The other thread on this topic has gone beyond "off track" to personal attacks and name calling. We are not "Hunters vs Hunters".. The question is far larger and involves ethics, not legality.

On a simple example - prostitution is legal in Nevada but no where else in the US. From nearly every culture, prostitution is wrong, unethical, violates society norms as well as religious standards. Yet, because it is "legal" in Nevada - should we accept the practice as acceptable because it is legal? Of course not. No good comes from it and the practice degrades the participants and society.

Back to hunting. Unless ethical choices are made and followed, we are not hunters but something else. Ethics drive law, not the other way around.

The following is a clarion call from Peter Flack, a respected South African hunter and writer and lawyer. His position is much like mine/ours on the ethical issues in hunting.

I would encourage you to read this in light of the discussion on baited deer shooting and selective breeding of deer that yield "fake" results.

I have come in for a lot of criticism over the years, predominantly from vested interests, for linking the drastic decline in overseas hunters visiting South Africa – from 16 394 in 2008 to 6 539 in 2016 (a drop of 60% in nine years) – to the canned killing epidemic and the intensive breeding, domestication and/or genetic manipulation of wildlife to produce animals with exaggerated horn lengths and unnatural colour variations, which have coincided with this period and done so much damage to hunting and, ipso facto, conservation in this country.

Admittedly, a lot of the criticism can be written off as of the, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” kind of thing, ala the comments of Mandy Rice Davies when the English politicians involved with the call girl, Christine Keeler, denied any such involvement and I took the nasty remarks by certain canned killers and intensive breeders with the bucket of salt they deserved, although one did resort to violence and shoulder charged me into a wire enclosure at OR Tambo Airport cutting my hand. I was invited to press charges against the buffoon by airport staff but declined as, when you fight with pigs, the pigs enjoy it and all you do is end up dirty.

Other comments were more difficult to understand, including statements by Mr. Stephen Palos, CEO of the Confederation of Hunting Associations of South Africa, an amateur hunting body representing nearly 30 such organisations. Mr. Palos made the following statements back in 2015 and has continued to advocate them in his current position as CEO of this important hunting body. For example:

“I cannot join that man’s hypocrisy by simply condemning the breeding of lion to be hunted …” Although there is little or no hunting involved in the killing of most of these animals, the vast majority of which are domesticated beasts.

“What I know in my gut, and this experience proves, is that there ALREADY IS INDEED a demand for the hunting of colour variants, which will grow further as prices asked for them drop to meet prices more hunters will pay. Obviously as more of a certain variant are created, their value will drop taking them towards the point that hunting becomes an option. Once quantity/price factors make hunting viable, demand will start to stabilise the falling price. This is already the case with the likes of black or white springbuck. I do not think any investor in these animals thinks otherwise right now, and given the proven business acumen & sheer wealth of many of these investors, I think it’s an insult to say that they are falling fowl (sic) of a deliberate Ponzi scheme or even worse, creating one.”

And yet this is precisely what has happened. Because there has been little or no hunting demand for these unnatural animals – in fact the reverse as most hunters abhor this cynical practice – the prices for them have dropped like the proverbial stone. So much so that I have been reliably informed of one intensive breeder with a herd of some hundred ‘golden wildebeest’ who offered them free of charge to a well known professional hunter with a request that any profit the PH made from them be shared with the breeder. In another case I am aware of, black impala, previously sold for million of rands per animal, are now being offered for R5 000.00 ($420.00) each. If this is not the same as happened when the tulip bubble burst in the Netherlands, then I do not know what is.

“Breeding or managing animals to enhance trophy size is now commonplace. Selective stud animals, feed hoped to contain essential elements for horn growth and now even devices placed over juvenile animal’s horns to protect them from wear! For the answer to this I must call on the Serenity Prayer which says:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.

There is no doubt that this practice will not be changed. It is here to stay. There are simply too many ranchers, too many ranches and too many animals for this to be police-able. To argue it would generate only heat, not light. But there may be consequences, and actions to take. The biggest tragedy of this practice is that it renders hundreds of years of history irrelevant as the record books stand to be inundated with new fantastic animals bred exactly for the purpose of making the book.”

No, the biggest tragedy is that more and more of the thousands of overseas hunters who, in 2016, paid on average R215 000 each for daily rates and trophy fees alone, will decided to hunt elsewhere and predominantly in our Namibian neighbour. If you take the average loss of overseas hunters over this period since 2008 at 7 000 per annum, a very conservative figure, then the losses to this country over the nine years since 2008 amounts to R13,5 billion in 2016 rands and, if you add to this monies also spent on airfares, accommodation, car hire, taxidermy, gratuities, gifts, tourist travel both before and after the hunt and so on, you can probably double this figure. Simply put, the country cannot afford to lose this massive amount of foreign exchange in order to satisfy the whims of a few selfish and cynical businessmen who do not give a damn about hunting or conservation but only their bank balances.

Talking about criticism of these practices, he said, “To my mind these attacks by hunters on hunters or other sections of the wildlife industry do far more harm by lambasting each other in our own hunting media, exposing huge discord and disconnect between ourselves, than what harm stems from any of the actual specific practices themselves”.

