quote:

Originally posted by tendrams:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Bwana Bunduki:

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:

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

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Felon? Nope!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

See, this is where you and I differ. I say that if hunting the park boundaries, at night, with a bow, for a collared animal is unethical, why allow it legally. You seem to be saying "let any or all of those conditions remain legal, but just don't do it" , because you don't think it's ethical. I can't for the life of me square that line of logic. If it's wrong, it should be wrong for everyone, as prescribed by law, not simply left up to individual discretion through something so subjective as "ethics".

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Baretta Mike,

I must have missed it. Did you address my question about why you deem it ethical to wack a young eland upon getting to safari camp so that you can have a better European mount and eland steaks for the duration of your hunt for the next eland bull, being a trophy.

Is it ethical to shoot the young ones? If so, how young. At what age do you draw the ethical line in the sand?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
Felon? Nope!

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_39816" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/272938628/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
So, is bowhunting unethical?

You included it on the list of reasons why the hunt was indefensible.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
So, is bowhunting unethical?

You included it on the list of reasons why the hunt was indefensible.

I was addressing the totality of the circumstances, i.e., a bow hunt, at night, on a national park boundary, involving a collared lion, by a hunter that pled guilty to a felon in connection with a prior game violation. If you believe that Palmer is a good ambassador of sport hunting and he and his hunt represent a good role model for young hunters, that is your prerogative.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:

There are still hunting cultures who use poison, steel snares, deadfalls, brush fires and pits to hunt. I remember the days when spotting and shooting Alaskan big game from aircraft was legal. But just because something is "legal" does not make it "ethical" or right.
If we want public support we all need to take a close look at our sport from an outsider's perspective if we hope to maintain it.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Hunting ethics, like art, is hard to define as each person has their own definition. A pile of dog crap or soup can painted on canvas may be art in some circles but it is certainly not everyone's idea of art.

There are still hunting cultures who use poison, steel snares, deadfalls, brush fires and pits to hunt. I remember the days when spotting and shooting Alaskan big game from aircraft was legal. But just because something is "legal" does not make it "ethical" or right. If we want public support we all need to take a close look at our sport from an outsider's perspective if we hope to maintain it.

quote:

Originally posted by Safaris Botswana Bound:
I served 10 years plus in the Parks service and as a Divisional Head sat on the Central Committee for Nature Conservation where many debates took place that would form the foundation for Regulations and Acts .
Most acts are the result of an action from which the wildlife authority learnt and adapted, so the question of ethics versus legal act is in constant motion. Many Acts started as an ethic which was breached and then in order to stop further breach became an act of law. This is where we are now when we discuss hunting collared research animals - in many countries it is not illegal but hell yes its unethical - and the public are saying well if hunters cannot control their ethics we must make it a law which is what is happening. The same applies to hunting on boundaries - some countries do in fact have this law but even then this often overlooked until someone shoots a collared lion. Elephant over 100 pounds are protected in some countries but again the average man in the street will tell you he thought 100 pounders would be off limits anyway if they are from a National Park - so its not against the law now - but rest assured it will be shortly. Shooting hand reared captive lions is not against the law ( In south africa ) but under current public opinion it will be shortly. So ethics when not managed will become a law. I think we need to look at why we are needing to be guided on matters which should be inherent.

quote:

Originally posted by Safaris Botswana Bound:
I served 10 years plus in the Parks service and as a Divisional Head sat on the Central Committee for Nature Conservation where many debates took place that would form the foundation for Regulations and Acts .
Most acts are the result of an action from which the wildlife authority learnt and adapted, so the question of ethics versus legal act is in constant motion. Many Acts started as an ethic which was breached and then in order to stop further breach became an act of law. This is where we are now when we discuss hunting collared research animals - in many countries it is not illegal but hell yes its unethical - and the public are saying well if hunters cannot control their ethics we must make it a law which is what is happening. The same applies to hunting on boundaries - some countries do in fact have this law but even then this often overlooked until someone shoots a collared lion. Elephant over 100 pounds are protected in some countries but again the average man in the street will tell you he thought 100 pounders would be off limits anyway if they are from a National Park - so its not against the law now - but rest assured it will be shortly. Shooting hand reared captive lions is not against the law ( In south africa ) but under current public opinion it will be shortly. So ethics when not managed will become a law. I think we need to look at why we are needing to be guided on matters which should be inherent.

