally by contractual terms with held a dying man's security deposit. I thought his actions were un ethical and he rightly was humiliated on AR.

What about someone who likes to gut shoot animals just for jollies. He does everything by the book perfectly legally but he likes to start of by gut shooting animals and then shoot it over and over again - maybe to test how different bullets expand. Would we all defend these legal actions ?

Mike

Mike, I see that others are wanting to fight ethics here but that was not my intention nor was i saying that we shouldn't. What I am saying is that perhaps AR is not the place to discuss ethics anymore. There are other stages more appropriate that are less likely to just look like we only fight amongst ourselves.

AR has private messaging. Maybe that is a better way??

I hope nra does get a pile of hunter membership and take on this battle. They certainly know how to fight it out!! I guess we will have to see.

How many posters actually read the article?

It is a well written piece by Kevin about his conservation efforts in his early days and how some fellow farmers viewed his hunting practices. They were not unlike many armchair conservationist in first world countries. He is spot on with his comments even though the examples used in the last paragraph (the one quoted in the first post) of the story are controversial.

If we lived our lives by what is legal society would be in even worse shape than it is now. I would prefer to not have laws govern everything I do, I trust my moral compass much more.

Even though I have extensively competed in long range shooting I would never go hunting just to shoot a deer at 800 yards, even though I am capable. However I am also astute enough to realize that the long range hunter may not think it is ethical for me to hunt elephant.

What is the answer? I truly do not know. I do know that the "screw it I will do whatever I want crowd" will cause us problems in the future such as hunting in National Parks in Zimbabwe and arguing it is ok because it is legal. I am waiting for the day a hunter shoots an elephant in front of a tourist in Hwange. I will be the first to say I hope he goes to jail in Zimbabwe. I also believe if we try to legislate ethics in to hunting that will cause problems. What are we going to do, make it illegal to shoot an elk at more than 421.5 yards?

I do truly believe this, when we hunt in Southern/Eastern Africa especially Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Zambia, and Tanzania we should hunt with outfitters that truly are good stewards of the land. I believe we should educate ourselves to make certain our hunts are legal and proper. We should also act as gentleman hunters and our actions should be above reproach ethically.

If we do not evolve we will go the way of the dinosaur.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
How many posters actually read the article?

It is a well written piece by Kevin about his conservation efforts in his early days and how some fellow farmers viewed his hunting practices. They were not unlike many armchair conservationist in first world countries. He is spot on with his comments even though the examples used in the last paragraph (the one quoted in the first post) of the story are controversial.

If we lived our lives by what is legal society would be in even worse shape than it is now. I would prefer to not have laws govern everything I do, I trust my moral compass much more.

Even though I have extensively competed in long range shooting I would never go hunting just to shoot a deer at 800 yards, even though I am capable. However I am also astute enough to realize that the long range hunter may not think it is ethical for me to hunt elephant.

What is the answer? I truly do not know. I do know that the "screw it I will do whatever I want crowd" will cause us problems in the future such as hunting in National Parks in Zimbabwe and arguing it is ok because it is legal. I am waiting for the day a hunter shoots an elephant in front of a tourist in Hwange. I will be the first to say I hope he goes to jail in Zimbabwe. I also believe if we try to legislate ethics in to hunting that will cause problems. What are we going to do, make it illegal to shoot an elk at more than 421.5 yards?

I do truly believe this, when we hunt in Southern/Eastern Africa especially Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Zambia, and Tanzania we should hunt with outfitters that truly are good stewards of the land. I believe we should educate ourselves to make certain our hunts are legal and proper. We should also act as gentleman hunters and our actions should be above reproach ethically.

If we do not evolve we will go the way of the dinosaur.

+1

Its simple if there is no moral or ethical consideration only legal requirements and we have a everything legal regardless of any ethical or moral standards. Guess what we will get very complex complicated legal rules that will try and address moral and ethical short comings. See Alaska rules for moose harvest. Cannot take antlers out before all meat is taken out and complicated rules for what parts of the moose can me left behind. This was done for a reason - some hunters did the unethical thing and took only antlers.