How disingenuous can you be? How out of touch with the reality of the damage done and being done to hunting and conservation must you be to equate criticism with the catastrophic results of canned killing and intensive breeding! How many overseas hunters must this country be reduced to before the damage done by these practices is seen as more serious than the mere criticism of it?

Hunting Statistics 2016

While I agree that washing dirty linen in public should not be a first choice, there is no alternative when hunting and the conservation on which it depends is being destroyed, along with the livelihoods and jobs of those in game ranching and the secondary businesses which depend on it in the predominantly rural areas where these occur. Especially if there is no benefit to conservation, wildlife and wildlife habitats from these disgusting practices. Especially if those that have benefit from these ugly businesses are so few and benefit no-one and nothing other than themselves.

I have just received the South African hunting statistics for the 2016 calendar year provided by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA). As any businessman worth his salt will tell you, it is better to have information that is 90% correct soon, than information which is 100% correct too late. Not that I am saying the information provided by government in this connection is 100% correct. I have no way of knowing but I can certainly say that information provided nearly a year after 2016 has ended is history and not useful information.

The most important facts indicated by the belated statistics are the following:
1.The continued deterioration in numbers of overseas hunters visiting South African. In 2016 these numbers fell from 7 633 to 6539, a further drop of 1 094 hunters or 14%, from those in 2015.
2.Although revenue increased by 11%, I think this can largely be ascribed to the drop in the rand against the US dollar brought about by the disastrous machinations of Zuma and his government.
3.In round figures, revenue derived from daily rates and trophy fees paid by these hunters amounted to R1,4 billion in 2016 versus R1,27 billion in 2015. The real reason behind the increase is the spend per hunter, which increased by a whopping 29%, from roughly R166 000 to R215 000 per hunting trip. Personally, I find this increase hard to credit but that is what the statistics show.
4.On the other hand, these hunters shot slightly fewer animals – 27 241 as opposed to 27 298 the year before and, looking at the breakdown of the top ten animals by number, there were no surprises with impala, warthog and kudu leading the list.
5.Limpopo Province earned the most, namely, R600 million – up from R480 million a year previously – or 25%.
6.North West Province, the kings of canned lion killing, earned R90 million from the 291 lions shot there at an average price of US$21 200. Having said that, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of canned lions killed from 622 in 2015 to 355 in 2016 – a fall of 43% – although the drop in revenue has not been as severe as these figures might imply and overall earnings from this disgusting activity fell a mere R12 million from R122 million to R110 million in round numbers. If you know anyone who claims to have shot a free range lion from this region, in all likelihood he/she has participated knowingly in a canned killing and, if they have, they should be held to account for their anti-hunting conduct by the hunting bodies to which they belong.
7.Interestingly, at the same time as canned lion killings dropped, so too did the number of American hunters visiting South Africa in 2016. Numbers fell by 15% to a still significant 3079 in number, although it is the lowest number in ten years. Even so, North American hunters made up 61% of the total of overseas hunters with European hunters a distant second at 32%.

What with both Dallas Safari Club and SCI both coming out this year with statements condemning the canned lion and captive bred lion killing sickness, you can only hope that this activity will go the same way as the intensive breeding of unnatural colour variants – wither on the vine and disappear.

There is much anecdotal evidence to support the negative effects of canned killing and intensive breeding and the concomitant loss of overseas hunters. A game rancher wrote to me recently about the large drop in the prices offered for the purchase of live game this year. An outfitter called me this morning to tell me of a successful game ranching friend in the Dundee area who specializes in kudu hunts and who is battling to sell them because he has been undercut by recently discounted hunts for these game animals in Limpopo Province. I spoke to a second major outfitter who told me of a client who warned him that, if he shot an animal with a tag in its ear, he would never hunt with him again. And of another client who was going to bring a friend on a hunt but the friend declined because he did not want to go “on and old man’s hunt” because he assumed South African hunts were essentially for domesticated animals in a small paddocks, which guaranteed the end result. A highly experienced, well regarded South African outfitter and PH, who has recently returned from the annual hunting conventions in the USA, said it had become all but impossible to sell South African hunts.

Probably the biggest negative flowing from these developments, apart from the job losses in rural areas, is the fate of the new black game ranchers who will now find it difficult, if not impossible, to make a go of things in the current climate. To compound this problem is the demise of the independent professional hunter who, in the past, could have been relied upon to partner black game ranchers to help them market their operations both locally and abroad and the absence of whom further exacerbates an already dire situation.

I was also called recently by a well known and popular taxidermist to compliment me on predicting the current hunting trends, the effects of which he can see first hand in his business. He asked whether there was anything that could be done to reverse the current situation as he was aware of a number of game ranches reverting to domestic livestock, as evidenced by the large amounts of game meat on the market – shot to make way for the re-introduction of cattle.

This, of course, raises a further issue. How much cheap and healthy protein is being lost? Using the average loss of 7 000 overseas hunters per year since 2008, and assuming each hunter shot a conservative five animals per trip providing 30 kgs of meat per animal, this equates to a loss of 1 050 000 kgs of meat per annum. What will need to be done to replace it, especially from those game ranches in the arid or semi-arid regions which cannot be used to raise domestic livestock? How much land will need to be set aside to make up for the loss of this kind of healthy protein?

