Much debate about ethics, ie;
shooting from vehicles, aircraft, spotlighting, shooting versus hunting,penned animals, etc.

Some dont like the idea of assistance from aircraft or the idea of shooting from them.
Do those same guys have a problem with someone shooting from their:
1/ mountain bike?
2/ horse?
3/car,truck,motorbike,snow mobile?
4/ canoeing or motoring down a river?

Do you believe one should demount from all devices at a certain distance and implement a stalk?
If so, at what distance should you demount if possible?

Would not floating down a river silently, be a stalk in itself? Or do you deem it unfair?
Using a mountain bike as your rest,do you see that as any different to using tree,termite mound,shooting sticks,horseback,or vehicle roll bar/hood?
Do you use binoculars to locate and size game? presumably to save time,and avoid wasted treking effort, right? Is that not what some use helis for? what makes your method more ethical?

Do you have a distance or condition that you deem ethical to take a shot from to determine whether it is shooting or hunting? what reasoning do you use to accertain that it becomes ethical to you?

If you soley hunted with a 7x57/6xscope to 150yds for your own ethical reasons, then you spot a big beast that requires you to go outside your std, and use your hunting partners 340WM/4.5-14x scope to confidently bag it at 300,350yds?, and when you get home you say to yourself, I just had to step outside my usual circle, it was just too good to pass up, so it becomes justified.
Can not the same reasoning be made for the guy who usually hunts 99% on foot, but decides to use a chopper to drop him closer,cause a shot on a particular game animal in a particular situation is not otherwise possible at that time?
Have any of you who dislike the idea of close drop off by Heli, ever taken Leopard over a bait/blind?
How does that really differ?,you are employing what ever techniques necessary to get what you want, as much as the guy is using a chopper too obtain his desire in shorter time, are you not? Would you be happy to instead take the chance of running into a Leopard under other circumstances, no matter how rare those circumstances may be? if not, why not?
Is it skill,challenge,luck/chance that you wish to test, or just accumulate a body count/species collection for the trophy room wall?

Is dangerous game hunting as dangerous as you like to think it is?
Would you prefer not to have the PH backing you up for a more true & testing experience?

If you were dropped off in an extremely remote wilderness area cabin that is rarely used, with the game in the area never having been shot at or had human contact,and when you got up in the morning to go out and cut some firewood, you spotted a trophy moose to your liking at 150yd, would you take the shot from the porch or doorway, using part of the building as your steady?
Would you feel cheated of a challenging hunt?
Would you feel more ethical if you stepped off the porch to take the shot? If so, how far would you have to go from the cabin to feel good about yourself?
If you were in the same area,but stepped out after a sleep, from a tent,truck, or chopper instead, would you see that as different to the cabin?
Would your decisions be any different if you were shooting for meat instead of a trophy?
Is it actually hunting or shooting?
Would you ignore him and go and have breakfast, then hope when you go back out with your gun for the day, that he may still be there or some where nearby?
What if when you set out with your rifle after breakfast, he was now only 50yds from your cabin?
Would you feel better if you took 5hrs to find him gain, some two or more mile away?
What if when you set out after breakfast he was no longer visable, and after a hard days slog, you make your way back to the cabin to find him nearby again, would you shoot him then?
What if after that first sighting you passed him up cause you felt it was unsporting, then after two weeks of hard hunting you find no other animal,or no other worthy animal, but on the last day of your stay,you find him close to your cabin again, would you feel more compelled to shoot him? Why would you feel more compelled?
If its a desire not to go home empty handed that makes you shoot him,then you could have fullfilled that desire two weeks ago,..so why the delay?

Is that any different to taking him when you first saw him that morning from the porch,some two weeks ago? have you changed your perception to compensate for your frustration,or to accomodate/justify your new level of desire? or are you just acknowledging that your instincts that were telling you to take that first oportunity, were ok?