Hate to end up with hunting regulations like the US tax code.

Mike

Okay, so this just gonna continue to be posts about ethics..... I thought the bigger issue in the articles was about losing our right to hunt....

Carry on then........(insert implosion icon here)

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:
Okay, so this just gonna continue to be posts about ethics..... I thought the bigger issue in the articles was about losing our right to hunt....

Carry on then........(insert implosion icon here)

Without ethical hunting we will lose our right to hunt. That is the point.

quote:

Without ethical hunting we will lose our right to hunt. That is the point.

Who's ethics? That's the point of contention. I know many hunters who feel elephant and lion hunting is unethical because they are listed under CITES. Who's ethics rule, your or theirs?

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

Without ethical hunting we will lose our right to hunt. That is the point.

Who's ethics? That's the point of contention. I know many hunters who feel elephant and lion hunting is unethical because they are listed under CITES. Who's ethics rule, your or theirs?

they are wrong.

quote:

they are wrong.

Well...that clears it up. I'm glad we have the arbiter of ethics here on AR to hand down the edicts. That makes everything nice and tidy.

The antihunters don't care how an animal is "murdered" only hunters seem to care. Regardless of how humanely, expertly, or "ethically" an animal is collected at the end of the day in the diminished mind of an antihunter, the animal was still "murdered" and oh how sad was that, wherever it was... So why is anyone talking hunter ethics or distances shot regarding the antihunter movement???

In regards to hunters being an endangered species especially in Africa, you really need to spend a little time with the government entities who are making the decisions. You would begin to understand why SCI and any other American organization including the NRA have had and will not have any positive impact on what is happening. But if it makes everyone feel better about the future of hunting in Africa, by all means carry on. Just as it is here, its all politics, money, and influence and the antis have a whole lot more of it than we do.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
The antihunters don't care how an animal is "murdered" only hunters seem to care. Regardless of how humanely, expertly, or "ethically" an animal is collected at the end of the day in the diminished mind of an antihunter, the animal was still "murdered" and oh how sad was that, wherever it was...

So why is anyone talking hunter ethics or distances shot regarding the antihunter movement???

Ethical hunting is for the vast majority of people in the middle. These include a lot of domestic small game and deer hunters, recreational fisherman and general run of the mill americans.

The general run of the mill americans eat meat, wear leather and may watch sporting events with animals in them as participants (rodeo) or mascots. They also owns dogs and cats and probably like them more than their fellow citizen. These are people who consumer animal products but like/love certain animals as well - their pets. If hunters come of as killers and or just odd that you lose this core group of people who consume animals products but believe if not practice some kind of humane treatment of animals.

Why ethical standards matter and if we don't follow them we will have them legislated upon us.

I don't think there is some great war to take any hunting rights - its too tied in property rights and public use rights in US society.

There is a element of anti hunting crowd and social media has been their friend. They may have a long term plan of closing hunting in US but it as realistic their other plans of living in a zero carbon society. Can they impact some stuff - big 5 animal trophy shipping yes - can they get airlines to not serve meat no.

Society does not view all animals as the same - lions and elephants are considered different. You can add polar bears and pandas to the list. If we want to hunt these socially different animals (status wise) we better have good science and conservation backing us.

Taking a in your face approach will turn the majority away from supporting other (our) hunting rights. Hunters should not want to be viewed as killers or just check the box trophy collectors.

Its not PETA were are trying to convert - its the average american (or world citizen) who consumes meat and likes car seats w/ leather.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

they are wrong.

Well...that clears it up. I'm glad we have the arbiter of ethics here on AR to hand down the edicts. That makes everything nice and tidy.

well they can't use CITES declaration to say it is unethical... When CITES, IUCN and other international org's say it is Ok!

If your friends think it would be unethical for themselves to hunt and kill listed animals, that's fine, they don't have to...but who are they to make ethics judgements on others who are doing activities that are clearly accepted by international convention?

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

they are wrong.