Let me say at the outset that it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to have predicted – along with a number of others – the consequences of canned lion killing and intensive breeding for South Africa. The answer to the taxidermist’s question, however, is that of course the dreadful current trend can be reversed. It will take the same things that gave rise to the hugely successful, quiet South African conservation revolution in the first place, which began some 60 years ago. In other words, a partnership between government, the private sector and amateur and professional hunting bodies. There is also the highly successful Namibian example to follow where government, hunting bodies (both amateur and professional) and game ranchers have combined both to protect hunting from canned killing practices and intensive breeding, on the one hand, and to actively promote hunting, locally and internationally, on the other hand.

But much more needs to be done and, although the Namibian model provides guidance, South Africa needs to embark on its own well thought out, three year, program, coupled with a public relations strategy, to re-introduce the romance of African safaris into South Africa, coupled with the rating of game ranches and professional hunters according to the standard of fair chase hunting offered by them. I believe we also need to move away from luxury, bushveld, glass and chrome mini-palaces filled with contemporary art and return to good, old fashioned, South African hospitality in our farm/ranch houses, to tented camps, bucket showers, dinner in the boma and coffee around the camp fire. We need to go back to our roots, to the things that made South Africa the hunting destination of choice on the African continent, that provided opportunities for all for over 60 years and which funded the wonderfully successful conservation revolution which swept the country.

In these days of political renewal and hope in South Africa, is it too much to hope that hunting and conservation will also have their Augean stables washed clean even if the President has also indulged in intensive breeding?

Hunting Statistics 2016

If you would like to send a comment email webmaster@peterflack.co.za.

The issue is that ethics are not defined, they are construct of each individual. They are an accumulation of everyone's opinions and prejudices, just like your example below.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
On a simple example - prostitution is legal in Nevada but no where else in the US. From nearly every culture, prostitution is wrong, unethical, violates society norms as well as religious standards. Yet, because it is "legal" in Nevada - should we accept the practice as acceptable because it is legal? Of course not. No good comes from it and the practice degrades the participants and society.

Your opinions and beliefs have colored your arguments in that you assume that all of the other participants in the discussion have to agree that your opinions about prostitution are the universally acceptable norm.

Many cultures and/or countries legalize prostitution, some for thousands of years and prostitution has been an integral part of many religions and cultures throughout history including the cultures (Greece and Rome) that shaped most of the western world's cultures.

Prostitution is legal in all of western Europe, half of eastern Europe, the huge majority of South and Central America, Australia, New Zealand, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_by_region

Frank,
You are correct on prostitution. It is legal in many places. But is it "right"? I say no as it degrades woman and men to be objects used for the physical pleasure of another for money.

I see that as wrong on every measure, faith or lifestyle.

My point is legal does not equal ethical or right.

In the case of manipulated animals, I believe it is wrong to do this for the purpose of decoration or self aggrandizement.

If you hire a carpenter or plumber, does it degrade them to do what they do best? Either one may have had the potential to be a brain surgeon but time and light didn't shine on them so they are doing their best with what they have to work with. The fellow on the construction site operating a mexican drag line (shovel)may be working to his full potential so is he degraded because he is earning a living?
I couldn't get past your opening remarks. Early on, I thought "oh no, another holier than thou telling me how the perfect world should be" and as I finished reading your remarks, I realized that you had said nothing to change my mind. And so I abandoned you post.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Frank,
You are correct on prostitution. It is legal in many places. But is it "right"? I say no as it degrades woman and men to be objects used for the physical pleasure of another for money.

I see that as wrong on every measure, faith or lifestyle.

My point is legal does not equal ethical or right.

In the case of manipulated animals, I believe it is wrong to do this for the purpose of decoration or self aggrandizement.

Here is a better example to use than prostitution to illustrate what I believe Frank is getting at.

quote:

On raccoon fighting with dogs... that is barbaric. Chase a raccoon with dogs, run it up a trip, climb the tree to dislodge the raccoon so the dogs can tear it apart.... pathetic in my view and must be banned. It is not hunting, it is gladiatorial compact for animals and the raccoons get ripped to pieces. No place in our society for that.

I come from a family that have been hunters as far back as history can trace. They have also been houndsmen. I am proud of the ethical standards I was brought up with. I consider my family to be amongst the most ethical of hunters.

That said...every single member of my large ranching family would cringe if they read your statement above.

Why?

For one your statement illustrates ignorance of hound hunting, hound training, and what we believe to be fair chase methods...but you would advocate against their activity/heritage.

As a person who spends a great deal of their time and money advocating for hunting...I have to say my eyes got wide when I read it.

My personal definition of ethical hunting is that it is a practice widely accepted by the majority of hunters in a region.

Although I may disagree with something that is legal and locally "ethical," I can choose to participate or not.

I agree with Lane about hunting with hounds. In my humble opinion there is no purer form of hunting than following on horseback the hot trail of a mountain lion or black bear across some of North America's roughest terrain.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
I say no as it degrades woman and men to be objects used for the physical pleasure of another for money.

Right. It's kind of like some Americans with more wealth than Fort Knox who "degrade" certain African mammals as "objects" for the sheer physical pleasure of hunting them for money. Unlike prostitution, the above normally results in death, however

And then they concoct all sort of justifications to support their actions. It reminds me of the dumb line: "we kill them so they don't starve to death."

