Bringing the subject of our loved ones into this has opened up a different angle to discuss.

We have the moral high grounders standing firm that to quote " do the right thing always because it is always the right thing to do" or some such...

Lets assume for a moment that you are living in a state, or a country that does not allow the use of firearms in defending your home.
And yet you return home from a target shootign session to find your wife or daughter about to be gang raped.
Now your only means of stopping them is to shoot them,, now tell me what are you going to do.
Are you going to be a sheep or a wolf?

quote:

Originally posted by just-a-hunter:
...but I refuse to give anti-hunters any ammo to use against me.

No anti-hunters would get any ammo to use against you. The OP states that

quote:

There's no way anyone will know.

So the scenario is for you only.

quote:

Originally posted by bucko:
I just love you holier than thou types..
If it had been up to a lot of you we would still be speaking with a British accent.

Right is relative,, this is in fact a stupid and oppressive law.
Would I actually shoot the second buck, hell I hunt primarily with a longbow and wooden arrows because I have killed so much shit in my life with a rifle that when your heartbeat fails to go up any longer it is time to change.

So horn hunting is not where I am at, if I get a chance to crawl on my belly through the rainforest in Hawaii to try and stick a homemade arrow through some stinky ass pig or goat my week is made.
Or an "almost" stalk on a Muley spike or a cow elk gets me off as much as the buck on my living room wall did when I took him.

So hell I don't know if I would or not, if I thought it might piss some of you off if I were to say I would, well I damn sure will.

It is amazing to me how few of you even stopped long enough in your righteousness to realize how F'ing stupid this law is.
Why don't we have a discussion on why it would be in place at all, and if it makes no more sense then than it does to me now then I think we have a moral responsibility to violate it.

Take no hunting on Sunday for instance, what is the reason ,, really?? And how many roll over and pull down their pants to have that rammed up their ass??

I wish that this law was in place where I live, I would get a "righteous" rush to get the chance to violate it once a week.

It must be nice to be able to pick and choose which laws to obey and which ones to ignore because you don't agree with them. Teaching my son to obey laws we don't agree with means that he'll obey all laws and stay within the legal means of changing laws that may be unfair or archaic. It has nothing to do with being holier than though you condescending sob.

Hey fellas, we've almost all been very civil and adult here. Congradulations to almost all!

quote:

Originally posted by jsl3170:

And as far as the gentleman up in Alaska goes, yes, shooting two minutes after closing is immoral and illegal.

Not that it's any kind of A big deal, but I guess I just disagree and I think the degree of penalties for different infractions bear out my opinion. The poaching example I noted earlier certainly has a harsher penalty than shooting two minutes after "legal shooting time".

Scott I agree completely, and yes different violations bear different penalties in real life, as they should.

Stub I sure do get a chuckle out of folks like yourself, do you care to answer my question and start to see where you will actually draw the line?

Say Bucko,

It's a beautiful day in Dillingham, I know darn well it's beautiful in Northwest AZ, what are we doing on our butt in front of a computer?

This isn't really a pertinent topic since it isn't anything more than hypothetical, so it would seem to me that if anyone puts too much emotion into this their wasting time.

With two glaring exceptions from the Political Forum I suspect that all however many folks participate on AR would get along quite well face to face. No need to gring teeth on this topic or most others really.

I get a kick out of the mentality that blindly follows "THE LAW". Just for instance, the other night I was sitting at a red light, and sitting, and sitting....after about 3 minutes, it was obvious that the light was malfunctioning, so I carefully drove through it. Using their logic, "THE LAW" group would still be sitting there.

"'If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, 'the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.'"

Anybody who doesn't have enough sense to evaluate a law in relation to their position and it's validity deserves what they get. Self defense and the numerous lawbreaking permutations that one can imagine is an obvious example. For another concept, for about 80 years of our nation's existence slavery was legal. It was "THE LAW", did that make it right and okay to observe it? If you opposed it and disobeyed various parts of it, who was the criminal? Give me a break.

I didn't realize there were so many lock stepping hypocrites on these boards. "THE LAW", it's a guideline, one has to use a shred of common sense.

Now, does that mean I'd shoot that buck, well, I'm smart enough to keep my mouth shut when opening it accomplishes nothing but I can unequivocally say that I wouldn't have been in the "two buck on one day" position, meaning I wouldn't have an "eater" down on the last day of the season, so the particular situation would never apply to me.

I have kept out of this one, mainly cause I thought it had faded away, which it needs to.

I am willing to bet that 99% of us maybe more, suffer from "Situational Ethics and Law Obeying".

Anyone one that says they don't, is a flat arse liar.

How many times have you been in a grocery store and ate a grape or two before you bought some to see if they taste any good, most of us.