Well...that clears it up. I'm glad we have the arbiter of ethics here on AR to hand down the edicts. That makes everything nice and tidy.

Then you would have no issues with someone legally going on a hunt and gut shooting animals just cause they enjoy it.

The decision to humanely kill the animal is a ethical decision - i don't see too many hunting laws define it. Then no one should have an issue if the hunter decides to always aim for the gut for the first shot. Maybe likes to see how the animal bucks with a gut shot - that should be perfectly acceptable ?

Its subjective but the general gist is hunters come from some common tradition and culture where they are some basic social and behavioral norms - like when its the time to kill make sure you kill the animal as quickly as possible and don't torture and cause needless pain to animal. Like saying a man is good as his word - that implies a ethical standard - a legal standard would be a man is only as good as his legal contractual obligations/liabilities. Very few human activities are devoid of ethical considerations - trust, honestly, fair dealing, reciprocity or ones word are all ethical. Its not nice and clear cut but the underlying assumption is that the group (hunters) have these core common values.

Maybe not all and then society will impose it upon everybody.

MIke

So Mike, how do you feel about trapping as it relates to ethical hunting? It's indiscriminate, the animals seldom die immediately and can suffer for hours/days on end until the trapper returns to club them to death or shoot them. How does all that fit into ethical hunting as some are defining it around here?

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
So Mike, how do you feel about trapping as it relates to ethical hunting? It's indiscriminate, the animals seldom die immediately and can suffer for hours/days on end until the trapper returns to club them to death or shoot them. How does all that fit into ethical hunting as some are defining it around here?

Not an activity I would participate in. Society has deemed it legal along with a lot of other activities I would not participate in.

The animals I hunt are not subject to trapping unless a snare is set by a poacher.

I dont look at trapping and hunting to be the same. Hunt involves a fair chase. Trapping is the collection of pelts or in florida the removal of evasive stuff.

But even in trapping there are ethical standards - what about someone who likes to set traps and kills things with zero intention of recovering them for any use. How would fellow trappers look at that. Someone who likes to set traps and capture animals and them just come and see them die. Would fellow trappers say he has a legal right to do that or what is wrong with the chap.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

What about someone who likes to gut shoot animals just for jollies. He does everything by the book perfectly legally but he likes to start of by gut shooting animals and then shoot it over and over again - maybe to test how different bullets expand. Would we all defend these legal actions ?

Seriously? That is a "slippery slope" argument if i have ever seen one. Someone has to adhere to another's subjectively defined ethical distance at which to shoot game OR perhaps they are tacitly in favor of intentionally and objectively gut-shooting animals? That is something I would expect our resident legal expert to assert, but not someone capable of rising above the usual tactics of the legal profession.

There are certain things that are objectively wrong...intentionally gut shooting animals or, for example, murdering someone. These are NOT at all the same thing however as much more subjectively defined circumstances like the ethics of hunting from this distance vs. that or conceivably shooting someone in self-defense. To equate the two is ridiculous.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
So Mike, how do you feel about trapping as it relates to ethical hunting? It's indiscriminate, the animals seldom die immediately and can suffer for hours/days on end until the trapper returns to club them to death or shoot them. How does all that fit into ethical hunting as some are defining it around here?

While I am sure you were asking the other Mike, I will answer the trapping question as it relates to this Mike.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...0104394/m/8671078481




What is interesting there is a TV series about trapping fur bearing animals, a couple of more that depict trapping, the one with the alligator hunting (which I also do) and the duck guy's series. They all seem to have some level of acceptance with the general public.

I will ask this. Assuming all permits are in place would you shoot a collared lion on the Hwange border tomorrow?

No easy or correct answers but we need to act accordingly.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:
Okay, so this just gonna continue to be posts about ethics..... I thought the bigger issue in the articles was about losing our right to hunt....