What beeman said! Your ethics may be yours and that is fine. BUT STAY OUT OF MINE.

Thus the age of postmodernism.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Frank,
You are correct on prostitution. It is legal in many places. But is it "right"? I say no as it degrades woman and men to be objects used for the physical pleasure of another for money.

I see that as wrong on every measure, faith or lifestyle.

My point is legal does not equal ethical or right.

In the case of manipulated animals, I believe it is wrong to do this for the purpose of decoration or self aggrandizement.

The point is that, you say "no". Many people equate prostitution as just another job just like hiring an entertainer, masseur or manicurist, there is nothing degrading about it in their culture. People hire entertainers to amuse them and a masseuse to make them feel better physically, how is that any different than a prostitute? People's concepts of right and wrong are products of their upbringing and very little if anything, that any individual considers right and wrong is universal.

On the subject of using animals for decoration and /or self aggrandizement. I go to Africa and kill animals, then I get their hides stuffed and mount them on the walls of my house purely for my own pleasure. People that I know are absolutely horrified that I do this and consider it unethical and immoral and would support any law banning such this, in a heartbeat. Should I live my life by their standard?

There are too many cultures and beliefs in the world and I learned a long time ago not to dictate my opinions as the only judgement for right and wrong. I have a lot of strong beliefs but making decisions for other adults on how to live their lives are not any of them. There are and should be laws made to protect the "innocent" (whether people or animals). It's just not my place to do the judging for what's moral or legal for and between consenting adults.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
If you hire a carpenter or plumber, does it degrade them to do what they do best? Either one may have had the potential to be a brain surgeon but time and light didn't shine on them so they are doing their best with what they have to work with. The fellow on the construction site operating a mexican drag line (shovel)may be working to his full potential so is he degraded because he is earning a living?
I couldn't get past your opening remarks. Early on, I thought "oh no, another holier than thou telling me how the perfect world should be" and as I finished reading your remarks, I realized that you had said nothing to change my mind. And so I abandoned you post.

I think that one of the issues that really hurts modern society is that people don't debate and discuss issues. Look at the modern snowflakes and their protests to shut down any speech that they disagree with.

When I was a teenager and the protest about the Vietnam war were going strong I can remember my Father railing against the "Hippies" but he never said that he didn't think that they should not be allowed to do anything legal and certainly never objected to their right to have their say.

That was a time when the phrase: "I don't agree with what you say but I'll fight to defend your right to say it". Sadly not listening to other's points of view or offering up constructive disagreement is a dying part of the modern debate process.

Nothing gets solved by not listening and not being engaged in the process, except that you don't get your opinion presented and considered by others and thus lose the opportunity to influence others to get your way.

Imagine this ethics change. I read a reprint article written by Jack O' in the Sports Afield, with in the last year, my subscription ran out. Anywho, Jack O'Connor and some of his buddies were in Mexico hunting deer. I will give you the basic "hunting" tactic.

"We saw some deer across the canyon 500+ yards away and opened up on them then spent the rest of the day making our way over to where we thought they were, and we found some occasionally." This is paraphrases but pretty much the gist of the story. Oh, and they did this day after day.

Man I wish I lived when hunting ethics were, Nobody gives a shit because hey they are animals.

Remember the good old days of Canadians clubbing seals. We have turned into a bunch of pussies.

Speaking of pussies, the "oldest profession" continues.

Ethics are for chumps, at least that what the evidence suggests.

quote:

Man I wished I live when hunting ethics were, Nobody gives a shit because hey they are animals.

Then your good old days are still here my brother. I've seen Inuit ride down pregnant muskox on snow machines then gun them down with 222 or 223 rifles, one after another or shoot 9 seals before they recover the 2 for dog food. They also chase down polar bears too and shoot them off snow machines, which you might like since they shoot the young, the females and the males. Hell they are just animals.

Good "Hunting".

So they don't have sarcasm where you're from?

Ethics requires a conscience. Just do the things in life that keeps your conscience happy. Killing a pet lion is kinda like stolen valor.

quote:

But is it "right"?

Dogcat, who will be put in charge of deciding what is Right or Wrong and how do you believe it will be enforced?

quote:

My personal definition of ethical hunting is that it is a practice widely accepted by the majority of hunters in a region.

Although I may disagree with something that is legal and locally "ethical," I can choose to participate or not.

Thank You Sir!

That is the answer I have been looking for. Ethics are NOT a group concept! They vary by region/state/country!

NONE of us are FORCED to do something We Do Not Want To Do!!!!!

I have never gave a thought or had any inclination to avail myself of the services of a Prostitute, but if that is what some one wants to do, It Is None Of MY Business.

One of the topics going on right now in the African Hunting topic area concerns how far from thre blind a Leopard bait should be placed.

I believe that it was Tony Mandile that asked, Why is baiting one species, in this case a Leopard, perfectly A-OK yet baiting a White tail deer isn't.

Why is one species more important than another? Why is it unethical to shoot a deer at a bait, but perfectly acceptable to shoot a Leopard at a bait????

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

My personal definition of ethical hunting is that it is a practice widely accepted by the majority of hunters in a region.

Although I may disagree with something that is legal and locally "ethical," I can choose to participate or not.

Thank You Sir!