The situation gatorgordo used about the stop light, I would bet a lot of us have went thru a malfunctioning light, and probably a lot of us have went thru a functioning light if we were in a hurry and could see that no one was coming, and 99% of the time we get away with it.

As someone once told me, there is not a way you can go thru your normal daily routine with out breaking a few written laws.

It is easy to set at a computer and expound on how virtuous we are in following the laws, any body with half a brain knows that laws have two meanings when it comes to enforcing them, "Intent" and "Letter".

Anyone who has had any dealing with LEO's of any kind know, that some enforce the "Letter of the Law" and some enforce the "Intent of the Law".

None of us really know for sure what we would do in any of these hypothetical situations, until or unless we end up in one.

Legally, shooting the second buck is wrong, bottom line, and if the person were caught by a Game Warden after doing something like that, hey it is their ass, not mine.

It all revolves around the concept of personal choice/personal ethics.

I do know pretty well that if I did something like that, and got away with it, nobody other my wife would know the full details.

Is that unethical of me, not really if I can live with it.

Well Scott it is hot as hell here today and I have a six year old son that can't take too much of it so he is hanging out in the house.
I have been back and forth between welding a gate, working with some horses, checking a spring in the mountains and back in here checking on my son.
And yes dicking on this computer a little too much antagonizing the natives.

I actually do respect the law, and the law abiding people on here for the most part.
It is the few that have their scphincter sucked up around their necks that are hilarious.

Gatogordo said it about as well as I ever could hope to so with his words I am going to give this thing a rest.
Thanks everyone, it has been entertaining and informative.

Here are my last thoughts on the matter by way of example, bucko. Although I was not there so I cannot pledge for the veracity of the matter, let's assume the stories to be factually correct as they are both instructive to my point. You may check references if you like.

In the first, Peter Capstick has been called upon to track down a wounded lion that has made its way into a national park (Kruger, I believe) after being shot by a hunter. The lion has crossed into the park via a small river. Capstick discusses the matter with the PH who was with the hunter and the PH suggests he could have shot the lion as it stood on the bank, "but then we know the rules don't we?" he asks Capstick. Yes, there were legalities involved, but perhaps with the right bribe that obstacle could have been overcome. That leaves the moral question. Would it have been immoral for the PH to shoot, thus saving him time, moeny and likely, considerable embarrassment at losing a lion into a place where he could not get it? The PH's question to Capstick is as much interrogative in nature as rhetorical. There is an ethic to sport hunting and he was willing to live up to it.

The second instance is found in a book by Jim Corbett. He is hunting a man-eating tiger and upon arrival at his destination for the night realizes he does not have permission from local authorities to sleep in the quarters which apparently would have been available with proper permission. Yet, there he was, in the middle of nowhere and yet he sleeps outside.

Yet, who would have known whether he broke in and took shelter? Likely noone. However, the moral imperative caused Corbett to adhere to the notion of permission to enter.

I imagine what your choices would have been in the above outlined situations if we are to extrapolate from you initial postings.

Moral relativity is nothing more than the tail trying to wag the dog. The individual over the community. This will eventually lead to further and further isolation of the community's members. So yeah, you shooting a lifetime buck at closing time when you shouldn't is simply an abomination of an accepted moral code for the purpose of furthering your agenda.

Thanks for an interesting discussion.

If you're hanging your "moral and ethical" hat on Capstick, you don't have a clue, he was a drunk who could tell a good tale and at least 90% of what he wrote was either made up or was a composite of something that had happened to other people.

Second, considering the pests involved in sleeping quarters in India many years back Corbett certainly may have not had many second thoughts or regrets about sleeping outside.

Several years ago, I was on a muzzleloader bull hunt in north central NM. I was scouting the night before opening day, when about 5 minutes before dark, I happened on a lone bull that went about 330. I was all alone on the mountain. Could have dropped him and came back the next morning. I went home with my tag in my pocket 5 days later.

Jsl, your damn right I would have shot the frikken lion..
The bastard was already wounded so adhering to the letter of the law leaves a poor wounded animal to suffer.
Not to mention the irresponsible danger that the dumb bastards left limping around to take his anger and pain out on some innocent party.

So yes in a by god new yourk heartbeat I would have busted his ass and would not want to hunt with anyone who is too damn afraid or anal to bend the rules,suck it up and follow up their mess.

Gator - please don't misunderstand me: I'm not hanging my hat on Capstick. There appear to be his supporters and his detractors our there with noone in between. Like I said, I simply referenced the story because it was instructive to illustrate my point.

bucko - I don't think anyone would disagree that in the story the wounded game needed to be found, the point is simply the manner in which it was done. Again, simply a story related to make a point.

I really appreciate hearing your thoughts. In your view, you lie at the center of the universe and that is why morality is relative to you. In my view, we are each part of a large whole; be it family, community, nation or what have you. Thus, it is we who are relative to the normative and moral systems of which we are a part.