Carry on then........(insert implosion icon here)

I agree with you. I thought the article was to unify hunters in our practices.


the ethics dilemma although a huge one really should be a secondary within our ranks type of debate. Lion hunters vs deer hunters, compound bow vs crossbow, 100-200yard shots vs 500+ yard shots. If we start looking at any of those subjects and say we have to reach an ethical decision from the hunters before we can take the fight to the antis, we will divide ourselves instead of unify ourselves.

those that think trapping isn't going to affect our hunting rights, I would vote think again (just my 2 cents) the animals being legally trapped are done under the local wildlife laws and in my eyes the rules/regulations are set for the same reason... maintaining a sustainable population number for the area

quote:

Originally posted by Beretta682E:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
How many posters actually read the article?

It is a well written piece by Kevin about his conservation efforts in his early days and how some fellow farmers viewed his hunting practices. They were not unlike many armchair conservationist in first world countries. He is spot on with his comments even though the examples used in the last paragraph (the one quoted in the first post) of the story are controversial.

If we lived our lives by what is legal society would be in even worse shape than it is now. I would prefer to not have laws govern everything I do, I trust my moral compass much more.

Even though I have extensively competed in long range shooting I would never go hunting just to shoot a deer at 800 yards, even though I am capable. However I am also astute enough to realize that the long range hunter may not think it is ethical for me to hunt elephant.

What is the answer? I truly do not know. I do know that the "screw it I will do whatever I want crowd" will cause us problems in the future such as hunting in National Parks in Zimbabwe and arguing it is ok because it is legal. I am waiting for the day a hunter shoots an elephant in front of a tourist in Hwange. I will be the first to say I hope he goes to jail in Zimbabwe. I also believe if we try to legislate ethics in to hunting that will cause problems. What are we going to do, make it illegal to shoot an elk at more than 421.5 yards?

I do truly believe this, when we hunt in Southern/Eastern Africa especially Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Zambia, and Tanzania we should hunt with outfitters that truly are good stewards of the land. I believe we should educate ourselves to make certain our hunts are legal and proper. We should also act as gentleman hunters and our actions should be above reproach ethically.

If we do not evolve we will go the way of the dinosaur.

+1

Its simple if there is no moral or ethical consideration only legal requirements and we have a everything legal regardless of any ethical or moral standards. Guess what we will get very complex complicated legal rules that will try and address moral and ethical short comings. See Alaska rules for moose harvest. Cannot take antlers out before all meat is taken out and complicated rules for what parts of the moose can me left behind. This was done for a reason - some hunters did the unethical thing and took only antlers.

Hate to end up with hunting regulations like the US tax code.

Mike

As one of the AR Kangaroo "Ethics Crusaders" Mike (Beretta Mike), would you care to bless us with your justification for wacking a young eland right off the bat so that you can have tender eland steaks and a better european mount while you spend the remainder of your safari looking for a trophy bull? I mean, that's what you've advocated recently on this forum elsewhere, is it not?

Shooting the young ones is "unethical" is it not?

Hypocrites. You guys need to get over yourselves. We've got one of the ethics crusaders who routinely shoots cow elephants in Zim but refuses to even address the fact that the practice is considered unethical in other countries to the point that it is outlawed. Another advocating shooting young animals so that he can have some tender venison for his time in camp.

What you guys fail to understand is that the guys here arguing the opposite position are not without their own set of ethical standards. Take me for instance. If anyone would care to research my posts and hunt reports from the past, I feel confident that my ethical standards will match up to the self anointed one on his highest of high horses! However, I don't feel compelled to dictate to others that they must follow my opinions on the matter or else be named and shamed here.

The argument seems to be "follow my ethical standard or risk having my standard legislated upon you". Well, what's the difference? If you're criticizing a particular practice as being unethical, would you not like to see that practice addressed legally? For instance, pig sticking which was mentioned earlier. If you object to the practice as unethical, not wanting it legislated against is talking out of both sides of ones mouth. In other words, "don't do it because it offends me, but keep it legal for those who want to do it". Wait ... What? It's one or the other is it not?

And that's the point. For all those espousing their ethical superiority here, at least so far, it's been pretty easy to find plenty of contradictions in their hunting actions as reported here on AR.