That is the answer I have been looking for. Ethics are NOT a group concept! They vary by region/state/country!

NONE of us are FORCED to do something We Do Not Want To Do!!!!!

I have never gave a thought or had any inclination to avail myself of the services of a Prostitute, but if that is what some one wants to do, It Is None Of MY Business.

One of the topics going on right now in the African Hunting topic area concerns how far from thre blind a Leopard bait should be placed.

I believe that it was Tony Mandile that asked, Why is baiting one species, in this case a Leopard, perfectly A-OK yet baiting a White tail deer isn't.

Why is one species more important than another? Why is it unethical to shoot a deer at a bait, but perfectly acceptable to shoot a Leopard at a bait????

Randall,
I agree your point here 100%

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:

quote:

Man I wished I live when hunting ethics were, Nobody gives a shit because hey they are animals.

Then your good old days are still here my brother. I've seen Inuit ride down pregnant muskox on snow machines then gun them down with 222 or 223 rifles, one after another or shoot 9 seals before they recover the 2 for dog food. They also chase down polar bears too and shoot them off snow machines, which you might like since they shoot the young, the females and the males. Hell they are just animals.

Good "Hunting".

If I needed to kill something to survive I'd use every tactic known to mankind. I'd kill 'em wherever, whenever, however. Hunting for sport is another matter.

quote:

Originally posted by JGRaider:

quote:

Originally posted by Navaluk:

quote:

Man I wished I live when hunting ethics were, Nobody gives a shit because hey they are animals.

Then your good old days are still here my brother. I've seen Inuit ride down pregnant muskox on snow machines then gun them down with 222 or 223 rifles, one after another or shoot 9 seals before they recover the 2 for dog food. They also chase down polar bears too and shoot them off snow machines, which you might like since they shoot the young, the females and the males. Hell they are just animals.

Good "Hunting".

If I needed to kill something to survive I'd use every tactic known to mankind. I'd kill 'em wherever, whenever, however. Hunting for sport is another matter.

100%

quote:

If I needed to kill something to survive I'd use every tactic known to mankind. I'd kill 'em wherever, whenever, however. Hunting for sport is another matter.

And that statement explains the situation better than any I have seen, BECAUSE we do NOT have to kill anything to survive!

That is the FACT that is hurting hunters the most, we kill because we WANT to, our laws allow it and with some species the only reason we kill those animals is for a trophy!

That is the concept many, probably most non-hunters have a problem with. We are not killing these animals for food or to protect our families, we are killing them for our own personal gratfication.

It does not matter to those that want it stopped, how much money is spent that goes toward helping conserve these and other species, they do not care about that.

All they understand is that hunters are killing animals when there is No Real need for them to do such.

Ethics are like religion, deeply personal and one person’s beliefs should not necessarily be forced onto another.

I have a friend who doesn’t agree with hunting bear and lion with dogs, yet he enjoys quail hunting over his Setters.

I have another friend who’s personal believes are against trapping, yet she enjoys traditional fox hunting with hounds and horses.

I have yet another friend whoom I had seen with a different woman every time we met. It took me nearly a year to discover they were prostitutes. When I asked him about paying for sex he told me “You’ve got it all wrong. I’m not paying them for sex, I’m paying to leave after sex.” He went on to make his case for the fiscal aspect of it and it made perfect sense once explained it.

The commonality with my friends and their differing beliefs from my own is that none of us try to force our beliefs on the other person.

That is a damn good and accurate way of looking at things Tree'em.

quote:

It does not matter to those that want it stopped, how much money is spent that goes toward helping conserve these and other species, they do not care about that.

100% Randall.

They will freely tell you that they would rather ______ (insert any animal) go extinct rather than ever see one hunted.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

But is it "right"?

Dogcat, who will be put in charge of deciding what is Right or Wrong and how do you believe it will be enforced?

Excellent question - who? Either elected officials, professional wildlife managers, hunters?

Enforcement- wildlife officials as we currently enforce the laws.

When a law is violated - a judge and or jury decide the guilt.

As to Slim Buttes - ethics change with society. Most basic values do not. Ethics drive values as well. For instance, child sacrifice as practiced by peoples in long times past was "acceptable". Child sacrifice today is murder. Did ethics, values or a evolving awareness of right and wrong make these "legal" practices abhorrent to society?

Same goes for cock fighting or dog fighting or jousting or gladiatorial combat for entertainment.


My point is that if we do not raise our ethical standards to fair chase whereby the animal has a fair chance to escape and we, as the hunter, do not use methods that inhibit this standard - then society will set the laws for us.

That is how we got game laws to start with.

All of us have ethics - we approve of a football game played by the rules or an election unfettered by paying for votes. In some societies, rules are evolving, laws are unfair and the society may even approve of it. However, legal does not make something right.

Why not spread corn on a pasture, tie up a goose and allow it call for it's companions. Why is that illegal? Well, it is not fair chase and takes unfair advantage of a migrating goose needing food to continue the migration.

In the specific case of baiting deer to a timed feeder at preset times on a regular basis in order to get the deer to appear at a time when a hunter intends to shoot that deer. The deer are conditioned to come to the feeder as they are often in a limited size pasture unable to search for food in a natural way.