Fortunately, in our system, there is room for both of us in the boat.

hey bucko,

I had a friend once (yeah I know) that did some volunteer firefighting in Arizona during the summer months. He said it was so hot there that he saw a jackrabbit carrying a canteen.
My question is that if you were in the same situation (fighting fires all day) and you were dying of thirst, had no water and couldn't make it back to camp and had one bullet in your pistol and this rabbit was charging you, and it was twilight and no one was watching would you shoot the rabbit to get the water or would you take a chance that you were a good enough shot to shoot the carry strap off his neck and get the canteen, thereby saving both his life and yours?

Yeah I know its a little off topic but what the heck?
GWB

Well Geedubya with my luck I would probably shoot a hole in the canteen, and get a ticket for shooting in a National Park..

Now 3170 "I really appreciate hearing your thoughts. In your view, you lie at the center of the universe and that is why morality is relative to you. In my view, we are each part of a large whole; be it family, community, nation or what have you. Thus, it is we who are relative to the normative and moral systems of which we are a part."

Frankly I just love people like yourself, you insult people in such a nice way that you fool even yourself into believing that you are not..

But I do appreciate the effort, I am sorry that your best efforts are so wasted on a mongrel such as myself.
But the bottom line is that I am truly not one of the herd.
Never have been, never want to be.

I have to admit however that at times in my life I have had my moments when I envied people like yourself.
Thankfully I had the courage to outgrow it.

You are most likely a really decent man, the kind of fellow that my Mother always wished I would have grown up to be.
But to be honest I am so glad that I am as the saying goes " wild and wooly and full of fleas, and never curried below the knees."

So please don't sweat your pretty head over the likes of me, things are not so bad as thay appear.

Trust me when I tell you I was not fooling myself.

NO! is the answer for me. I is a matter of integrity. Integrity is what you do when no one is looking!

Anyway it is probably a decoy set up by the F&WD to catch pochers!!!

Jim Z, your comment about the F&WD reminded me of the rancher here in SE Oklahoma who complained to the F&WD about deer poaching in his area. Several weeks later the rancher was driving down one of the back roads when he sees a trophy whitetail. He stops his truck and shoots the buck out the window. It was, indeed, a F&WD decoy. He got busted for killing a deer out of season; shooting from a motorized vehicle; and, shooting from a public road.

Personally, I'd let the deer walk. I suppose part of it might be out of fear of getting caught, but primarily because: 1) It's wrong and 2) I'd know I had taken it illegally and couldn't enjoy bragging about it.

If it is the last day of the season with a one a day limit why would one still have 2 tags with them if they were not intending to poach?

MT Gianni,

I understand the spirit of your post, but as an example, in Texas our resident tags are all on one fold up license. I don't have one in front of me, but as I recall, there are about 11 game tags in all, 5 for whitetail deer, 4 turkey and 2 mule deer.
GWB

You are correct on the number of game tags, unless you have the super combo license, in which case you also have a Red Fish tag for a total of 12.

chc,
I used to fish a lot, however in the last few years I've gotten away from it. I also do little duck or goose hunting anymore as I don't care for the taste. I do take advantage of the annual hunting permit though.
GWB

IMHO Part of hunting is learning to make the right choices. Part of that is living with the ones you have already made. I would be tempted, but I would not shoot.
MM

Once again we get the "what iffers" that will not let this subject die until things are twisted around to their position. Even to the extreme of comparing obeying a hunting law in which there is no peril involved with defending your family. This would be like saying if your child was hurt, would you try to stop the bleeding even tho you don't have a license to practice medicene. Or easing thru a broken stop light. It just doesn't compare. There's nothing broken about that trophy deer walking thru the woods. The only thing that's broken is the person's sense of values that he will subvert his ethics to satisfy his ego.
Now let's hear another bunch of "what ifs". you know you'd shoot the bigger deer. And probably leave the smaller deer in the woods to rot. And you'd justify it someway. So why argue?

You dipshits remind me of an old joke of when the cowboy met the "lady"

After riding the range for months the cowboy finally had a chance to visit a town.
That evening in the boarding house he sat down to dinner next to a beautiful young woman.
He could barely focus on his meal, her smell and her voice, and her looks were so distracting.
After the meal the other patrons left the table and he found himself alone with the young woman for the first time,, and he could simply not resist.
He leans over and asks, "would you sleep with me tonight for five thousand dollars??
The young lady looks shocked for a second, and then you could see her mind working as she glanced around the empty room..
Until in a soft voice she said,, yes..

The cowboy sat there a second feeling the few coins left in his pocket and then leaned over again and asked,, would you sleep with me tonight for $50??

The young womans face showed instant indignation and disgust as she asked,, "what kind of woman do you think that I am???

The cowboy simply said "maa'm there is no need to get so upset, we have already established what you are, now we are simply working on the price..