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

quote:

Originally posted by Safaris Botswana Bound:
I served 10 years plus in the Parks service and as a Divisional Head sat on the Central Committee for Nature Conservation where many debates took place that would form the foundation for Regulations and Acts .
Most acts are the result of an action from which the wildlife authority learnt and adapted, so the question of ethics versus legal act is in constant motion. Many Acts started as an ethic which was breached and then in order to stop further breach became an act of law. This is where we are now when we discuss hunting collared research animals - in many countries it is not illegal but hell yes its unethical - and the public are saying well if hunters cannot control their ethics we must make it a law which is what is happening. The same applies to hunting on boundaries - some countries do in fact have this law but even then this often overlooked until someone shoots a collared lion. Elephant over 100 pounds are protected in some countries but again the average man in the street will tell you he thought 100 pounders would be off limits anyway if they are from a National Park - so its not against the law now - but rest assured it will be shortly. Shooting hand reared captive lions is not against the law ( In south africa ) but under current public opinion it will be shortly. So ethics when not managed will become a law. I think we need to look at why we are needing to be guided on matters which should be inherent.

DING DING DING ... we have a winner folks.

Game laws evolve from ethics! As ethics evolve, so must game laws.

Hallelujah!! Pass the Tylenol!

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:

Game laws evolve from ethics! As ethics evolve, so must game laws.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

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:

Originally posted by MJines:
Ross,

To be clear, I do not think that ethics will win the debate with anti-hunters. As pointed out earlier, in my view the debate will be won, if at all, with that segment of the population that neither supports nor opposes hunting. I think doing focus group discussions with this segment of the population would be a good first step to understand what will and will not resonate with them. Beyond that I also think hunters have to do a better job of telling the story on the conservation benefits of hunting, the challenges facing wildlife, the role hunting plays in conservation, the plight of poaching, the impact hunting has on local communities, etc.

So where does ethics come in? When we have a Cecil-like incident or other incident where a hunter acts in an ethically questionable way, it (i) pushes someone that is otherwise ambivalent on hunting closer to the anti-hunting groups, (ii) makes efforts to tell the good story we have on many hunting-related issues all the more difficult, and (iii) gives the anti-groups something to try and paint the entire sport with. We basically deliver to them on a silver platter the emotional/soulful argument that they need to beat the stuffing out of us. Stated another way, ethics alone will not win the debate, but acting unethically will certainly help ensure defeat.

In terms of the emotional appeal, I do not have a ready solution for that . . . maybe a community impacted by an overpopulation of animals due to a lack of regulated control, a community benefited from hunter dollars, a die off resulting from lack of adequate game management in the face of a drought or other disaster, other. A good start, however, would be to simply tell the story of the conservation benefits of hunting, the challenges facing wildlife, the role hunting plays in conservation, the plight of poaching, the impact hunting has on local communities, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
"Game Trails" arrived in the mail today. On page 16 in a message from the President it states "The board will have the ability now to establish a formal code of conduct for ethical hunters and operators."

After reading many of the responses on AR concerning ethics, I wonder how DSC members will react to a code of conduct. Personally I welcome it.

A couple of notes (some if not most have been stated already):

1) I do not believe we will convert any hardcore PETA, HSUS, etc. to our side, no more than they cam make me anti-hunter.

2) I do believe we need to keep the 60-70% of the population on our side or at least neutral.

3) I truly believe we have a good story to tell in terms of conservation. There are so many good areas supported by hunters and the general public does not know. While it was somewhat difficult for the filmmaker, he gave some credit to the operators of Coutada 9 and their efforts to help restock Gorongosa on a PBS special. I was pleasantly surprised by that. My favorite question on social media is "what would happen tomorrow in Zimbabwe if hunting ended? Who would take care of the wildlife since the photo safaris cannot even support the current parks? Somehow we need to get these good stories out, not just from Africa but in the US also. Who pays for most of the conservation efforts in the US?

4) I think we need to use social media to our benefit. We have not in the past to any degree.

5) A real study by a respected university on the economic impact of hunting in Africa needs to be done. I do mean a proper one. This information needs to be shared.

