Killing conundrum

[Husqvarna]

not written in our laws but as a hunter over here you are almost obligated to dispatch it. I am a designated tracker for game involved in accidents.

I once got stuck in a cue due to an accident further up on the road. and the phone rings. turns out there was a moose hit by a semi and that was the reason for the cue. the cops and fireman were mighty surprised when I just strolled up on the freeway

Didn't have a rifle/shotgun with me, not even a knife, regardless I wouldn't want to wrestle a bullmoose like some teddy roosevelt so I asked the cop if I should strangle it or if I could borrow his firearm, he looked at me for so long but finally let me

 

[buck460XVR]

given this definition of ethics, I think there is a common set of hunting ethics that everyone agrees to, even though our personal morals might differ greatly.

If there really "is a common set of hunting ethics that everyone agrees to" there would be no legitimate reason to have laws and regulations. If ethics were really agreed on by all hunters why would there be so much division among hunters over the ethics of baiting, shooting captive animals behind high fences, use of dogs for deer, etc, even tho the use of all, are legal in many parts of the country? No our ethics are personal, and when it comes to hunting they are generally set by ourselves and influenced by those that are personal to us....Fathers, Grandfathers, brothers, friends and other hunting mentors/partners. Many times our ethics will change as those around us change. Unlike our morals. If one group of hunting friends does not think ground swatting gamebirds is ethical, then we probably won't either. Next week we may be out with other friends at a game farm shooting released birds and swatting them before they run into someone else's field is acceptable. This is unlike "workplace ethics" which are company policy set by others and does not change.

We can argue all day over what our definition of what is ethical, or if it's ethics or morals. My point was to know for sure that what you are doing is legal or not and what the consequences may be if it is not, before you do it. Otherwise your argument may be with a judge.

 

[Pahoo]

We all have a personal Hunting Code !!!

I think there is a common set of hunting ethics that everyone agrees to

We all have a personal hunting code and even though some elements are common to all of us, they differ greatly. When I state that "We All" have a personal hunting code, I mean every human being. Even the anti-hunting group has a personal hunting code; They don't hunt. That is probably on the low end of the spectrum and the opposite end might be; "If it swims. runs or flies, it dies". Frankly some personal hunting codes are unethical. Even though I teach that a good foundation for one's hunting code is to obey "all" listed hunting laws, I have to admit that I stray and would, depending on the situation, like dispatching a wounded animal. Example, I once came across a wounded hen Pheasant. I tried to get it to flush and as it rolled over, saw that is was loaded with maggots. Nuff said. ......

Be ethical and;
Be Safe !!!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have seen several deer operating fine on three legs over the years. Not sure whether it was from a car or poor shot.

Back in the 90s, I was doing a paper on animal pathologies and came across a British study on deer killed in that country. Sometime like 10% of the dead deer recovered for analysis showed skeletal evidence of having been hit previously, healed (at least partially) and were subsequently hit at a later date. Some had well healed fractures.

 

[Buzzard Bait]

I saw

I saw a three legged deer in the wild that had been that way long enough that it was healed

 

[tahunua001]

If there really "is a common set of hunting ethics that everyone agrees to" there would be no legitimate reason to have laws and regulations. If ethics were really agreed on by all hunters why would there be so much division among hunters over the ethics of baiting, shooting captive animals behind high fences, use of dogs for deer, etc, even tho the use of all, are legal in many parts of the country? No our ethics are personal, and when it comes to hunting they are generally set by ourselves and influenced by those that are personal to us....Fathers, Grandfathers, brothers, friends and other hunting mentors/partners. Many times our ethics will change as those around us change. Unlike our morals. If one group of hunting friends does not think ground swatting gamebirds is ethical, then we probably won't either. Next week we may be out with other friends at a game farm shooting released birds and swatting them before they run into someone else's field is acceptable. This is unlike "workplace ethics" which are company policy set by others and does not change.

sighs... ok lets just go off the dictionary then.
Ethics...

Definition of ethic
1 ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values
b ethics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group
c : a guiding philosophy
d : a consciousness of moral importance
3 ethics plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness)

moral

Definition of moral
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
e : capable of right and wrong action
2: probable though not proved : virtual
3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect

you just got it completely backwards. ethics are for groups of people, morals are for individuals. you said it yourself. if your friends don't like something, you probably don't like it either, that's ethics, if you don't like it despite everyone else liking it, that's ethics. you might also consider ethics as acting on moral grounds, while morals are your beliefs that drive your actions. either way, ethics are not unique to each individual, morals are. as for there being no legitimate reason for laws and regulations, there are plenty of people out there now who feel that there is no real legitimate reason as it is. again, ethics and laws have nothing to do with it. there are still laws on the books in some places that state that you can beat your wife on sundays, while in my city where I currently live there is a law on the books that says I can't walk my elephant without a leash. laws do not have any bearing on ethics.

 

[Pahoo]

Personal Hunting Code

Personal Hunting Code;
Doing your best, in your own best ways, when no mortal is watching.


Be Safe !!!

 

[buck460XVR]

you just got it completely backwards. ethics are for groups of people, morals are for individuals.

I don't see that stated anywhere in the definitions you have provided. Rather I see this, and this contradicts your argument.....

Definition of ethic:
the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group

Then there is this....

Definition of moral
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical

So according to the definition you have provided, morals=ethics. IOWs, Not enough difference to argue about.

laws do not have any bearing on ethics.

I never said laws were ethical, as a matter of fact, I said just the opposite quite a while back in a previous post.

Comes down to the fact that what is ethical, is not always legal and vice-versa.

Again, I am not the one who wants to argue someone's definition of ethics vs morals or anyone's particular ethics/morals. My point is and always has been, one needs to know the law and it's consequences if the law does not agree with your ethics.

 

[Art Eatman]

"...one needs to know the law and it's consequences if the law does not agree with your ethics."

Good summary comment.