To me, and others, this is unethical and should be illegal. If not now, it likely will be in the future. It is not fair chase, it is not ethical, it violates the standards of reasonableness.

I am as pro hunting as anyone on this thread. I have committed thousands of dollars to various programs in DU, RMEF, Wild Sheep, Boone and Crockett and other groups. I do this with eyes wide open to what they do and how they spend the money. However, I am strongly anti-hunting when it comes to taking advantage of a contrived environment whereby animals are baited to a pre set site to be killed, raised in a cage, set loose and shot or hunted by means that an enlightened society of hunters find wrong.

I do not judge you but would ask you to look hard at your motives and personal moral compass.

Ethics matter....


PS - I get that many don't look at hunting this way. But maybe we should or at least examine ourselves as why we do what we do. If you cannot answer "why", maybe you or I should take a break from hunting to figure ourselves out.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

My personal definition of ethical hunting is that it is a practice widely accepted by the majority of hunters in a region.

Although I may disagree with something that is legal and locally "ethical," I can choose to participate or not.

Thank You Sir!

That is the answer I have been looking for. Ethics are NOT a group concept! They vary by region/state/country!

NONE of us are FORCED to do something We Do Not Want To Do!!!!!

I have never gave a thought or had any inclination to avail myself of the services of a Prostitute, but if that is what some one wants to do, It Is None Of MY Business.

One of the topics going on right now in the African Hunting topic area concerns how far from thre blind a Leopard bait should be placed.

I believe that it was Tony Mandile that asked, Why is baiting one species, in this case a Leopard, perfectly A-OK yet baiting a White tail deer isn't.

Why is one species more important than another? Why is it unethical to shoot a deer at a bait, but perfectly acceptable to shoot a Leopard at a bait????

Excellent question - deer being habituated to coming to a feeder at a set time in an enclosed pasture where the deer has limited options for food is one thing. A leopard coming to a bait is hit or miss. There is no habituating the leopard over time in a limited/enclosed pasture and a leopard more often than not does not come. the cat is not constrained to come.

For me, it is ethical to hunt leopards this way.

Is one species more important than another? Yes and no. That is another subject. In the eyes of a hunter, every game animal should be equal in how we hunt them.

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Thus the age of postmodernism.

You have said a lot in three words....

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

My personal definition of ethical hunting is that it is a practice widely accepted by the majority of hunters in a region.

Although I may disagree with something that is legal and locally "ethical," I can choose to participate or not.

Thank You Sir!

That is the answer I have been looking for. Ethics are NOT a group concept! They vary by region/state/country!

NONE of us are FORCED to do something We Do Not Want To Do!!!!!

I have never gave a thought or had any inclination to avail myself of the services of a Prostitute, but if that is what some one wants to do, It Is None Of MY Business.

One of the topics going on right now in the African Hunting topic area concerns how far from thre blind a Leopard bait should be placed.

I believe that it was Tony Mandile that asked, Why is baiting one species, in this case a Leopard, perfectly A-OK yet baiting a White tail deer isn't.

Why is one species more important than another? Why is it unethical to shoot a deer at a bait, but perfectly acceptable to shoot a Leopard at a bait????

Excellent question - deer being habituated to coming to a feeder at a set time in an enclosed pasture where the deer has limited options for food is one thing. A leopard coming to a bait is hit or miss. There is no habituating the leopard over time in a limited/enclosed pasture and a leopard more often than not does not come. the cat is not constrained to come.

For me, it is ethical to hunt leopards this way.

Is one species more important than another? Yes and no. That is another subject. In the eyes of a hunter, every game animal should be equal in how we hunt them.

Ross,
I would like to clarify something.

In open low-fenced country. Thousands of acres around. Hundreds of acres per pasture. Deer go freely where ever they wish.

A hunter chooses to have 5-10 comfy enclosed blinds around...each over looking a timed corn feeder with each having a game camera monitoring them.

In your opinion...should this practice be banned?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

My personal definition of ethical hunting is that it is a practice widely accepted by the majority of hunters in a region.

Although I may disagree with something that is legal and locally "ethical," I can choose to participate or not.

Thank You Sir!

That is the answer I have been looking for. Ethics are NOT a group concept! They vary by region/state/country!

NONE of us are FORCED to do something We Do Not Want To Do!!!!!

I have never gave a thought or had any inclination to avail myself of the services of a Prostitute, but if that is what some one wants to do, It Is None Of MY Business.

One of the topics going on right now in the African Hunting topic area concerns how far from thre blind a Leopard bait should be placed.

I believe that it was Tony Mandile that asked, Why is baiting one species, in this case a Leopard, perfectly A-OK yet baiting a White tail deer isn't.

Why is one species more important than another? Why is it unethical to shoot a deer at a bait, but perfectly acceptable to shoot a Leopard at a bait????

Excellent question - deer being habituated to coming to a feeder at a set time in an enclosed pasture where the deer has limited options for food is one thing. A leopard coming to a bait is hit or miss. There is no habituating the leopard over time in a limited/enclosed pasture and a leopard more often than not does not come. the cat is not constrained to come.

For me, it is ethical to hunt leopards this way.

Is one species more important than another? Yes and no. That is another subject. In the eyes of a hunter, every game animal should be equal in how we hunt them.

Ross,
I would like to clarify something.