6) Our hunting organizations need to share where our dollars are used in conservation. Last week I met the Executive Director of SCIF and asked for the top ten projects they funded. He told me to go to their financials. My response was quick and to the point. I wanted a list of the top 10 funded projects for the year not a financial statement. I still have not received anything. I can tell you my top ten projects last year, my top ten clients, top ten vendors, I do not understand why this information is not readily available from the hunting orgs. What I really do not understand is why this information is not shared freely throughout the hunting community, social media, foreign governments, etc. This goes for all of the hunting organizations. I did request this from Karl and received a list within a couple of days from DSC.

7) We need to make certain we let our elected officials know how we feel. I read a story on Yahoo today about problems an anti-hunting group is causing in Wisconsin. While it is fishing our Red Snapper recreational fisheries is a disaster. There is the fiasco of Florida releasing all the names of the black bear hunters to an anti-hunting group. The ivory import ban among other things are going on at a national level. The problems are not just in Africa but right here in the US.

8) As stated earlier African governments control much of what is happening. We as hunters must be represented at every meeting that can be attended. We need representation at CITES and IUCN (Thank you DSC). We need to support our African hunting organizations that represent us.

9) I appreciate the work SCI, DSC, HSC, and other do for the hunting community. None of these organizations are perfect and neither is the NRA. I hope the NRA gets in to this fight because if its Washington experience and sheer numbers. It is also my hope the hunting organizations work together and not view each other as competing interests when it comes to hunter's rights.

10) We also must act in an ethical manner. Maybe DSC will frame a formal code of conduct and I applaud them if they do.

Finally, if we work together, not necessarily agree on everything, our hunting future can be secure. It will take efforts on all fronts; social media, local, state, federal, oversees governments, NGO's, CITES etc. and hopefully one or two organizations can help take on these roles.

Our other choice is not change what we have done in the past and suffer the consequences.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Ross,

To be clear, I do not think that ethics will win the debate with anti-hunters. As pointed out earlier, in my view the debate will be won, if at all, with that segment of the population that neither supports nor opposes hunting. I think doing focus group discussions with this segment of the population would be a good first step to understand what will and will not resonate with them. Beyond that I also think hunters have to do a better job of telling the story on the conservation benefits of hunting, the challenges facing wildlife, the role hunting plays in conservation, the plight of poaching, the impact hunting has on local communities, etc.

So where does ethics come in? When we have a Cecil-like incident or other incident where a hunter acts in an ethically questionable way, it (i) pushes someone that is otherwise ambivalent on hunting closer to the anti-hunting groups, (ii) makes efforts to tell the good story we have on many hunting-related issues all the more difficult, and (iii) gives the anti-groups something to try and paint the entire sport with. We basically deliver to them on a silver platter the emotional/soulful argument that they need to beat the stuffing out of us. Stated another way, ethics alone will not win the debate, but acting unethically will certainly help ensure defeat.

In terms of the emotional appeal, I do not have a ready solution for that . . . maybe a community impacted by an overpopulation of animals due to a lack of regulated control, a community benefited from hunter dollars, a die off resulting from lack of adequate game management in the face of a drought or other disaster, other. A good start, however, would be to simply tell the story of the conservation benefits of hunting, the challenges facing wildlife, the role hunting plays in conservation, the plight of poaching, the impact hunting has on local communities, etc.

In a population fascinated with the Kardashians-
It is unlikely that a "thoughtful" process on hunting can occur-

When foundations will send millions to Mexico to spay and neuter stray cats and dogs -
or attempt and re-attempt to get federal and state funding for a "Bison Highway" that abrogates private land rights and moves interstate highways--

Do you really think a logical approach will prevail--

"These people" do not think -they emote--
and no-- you can't win on emotions-

" These people" are literally the very same that think the selling of fetal parts is OK and the killing of over populated , un-adopted shelter animals is murder-

The "segment" that neither supports or opposes is irrelevant politically--
They are the very same segment that will not vote, will not get involved in local community projects and will not piss on you if you are on fire--

the reality is activists on either end of the spectrum and the "who gives a shit , it doesn't effect me 's" in the middle--

These battles are not won in the middle--just look at Congress--

The battles are won on the edges--

We are basically screwed- the generations behind us (we 50 -80 year olds) as a whole , even in rural areas did not grow up hunting--

The current cost of hunting even domestically has become "a rich man's pastime"--

The social "stench" of hunting has been being pushed in the public schools and colleges since the 60's-


No-- palliation and "logical" appeasement doesn't work--
Activism works--
Hopefully in Texas we will (at least for the rest of my life) "secure" hunting as a "right" on the upcoming ballot (nothing is forever in the realm of mortals)