Do you find the fact that the animal does not have the same awareness of hunters than animals that have been hunted, something that you would use to to your advantage in persuit of him?
What if you had an animal that was well aware of hunters,and he kept outfoxing you time after time, would that make you frustrated and angry,compelling you to shoot an easier animal, or would that elusive animal be enjoyable and make you grin?
Would you be more determined to bag it, or would you have more respect for it, hoping to be tested again?

Do you conceed that hunting as a hobby-passtime is different to the pressures,demands of hunting/guiding for a living? and that the held morals of your circumstance, are not necessarily and/or sensibly, totally applicable to anothers circumstance?

In my view ethical hunting requires the quick sure kill of the animal- while allowing the animal a chance to detect and get away from the hunter.
An animal in a 1 acre corral doesn't have the chance to get away, so it isn't hunting it is just harvesting.
As the fenced in area gets bigger and the animal gets a chance to escape the hunter, it changes from harvesting to hunting. Obviously the amount of land required changes from person to person, someone in a wheel chair or with a heart condition is much easier for an animal to evade than a young man in good physical condition; but all should be allowed to hunt if they desire.
As far as using mechanical means to get to the animal, I'm not going to try to hike and swim or paddle my way from the U.S. to New Zealand. I do think that the object of the hunt should be a well aimed shot at an animal that is fairly still if at all possible. Intending your "hunt" to be roaring up on a snow mobile or in a 4x4 or helicopter to blast away at a bunch of running animals hoping that you might hit something to me isn't ethical hunting. Using mechanical means to get to where you can do a stalk on an animal that isn't aware that you are there is ok. Whether the stalk is two feet or 2 miles long I guess depends on the circumstances of the hunt. Some animals let you get closer than others, some terrain allows you to get closer than other kinds of terrain. But that is the goal of a hunt - get close to an animal for a well placed shot for a quick kill.
A long distance shot or a shot at a running animal depends on the skill level of the hunter - if it's luck you hit the animal it wasn't an ethical shot. I read a magazine article on hunting Moose (I guess they call them Elk) in one of the Scandinavian countries where you had to prove that you could get multiple fatal hits on a moving animal before you could get your license. The shooting ranges were equipped with full size moving targets for the hunters to practice and certify this. I don't have the skill to KNOW I can hit a running animal in a quickly fatal location, so it wouldn't be ethical for me to take that shot or go on that kind of hunt. I don't KNOW I could hit an animal at 300 yards using my rifles (1886 Winchester in 45-70 and a Krag sporter with receiver peep sight), so I don't even consider taking that long of a shot. Everyone has to decide the ethics of a shot on their own, considering their own skill level. It upsets me that some people don't consider their skill levels accurately before taking a shot, but thats life.

I was thinking about the subject today.

Would someone in Scotland accept shooting a stag from the door of a chopper find it acceptable?

Many hunters love to hunt the red highland stags.

Would an Austrian hunter use a chopper to shoot a chamois in the Alps?

I think it might be the last time they ever shot anything under their hunting licence again, as it would almost certainly be cancelled.

Still lots of guys still venture to both of these places to hunt the magnificent wildlife of both places.

Would an Alaskan outfitter keep his licence or would the client be charged for an offence after allowing spotting of game from the airplane during the fly in?

Ha, I took this example straight from an actual hunt. The fact the game animal shot was spotted on the fly into camp and hunted and shot the same day AND the client wrote about it in an Australian hunting magazine story, got him a summons from the Alaskan game authorities. As they read the magazine article. As I believe it is not permitted to hunt the same day as flying into camp for exactly the reason that spotting game from the air is considered un-sporting in Alaska.

The only difference is it is legal in Australia and New Zealand as the rule is, basically almost anything goes.

***

Another example, an Aussie one.

An Australian outfitter runs deer hunting 'safaris'. He takes his clients out after a stag or stags on a fairly large high fenced property. But if the client isn't happy with the size of the stags or is unable to connect with one, he has a ten acre paddock with a variety of big stags being 'grown' as trophies. A quick detour on the way back to the airport and probably lots of extra $$$ and the happy 'hunter' has his bragging buck to hang on the wall to show his hunting mates. Cleverly positioned the photos probably don't even need to show the high fence behind in the ten acre deer farm paddock.