Mike Burke - Sweet! I hate Nutria. And I also think that's why no one really cares how one destroys them.

Only cute animals matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
Mike Burke - Sweet! I hate Nutria. And I also think that's why no one really cares how one destroys them.

Only cute animals matter.

Actually only cute animals with cute names killed by Americans or Europeans matter. Thankfully the elephant on Malapati was not named.

This is all Walt Disney's fault.

Todd,

After the attack on 9-11 the world and our view of the world change.

I believe after the Cecil hunt our hunting world changed along with the world view of it. Hunting in Africa was at the forefront of not only social media but even mainstream media.

Let me state this now, in no way am I comparing the seriousness of losing 2000 American lives to hunting a damn lion.

If we do not believe we are now under a microscope we are sadly mistaken. Todd, like you, I use my real name and try not hide from anything I do, but also try to act accordingly, as do you. There are things I have done in the past the some fellow hunter may find unethical or immoral. Just the act of legally hunting elephants is one of them. So be it.

As I wrote in an earlier post I do not have the magical ethical answer for everybody. But I do believe since Palmer hunted that named lion our world has changed and we need to act accordingly.

Also I believe it is good to have the ethics conversation in public. While most will be a little frustrated at some point it offers each of us a chance to evaluate what we are planning to do on our next hunt. Hopefully we can all change in a positive way, whatever that may be.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
"don't do it because it offends me,"

Actually, this is 100% of the problem. The current meme of social media is "That offends me. You have to stop". And then everyone "likes" and you get ridiculous bs like the Cecil debacle, Confederate Flag protests that see dead generals dug up and "scary-looking" gun bans.

You have the right to be offended. You do not have the right to force the person who offended you to stop.

You also have the right to be offensive, but it seems that the gov't is more and more moving to the view that your speech is not free if someone takes offence to it.

Want to ruin someone who says something you don't like? Just started yelling "That's racist" until some newspaper or online publication picks it up.

I am the only one who has a headache from reading all these posts that lack any meaningful content? One of the reasons I shut the radio off at work was because to catch one good song I had to get tortured by listen to a million stupid ones.

George,

This is just payback for the headaches you have caused over the years.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
George,

This is just payback for the headaches you have caused over the years.

+1

This is for looking at pictures of George at the shooting range where a lot of rifle targets looked like someone was pattering a real big shotgun.

Mike

I actually wish we were at the point of having to worry about ethical slippery slopes, magical ethical answers to tough ethical questions and the like, fact is it seems most hunters struggle with ethical issues that should be relatively black and white. We have plenty here who see nothing wrong with and feel that a convicted felon that violated game laws and then lied to authorities, who subsequently hunted a collared lion at night with a bow on a national park boundary got a raw deal. Candidly we do not need to worry about being about to make close calls, we cannot even make the calls in the obvious cases. And the more we defend and express outrage at the purported raw deal that Palmer got or defend similarly egregious situations, the more irrelevant and out of touch we are viewed as a group.

Hunting is just like any other endeavor, regardless of what the law is you either conduct the activity in an ethical manner or society will step in and shut down the activity. If you are not capable of making a judgment as to what the right thing to do is, society will do it for you.

"animal rights" and "anti-hunting" has nothing to do with the animals. It is about people controlling other people. No different than someone on here condemning others for taking part in sports/hobbies that have been a tradition for centuries because they do not like it or consider it distasteful or "unethical". Careful gentlemen, there are wolves in sheep's clothing here. They reveal themselves when they belittle and condemn those who take part in a different side of the sport than they do. I assure you, Mike Jines and a few others on here are admittedly anti-hunting towards any version they do not care to take part in. I assure you they would take any opportunity to cut your guts out and extinguish your passions, traditions and livelihoods while a traditional anti-hunter held you.

Some how, some where, some way, the discussions between hunters uniting as a group to try and save the activity for future generations and personal hunting ethics are going to have to divide and become independent issues.

As some folks keep pointing out, the people that want hunting stopped, do not care about our "Ethics". They want all hunting stopped, Period.