In open low-fenced country. Thousands of acres around. Hundreds of acres per pasture. Deer go freely where ever they wish.

A hunter chooses to have 5-10 comfy enclosed blinds around...each over looking a timed corn feeder with each having a game camera monitoring them.

In your opinion...should this practice be banned?

And by the same token.....should you be able to pay a guide to do your scouting, haul your gear and lead you around to the likely areas?????? Or should you be able to pay someone to pack out your kill or fly you in to a remote area, I mean if you want to hunt way back where the big ones are, shouldn't you have to hump your way in?

The subject of stalking verses shooting, what are the parameters?

This is a slippery slope men, it needs to be handled very carefully.

.

Maybe the emphasis on some of these practices should not be to ban the practice as I do believe the horses have left the barn on a lot of this, but to try to reset the culture that discourages some of these practices that are currently legal but not palatable.

The problem with timed feeders (from my point of view)is that the native browse (unless there is something like a good acron crop) will not be able to prevent the deer from coming to the kill spot. The deer becomes habituated to forgo native browse and hit the feeder at prescribed times. I love it when there is a good acron crop going. I have seen folks who hunt over timed feeders now legal in KY on private land get very upset with a good acron crop. The deer go to where the best food is. In addition, I have had non hunters tell me many times they do not mind hunting, but it is wrong to bait. Add that need to come to the corn with a sealed blind and sent killing gadget preventing the deer from smelling you and the deer does not have a chance to elude a hunter. It is the bait that looses them. Not hating anyone or attacking anyone. I am simply explaining my objection to the practice.

For examples, maybe remove time feeders or set some stands that are not overlooking a timed feeder, but is covering a rub line, scrape line, or trails coming out of bedding areas. Or improve habitat so that you do not need timed feeders. I understand there maybe only so much that will grow in Texas thorn country or Georgia pine forest but I would like to see folks make that decision. Let it be okay if a deer does not get as big or heaven forbid a client understands he could go home with his tag in his pocket.


Maybe leave the space heater at camp.

Hunt coons with dogs. I love to also. Maybe shoot coon out of the tree. I would not want my dogs chewed on by a coon, and there is the disease risk. Leave the Ozonics on the shelf, if we buy them they will make the, if we do not they want make them.

Our hunting media instead of focusing on high fence hunting and baiting (as someone said Ted Nuggets Spirt of the Timed Feeder) and idiotic behavior focus shows that teach why host is putting a stand in a certain spot, what is the density and age structure of deer hunted. If a bad shot is made show it and tells us why the shot went bad or why a shot was a good shot. Explaination of how to acess a certain piece of public land if the episode is a public land hunt.

Be responsible for what you kill on your property. For example our farm is 500acres, but we have roughly 9 residents does. There is no way I could justifiable kill a doe on this property regardless what the law says. But drive to Trigg County and a 100 acres may very well have 20 does on it

The one explanation for high fence I cannot stand which underscores the farming aspect of high fence on those operations who use this justification, “We do not use the fence to keep them in, but to others out.” Let the deer move and breed freely. It should not matter if a “lessor” deer breeds. If he can fight off other bucks and chase down a doe he deserves to breed.

What we have know is hunting shows promoting baiting deer, promoting canned lion hunting (with no hint to the uneducated viewer that the hunt is canned), promoting shooting game from vehicles. I watched a show last weekend. The host went out of his way to justify baiting. I thought the justification was weak, and guess what on day three the buck showed up to but his head under the feeder. So, ok do not ban timed feeders, but do not promote it either.

One thing I cannot accept is the pen raised, artificial/genetic insimulatiin of deer. Wildlife, the game we pursue are not race horses.

Maybe do not advocate the banning of pen raised, put and take shooting, but do not allow such operations on hunting media or to sell at the Shows.

I wil, give Crazyhorse camp this. Two verses come to my mind when I think on their position. 1) as for me and my house I will serve the Lord. 2) Work about our own salvation in fear in trembling.

Why do I not identify with that camp. Because we regulate all activities. The law is destined to prevent a lowest common denominator. A just man needs no law, but most men need law. We are judged by our lowest actors who engage in hunting non hunting the public that is a fact. Finally and most importantly an animal we set out to kill requires and deserves that we do so with respect and humility.

I do not know how well this articulation has been. But, I tried.

Two words keep coming up in these type discussions, and are very interrelated. Sport and trophy, and I think a thoughtful consideration of them and what they mean to an individual are a guide to ones opinion on ethics.

Sport is why most of us hunt. We're not doing it as the sole way to feed our families. We're also not taking our kill to market. We're doing it for the enjoyment, using our skill and smarts to overcome the defenses of the animals, fulfilling an instinct, and enjoying the great outdoors. If you are doing something "unsporting" or "unethical" even if no one else is around you're cheating yourself out of the experience.

As for "trophy" that's historically a reward for doing well, a sign of accomplishment. In hunting a trophy animal has meant one that had larger horns or antlers, or was particularly large showing signs of being older, and presumably wiser and harder to get. As such it was representative of the hunter's skill effort and perseverance to get such a wise old king of the forest, or at least the dumb luck to be in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately today there has been the rise of the "participation trophy" and everyone involved gets one, cheapening the whole idea of a trophy.