NZ unfortunately treats our game animals as pests so there is no legislation to protect them like in the Austrian Alps, also NZ dollar is good value for tourists wanting to shoot game.

This isnt a good mix as they can have a free-for-all.

Chamios are treasured in Austria and I am picking I would need to remortgage my house to shoot one over there.

This is a little like the ethical debate on rescuing climbers that blew up following Mark Ingles Everest ascent.

Have your really climbed a mountain unless you started from sea level?

There are so may different attitudes/ethics around. The debates about long distance hunting (what is long distance?) or using Sierra Matchkings as hunting bullets are similar.

There was a huge debate on Sierra Matchkings on another forum, which went on for pages and basically ended going nowhere as it ended up being an argument between posters with entrenched views based on thier experience with the bullet.

Using dogs is another one. Pig hunting with dogs is common, some people use dogs for deer as well.

I prefer the word "sporting" to ethical. I think it more accurately describes what some of the debates are about.

Some thoughts:

eg it is almost universally believed it is not "ethical" to create un-necessary pain when hunting a beast.

It is also very "un-ethical" not to try to finish off a wounded beast.

It would be "un-ethical" to shoot a female animal which had a young at foot which could not feed itself. Unless it was generally accepted that if doing so, it was proper to also despatch the young as well.

But it is hard not to argue it is not less "sporting" to eg shoot an animal from a vehicle compared to hunting on foot.

Or to hunt a kudu in Africa by sitting in a tower over a waterhole. Definitely less "sporting" than tracking one down. Is it ethical or not? I have no idea.

I have done both, some would argue the impala I shot from a waterhole as being very un-sporting. BUT on the high fenced property I hunted, the game was very skittish and didn't stand around at all if they had spotted you or heard you or your vehicle. Almost all of my other African hunts were on free range properties or very large conservancies (fenced by law due to the elephant, rhino and buffalo populations in 'ranch' country). These hunts were actually easier as the game was no where near as hard hunted every day during the season.

Also almost everyone would agree that it is far more "sporting" to use a bow than a rifle. Still both are probably acceptable tools in most circumstances.

Ethics to me come into play if for example using less "sporting" methods threatens a species or a population of a game species.

Or eg whether the hunter will admit to what they actually did (see next post).

Maybe semantics to some extent but there is a clear distinction to "ethics" and "sportingness" in my vocubulary.

Legality is one thing, but only do what you are personally willing to ADMIT to doing IMO.

I think there is a clear test to discover whether a hunter personally finds something ethical or not.

Will the hunter admit to using the method, or circumstance of the hunt, after the event?

Or will they lie or not tell the whole truth as to what the true circumstances were later on when describing the hunt, or how the 'trophy' was taken!

A pretty easy and insiteful test in my opinion.

NitroX, excellent response. And people who take an animal under un-sporting like circumstances and then hang the mount for others to see and are less than truthful about how the animal was taken--they must live with that reminder of their shame whenever they see it.

Ethics are like religion.choose your own , but don't expect everyone else to share the same belief. I don't abide by illegal practises,but I don't care how you bag your game beyond that.If the law allows it , go right ahead or don't , just don't be judgemental of others who do things differently.
I used to own a Flyfishing shop. Alot of my customers thought that the taking of a trout on anything less than a fly was a flogging offence. The funny thing is that very few people started fishing with a fly. My regular fishing partner often brought his father along. We headed up stream with the fly, the father fished down using lures or bait.How unethical!
I've also lost count of the game, Goats ,pigs etc that I've shot from the car on my way to the fishing.Yes, from the car,because the farmer wanted these things shot and fair chase etc was not part of the equation.
In summary if the laws allows it,by all means go ahead, let fly with both barrels and to hell with anyone who tells you otherwise.
rob

It is now illegal shoot waterfowl within 200 meters of water over 3 meters wide here in New Zealand with lead shot,so if i did shoot ducks with lead on a lake,do you see this as unethical????