Whether the NRA/DSC and-or SCI all get involved in the issue, the concept remains the same with the anti's, we are viewed as murderers that enjoy murdering animals.

No One is going to change that mind set. In viewing this present discussion, it is moving away from concerns about uniting as a group to present the positive aspects of hunting into a growing emotional sniping session over personal ethics and why or how one persons ethics is on a higher level of standards than another persons.

Just an observation, nothing more.

Without ethical hunting we will lose our right to hunt. That is the point.[/QUOTE]

Mike, Cause and effect, i get it. I guess my point is like others have now said...The ethical debate is amongst ourselves. The end of hunting is what anti's want no matter what our ethics are and besides, there is no way to stop every single unethical act by hunters, no matter how much legislation is put in place. And as we have seen it only takes a single drop of water to start the flood...

Again, its not that i think ethics don't matter. I just think its best not discussed in the public eye. IT is a problem within our ranks and a problem that will exist as long as more than 1 person is left hunting...

One one hand folks chant we gotta stay united and then on the other we continue to execute folks like Palmer who was exonerated from any wrong doing and we define "hunting" by the number of yards between you and the animal.

Is it just me, or is there a major logic disconnect here?

The topic of ethical hunting has been hashed out so many times that one thing should be abundantly clear by now - there is no clearly defined standard and there will never be a consensus. So let's drop the whole, we need to police our own nonsense because there is no standard by which to define ethical hunting. Everyone has their own opinion on the matter so we are hardly united about the matter.

So back to the subject of the future of hunting - in short it's ugly and we are losing in many areas of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

So back to the subject of the future of hunting - in short it's ugly and we are losing in many areas of the world.

. . . in no small part due to the fact that we want to put our heads in the sand on issues like hunting ethics.

The entire Cecil incident was an attempt to stop hunting period. We are not going to be able to change the minds of anti hunters no matter how much we capitulate.

The whole argument revolves around emotion. A lot of people on this site cannot even agree on the concept of liberty.

The age of technology has changed the game. It is much easier for the anti hunting public to glom onto emotional issues than before. We hunters are a minute part of the public and people are prone to support causes that are against things they are not interested in.

You can throw all the money at PR firms and ad campaigns you want but we will never be able to compete with starlets posing on TV with starved and mistreated animals.

Anyone here drink coke? The company is all about saving the poor polar bears. Lots of ad money for anti hunting groups comes from the companies we support daily.

There are no simple answers but eating our own is not one that I would support.

Joe

Joe, Someone had said earlier that we cannot change the minds of the antis, what we need to do is ensure the other larger percent of fence sitters does not go to the dark side. The way to do that is to lobby against the antis the way they lobby against us. They pick up support by these ridiculous campaigns. Our side must do the same and to extreme levels. If that is the NRA, then we will have to support them in a huge way. Like MikeJ said, we will have to wait and see what NRA has in store.

quote:

Originally posted by Bryce Dillabough:
Joe, Someone had said earlier that we cannot change the minds of the antis, what we need to do is ensure the other larger percent of fence sitters does not go to the dark side. The way to do that is to lobby against the antis the way they lobby against us. They pick up support by these ridiculous campaigns. Our side must do the same and to extreme levels. If that is the NRA, then we will have to support them in a huge way. Like MikeJ said, we will have to wait and see what NRA has in store.

Lets hope we stick to getting good science and economics to back our argument. Show where hunting as conservation really works - Bubye and Save come to mind.

Trying to get in public face with more and more trophy pictures will not do it.

Let the anti hunting minority have the emotional argument - we can have the rational argument with the vast majority of people who don't hunt but eat meat and use leather.

Mike

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:

So back to the subject of the future of hunting - in short it's ugly and we are losing in many areas of the world.

. . . in no small part due to the fact that we want to put our heads in the sand on issues like hunting ethics.

In your mind that may be, however, in reality, that's not how hunting quotas are decided and allocated in Africa. Furthermore, the people making those decisions are only looking at the economics and the pressure/graft they are receiving by the antis and the Chinese - who by the way are only interested in mineral and natural resource access; hunters and animals be damned.