This proposition on the ballot had ZERO to do with the "segment that neither supports or opposes hunting"--
The "battle" for the proposition was fought between the two opposing "activist" camps-

Activism is the needed response--
for:
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that
you end up being governed by your inferiors." .....Plato

quote:

As pointed out earlier, in my view the debate will be won, if at all, with that segment of the population that neither supports nor opposes hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

One congressman whom I won't mention his name put his around me and said: "Lane, you boys did a fine job with your presentation and the science certainly seems to be on your side...but...for every penny y'all spend...the other side (PETA, HSUS etc.) spends $10K...you have no chance of getting the votes against."

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:

quote:

As pointed out earlier, in my view the debate will be won, if at all, with that segment of the population that neither supports nor opposes hunting.

I have been saying this for years and years, and very often on this forum in other threads. This is the big gap I see in the major organizations - that instead of trying to find people to be members, they should instead help to cultivate the proper positive conversation regarding hunting in general. This takes much thinking outside the box, and engaging different channels than they are used to.

I think of people I have met and come to know who, right away, did not know I hunted. Then, after a period of time when they found out I hunted, they were surprised. No matter what their preconceived notion of hunters was, they now had in front of them proof that at least a single hunter was OK, or decent, as they define those words. I just don't see any organization working fervently OUTSIDE the hunting community to create these positive relationships, which are VITAL. I see an awful lot of trying to "build the ranks" but as stated above, we will lose every time if the "ranks" are all we have. NOn -hunters are NOT the "ranks." Hunting has been in the hands of the non-hunter for a very long time, and those totally against hunting know that, and they exploit this knowledge with things such as I-1401 here in Washington which purports to "Save animals facing extinction" by banning ANY trade in legal parts (read ivory). It was put on the ballot by gathering signatures in front of grocery stores, and now it will probably pass. Meanwhile, I get a call just a few weeks ago from the NRA asking why I am not a member, and I tell the lady that once the NRA starts spending money in places that will actually help spread a positive message about guns/hunting via the channels that WILL make a difference i.e. outside of the hunting community, then I will think about it. A few days ago I received in the mail a 3-page flyer about the aforementioned I-1401 - replete with touching pictures of animals looking at each other, snuggling etc; dire comments on the numbers of certain species left, numbers of sharks slaughtered etc. This type of stuff put in the hands of a non-hunter who is ambivalent about hunting helps to push them in the direction against hunting - even though the word hunting is never mentioned in the flyer. Yet from the pro-hunting world it's crickets. Nothing, nada. You'll only ever find proactive positive words about hunting the magazines hunters already buy. What a waste.

I would rather have 3 non-hunting friends who know me as a hunter and know the positive things that can come from hunting than 1 hunting friend. In the end (and for the long haul), growing the numbers of non-hunting people who are OK with hunting whether they choose to participate or not is much more powerful than the relatively small numbers of actual hunters.

Here's an out-of-the-box idea... how about SCI/NRA/DSC et al build up a few food trucks and go into depressed areas of a city with donated venison (or just regular food) and serve the needy out of the truck? These trucks pop up seemingly at random and take the place of the city's poorly run kitchens for a spell. We talk about the compassion of hunters and our "ethics," but how do we show it? By slow motion ads with guys hugging? For crying out loud man, that's just silly. And it probably only ran on the outdoorsmans channel. How about groups buying time from the NFL? Then, in between all the shots of breast cancer awareness ribbons on the field, positive messages about how the Pittman-Robertson act has been at helping to build and maintain the healthy populations of wildlife (game and non-game species) that (fill in the blank with the number of millions of people who watch wildlife) enjoy each year. Talk about the activities of hunters and hunting organizations regarding environmental (ooo that lefty word!!) issues.

The point is that there is a perception of hunters and hunting, and it is being created by someone OTHER than hunters. Guy shoots a lion, the world freaks out, organizations try to play catch up - impossible. PR is an unsexy, expensive thing, but it is vital to the survival of (name your cause).

Just my opinion.

And Beretta682E, your comment inferring I am probably OK with gut shooting animals as an example of plastic ethics is the most absurd thing I've heard. If you only knew half of the truth you would be serving those words to yourself. Unnecessary suffering or death is the most appalling thing I know of. Take that to its logical extension both in and out of the field you might get a small taste of my personal beliefs and ethics.