Fish&game only changed the law to keep our left,UN brown nosing governemnt happy

quote:

Originally posted by TOP_PREDATOR:
It is now illegal shoot waterfowl within 200 meters of water over 3 meters wide here in New Zealand with lead shot,so if i did shoot ducks with lead on a lake,do you see this as unethical????

Fish&game only changed the law to keep our left,UN brown nosing governemnt happy

The dreaded PC "lead shot" brigade strike again.

I wonder how much these scientific clowns actually do studies right at home rather than rely on foreign studies.

I rely the steel shot and have a small dwindling supply of bismuth.

Nitro,

I reckon your 'test' is a really good one, and I know a few people who wouldn't pass that 'test'.

From my perspective, I've always held that what is 'ethical' isn't about what is 'wrong' or 'right' (that's morality) but rather a query that tries to determine which is the better course between two 'right' actions.

Allow me to elaborate... I recently went goat hunting - after a long days hunt, I stalked and worked my way to within about 30 metres of a small mob of billys, one of which had a pretty good set of horns... the mob had no idea I was there, and I could have picked any one of them off from about 100m... I became so engrossed with stalking that the stalk itself became more important than the kill... at the end, the biggest billy actually started walking towards me to figure out what what I was. I put my rifle to my shoulder, quietly said 'bang', put the rifle down, and took a few pics.

To me, shooting that billy would have been unethical - I didn't 'need' to kill it... had it been my son in that situation, I would have congratulated him on taking a fine animal...

Same situation, different viewpoint - I've nailed my share of goats, he is still on the 'learning curve'...

Dunno if that makes sense, but I hope it helps...

Very insightful gents. Makes one think, which is after all, the idea. One point that I'd like to make that may or may not have relevance anywhere else (other than the USA) is the issue of "ethics" as an anti-hunting tool.

The bunny-huggers are getting very smart in the states, they realize that a frontal attack isn't going to work, still too many hunters. Task number one; reduce the number of hunters. How? Foremost, access to public lands. Not by closing them to hunting but by making them "wilderness" areas where no motorized transport is allowed. In my country north of Yellowstone Park much of the land was open to ATV access, though only hunters actually utilized that access much. Now some of those areas are scheduled to be closed off, horse or foot access only. Foot access hunting to those areas, though possible, is brutal. Few people can afford the time, one to two days walk just ot get to the area. And the "waste of meat" game laws make it impossible to retrieve game shot during early season without spoilage, unethical behavior. This leaves only horses, reality check, very few people can afford to keep horses or even rent them for long trips. Result great hunting for those that can still get there, mostly guided non-residents with money. So, the locals quit, get angry, the anti's start a petition to ban hunting with dogs or with bows or whatever, it passes beacuse the ex-hunter locals may not hunt any more but they are the only ones that are allowed to vote in state elections.

Remember that the anti-hunting groups take the long view, their goal is to end sport hunting EVENTUALLY, not tomorrow, not next year or even ten years, but eventually and forever.

So remember the next time someone says that " such and such" is an unethical hunting practice to think about it. Is it unethical? Or is it just a way of limiting hunter access to healthy game populations that need no further protection? Is it a way to pit one group of hunters against another? (The old bow hunters just wound game BS) When do so called fair chase considerations cease to even the playing field and make it impossible for the hunter to ever succeed?

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
Much debate about ethics, ie;
shooting from vehicles, aircraft, spotlighting, shooting versus hunting,penned animals, etc.

Some dont like the idea of assistance from aircraft or the idea of shooting from them.
Do those same guys have a problem with someone shooting from their:
1/ mountain bike?
2/ horse?
3/car,truck,motorbike,snow mobile?
4/ canoeing or motoring down a river?

Do you believe one should demount from all devices at a certain distance and implement a stalk?
If so, at what distance should you demount if possible?

You can shoot from the back of any horse. Once.

It's generally a good idea to dismount before you shoot, and it has nothing to do with ethics. But if we're going to define ethical as "anything that increases the level of danger or difficulty for the hunter," then by all means shoot off the back of one.