If you think the anits are your biggest problem in the future of hunting in Africa, I am afraid you're tilting at windmills.

Who said anything about the challenges to hunting being limited to Africa? Hunting is under attack all over . . . polar bear, black bear, mountain lions. The problem goes far beyond Africa and yes, I do believe that the anti-hunting groups are a significant threat to the future of hunting and we do ourselves no favors by letting them take the moral high ground by our own unethical behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
One one hand folks chant we gotta stay united and then on the other we continue to execute folks like Palmer who was exonerated from any wrong doing and we define "hunting" by the number of yards between you and the animal.

Is it just me, or is there a major logic disconnect here?

The topic of ethical hunting has been hashed out so many times that one thing should be abundantly clear by now - there is no clearly defined standard and there will never be a consensus. So let's drop the whole, we need to police our own nonsense because there is no standard by which to define ethical hunting. Everyone has their own opinion on the matter so we are hardly united about the matter.

So back to the subject of the future of hunting - in short it's ugly and we are losing in many areas of the world.

If you mean "exonerated" in the sense of dealing with a shady operator in a shady arrangement under shady conditions, then yes I suppose he is. He definitely was cutting corners and not using a reputable outfitter.

Jeff

quote:

I actually wish we were at the point of having to worry about ethical slippery slopes, magical ethical answers to tough ethical questions and the like, fact is it seems most hunters struggle with ethical issues that should be relatively black and white. We have plenty here who see nothing wrong with and feel that a convicted felon that violated game laws and then lied to authorities, who subsequently hunted a collared lion at night with a bow on a national park boundary got a raw deal.

A) Shooting a collared lion is not and was not illegal. Nor is it unethical because, quite frankly, any researcher worth his salt studying lions in a hunting area (or an area bordering one) would rather not have his data skewed by hunters passing on such cats.
B) Hunting at night is not illegal in the area. I guess you can argue the ethics of it, but not without sounding more than a bit autocratic.
C) Hunting with a bow is neither illegal nor unethical
D) If there were a 10km buffer between every NP and a hunting area would you then criticize the hunter for hunting on the border of the buffer? What we have here is an infinite regress problem, eg. "unethical" hunts on the border of the buffer mean that we need to extend the buffer ad absurdum.
E) Most importantly, you are smart enough to know that someone violating game laws in the past (knowingly or not) and the same person getting a raw deal later are not at all mutually exclusive.

Most of us that hunt in Africa fit into the following demographics:

We are white Americans who have a hunting heritage.

We are mid-level managers or higher, professionals, skilled craftsmen or business owners.

We are middle age or older.

The vast majority will vote Republican.

We are in the 80+ percentile of income earners.

In other words, we are envied, despised and scorned by a large part of the general population and the media.

We are independent thinkers who have made good financial decisions our entire lives. We trust our opinions and thoughts and are not shy in sharing them. Thus we have the umpteenth thread regarding hunting ethics on which we will never agree. If a relatively small homogenous group can't come to a level of agreement, how will "a house divided stand?"



Our opposition, the anti's are much more diverse than we are. As a heterogeneous group they too have had a hard time coming to an agreement on how to stop hunting. Event's like Cecil and Nixon's elephant will help unify them. As MikeBurke stated, Cecil was probably our 9-11. That doesn't mean it is the end of the war. Only the beginning. As hunter's we will be fighting this war the rest of our lives. Will we be dedicated enough to see this through? Do we have an organization to coordinate the fight or can we create it?



We will never be able to persuade the anti's but the good news is we don't have to. It is our friends in the middle. Our coworkers that hunt deer. The person we go to church with that hunts quail. Our mechanic that is open minded. Our employees who have heard and understand our love of flora and fauna that never had an opinion before. The problem is we are to small a group to effectively reach enough people individually. We need an affective organization with a professional PR organization and lobbying group to present our side to the masses. Is that organization out there or can we create it? If not, I fear for our way of life and Africa's wildlife.