Once again doing things unethically or unsportsmanlike to get such a trophy robs one of the experience to get it, and cheapens the trophy. Also unfortunately this could potentially happen to the hunter without his knowledge with unscrupulous outfitters: put and take, selective breeding, high fence on a property smaller than represented.

Just as an aside to kinda break the mood, I've lived in VA, TN, Ok, WVA most of my life. And there were coon hunters in all of these places. Other than on a Jerry Clower comedy record, I have never heard of anyone stupid enough to climb into a tree with a coon.

quote:

Originally posted by cable68:

As for "trophy" that's historically a reward for doing well, a sign of accomplishment. In hunting a trophy animal has meant one that had larger horns or antlers, or was particularly large showing signs of being older, and presumably wiser and harder to get. As such it was representative of the hunter's skill effort and perseverance to get such a wise old king of the forest, or at least the dumb luck to be in the right place at the right time. Unfortunately today there has been the rise of the "participation trophy" and everyone involved gets one, cheapening the whole idea of a trophy.

I think what defines a "trophy" is what it means to you. I have a friend that had a 2# bass mounted 'cause it was the first one he'd caught. My son killed a little 2x2 buck deer, his first. Tell me we didn't have to sew the buttons back on his shirt. I did a nice european mount of the antlers with a plaque giving where and when. He's a grown man now but that little rack sits proudly in the middle of his trophy wall.

quote:

his first

Having watched a dozen plus kids take their first deer it doesn't matter if it is a fawn or big buck.

They all have had big smiles and fast heart rates.

That is because we focus on the hunt not the size of the deer.

There is a lot of back slapping and concrats for any deer taken.

We like to eat deer.

I watched my son at age 12 come across about 500 yards of field after his first bow kill a small 5 pointer.

You would have though he was flying listening to him tell the story you would have thought it was the next world record.

I have killed well over 200 deer the last one was on a very nasty snowy day two guys in their 60s who have hundreds of deer under their belts.

My partner took up the track I took up the stand my partner had the deer figure 8 on him 2 times in about 2 aces of brush.

Where one couldn't see 10 feet because of snow hanging on the brush. The deer popped out right where I though stopped about 60 yards away.

At the shot from my muzzle loader it dropped in it tracks.

My partner showed up a couple minutes later totally cover in snow.

We had a good talk and laugh about him being a snow man and how the deer back track and stayed in the brush.

Both of us were very happy about putting meat in the freezer.

The worst thing IMHO is worrying about size with a first time hunter and not the hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
Just as an aside to kinda break the mood, I've lived in VA, TN, Ok, WVA most of my life. And there were coon hunters in all of these places. Other than on a Jerry Clower comedy record, I have never heard of anyone stupid enough to climb into a tree with a coon.

Sir,
Not being argumentative but just rectifying the truth here.

The above IS done all the time. When I was age 10-21...it was my job if hunting with my uncles, Dad, and Grandpa.

I have climbed 100’s of trees with live coons in them.

I have not read all of this. I did read the opening post. The thing the author quoted misses a very significant point that, at least in my mind, has had a very detrimental impact on the number of hunters visiting the RSA. This issue is SAFETY.

Look at the violence in and just outside of OR Tambo. Look at the farm murders. Look at songs in the RSA where POLITICIANS are singing about killing the whites.

Considering the above, why would anyone want to go? We went last year to Sun City. I hired armed body guards to escort us to and from Sun City. Talk to them and some eye opening stories will be told.

I have hunted the RSA a few times. Some was absolutely fair chase. I would go again There are other places where I cringed at what I saw. In one place, I refused to shoot.

Seems like only whiteys are held to high standard of ethics
“ Natives “ around the world use everything else that anyone else would be horrified to see
Prime example is Indian Reservations here in Montana - seasons? All year long
Preferred way to hunt? Shooting at anything from pickup bed while drunk

And No, I’m not kidding as it is sad and awful regular practice

quote:

I think what defines a "trophy" is what it means to you.

To me, a trophy is anything that I can back the pick up next to and load!

I started hunting elk in 1992 and finally killed a bull in 1997.

Im made 4 hunts during that 5 year time frame and even though I had killed a couple of cow elk, but I was in on the dragging and loading of 2 to 3 bulls each hunt that other hunters had killed, and I never saw a bull that was killed Uphill from the closest place to get a vehicle, they were all in holes and had to be drug uphill.

After I shot that bull I went to putting into the draw for late season cow elk and a big cow out in a hay meadow that you can drive iuop to and load is damn sure a Trophy in my book.

On the subject of times feeders, sure they bring deer to the feeders. Mostly does and young bucks. It does get them to travel to the area.

Around here, one will rarely see a mature buck around a feeder. They "scent" the feeder and move on if a doe is not around. We hunt away from the feeders especially later in the season.

quote:

Seems like only whiteys are held to high standard of ethics

Interesting assessment Milan. I killed my first deer in 1970, at that time, even though it was only a smallish eight point, but it was a decent buck by the standards in effect at that time.

Then came the mid to late 1980's and Buckmaster and Texas Trophy Hunters Association turned a pleasant enjoyable family activity into a Highly Competitive "SPORT" where the size of the rack was the goal and the amount spent to get that rack just added to glory.

Americans as a group thrive on competition.