"Hunting" Definition?

the problems with ethics in hunting is that they are not set by the ones hunting.

we cannot bait bear here but that is the best way to distinguish a solitary bear from one with cubs.:(
 
When you say you are going hunting and whoever you tell knows you are going hunting then the purpose of the word has been fulfilled.

Now, if you say you are going hunting and they say which course, or what floor, or I hear they have good crab cakes, then some more explanation could be necessary.
 
Originally posted by Husqvarna:

the problems with ethics in hunting is that they are not set by the ones hunting.

we cannot bait bear here but that is the best way to distinguish a solitary bear from one with cubs.
Click to expand...

Ethics are set by the individual hunting. If you do not bait bears because you do not feel it's a proper way to hunt bear, but are allowed to legally, it's ethics. If you cannot bait bears, because of a law or regulation, it's not ethics. Big difference.
 
I've hunted baited bears and planted pheasants as well as just about everything else under "normal" hunting conditions.

To me, ethics involve following the rules in your area. You might think baiting bears is unethical. I don't, when I'm hunting in Maine where most of your competition is also hunting over bait. I've known a few people who have baited bears here in NY. That, to me, is not ethical, because it's illegal and doing so removes the level playing field.

Illegal isn't always unethical, but it very often is.

Legal isn't always ethical, but it generally tends to be.
 
Using a bow to harvest a deer is hunting to me, a rifle is hunting also, Just not quite exciting JMO ; )
Y/D
 
Last edited:
Legal isn't always ethical, but it generally tends to be.
Click to expand...

I think this goes to Husquevarna's point. I would call it "imposed ethics" that come by allowing non-hunters to vote on feel good measures to limit hunters opportunities. Joe Public has no business participating in the decision making that the Game and Fish are experts at.
 
Joe Public has no business participating in the decision making that the Game and Fish are experts at.
Click to expand...

I could not more strongly disagree.

The apathy of the public, (due to the twin daggers to the heart that are the beliefs that "the Government knows best" and "You can't fight City Hall.") is the primary problem with this country....
 
Disagree all you want, this is America - it's what we do. :)

All I am saying is that G&F biologist are waaay more qualified to assess herd conditions than anyone. If anyone thinks they know better, they should be employed by the state. There is nothing political about hunting and managing game, until the PC police get involved or there is financial gain in play. I tend to be optomistic and believe - at least in my state - G&F have the best interest of both the hunter and the hunted in mind and not the special interest groups.

Should politicians listen to arguments on matters issued by their constituents? Absolutely. We have been fighting a preference point system in this state (WY) for a few years now. I have expressed my opinions and concerns to both Senators and Representatives on this. Do I want non hunters weighing in on the outcome? Absolutely not! The obamacare guru said "American voters are stupid". As much as I hate obamacare and the condescending comments by Gruber, I think he is partially right - inasmuchas some voters make decisions based on their feelings and not on fact. That is not good for game management.

Feel gooders want to make everything right in the world. "It is so sad Yellowstone does not have any wolves". "Leg traps are cruel". "There is so much blood on the ice when they bludgeon those nice fur seals". "Cougers are so misunderstood". "Using hounds and baiting bears is so unfair".

Feel good voters do not feel the impact of loss of jobs, freedom or way of life when they impose their ethics on "hunters". Keep 'em in the city and feed them at McDonalds and Applebees. Give them coolaid whenever possible...
 
Brad, if the most powerful Government in everyones' lives, yours and mine, were our local governments ..... we'd be way better off. But such is not the case. The Feelgooders need to, along most other people MTOB..... you seem to think an appointed bureaucrat (your Game and Fish "Expert") would be more responsive to the needs of you and the game ..... I think they are less: Politicians come and go, and on a 2 to 6 year schedule, but there is nothing closer to eternal life here on this earth than a Bureaucracy: You can bet dollars to doughnuts and eat steak dinners on the outcome that the people that run the "Game and Fish" care more for their "Game and Fish" carreers and budgets than any of the game or fish involved. Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy is unbreakable in the long run.
 
G&F Biologists are not elected officials. I am not calling them politicians, you are. I am comparing an educated conservationist with normal folks who take for granted that politicians know whats best for me and my hunting preference. There will always be career first "yes" men and bean counters that ask for treadmill shrimp funding. We have to hold them accountable when they conduct themselves impoperly.

I think we are beating the same horse...
 
read my posts...
Let me make it easy for you...
You might understand...

Bob, I am sure you do not mean to sound condescending, but you do.

I tried to find common ground, but you want nit pick over trivial semantics so far removed from the topic, I have no idea how we got here.

Kudos
 
I would call it "imposed ethics" that come by allowing non-hunters to vote on feel good measures to limit hunters opportunities. Joe Public has no business participating in the decision making that the Game and Fish are experts at.
Click to expand...

Thing is, wild game belongs to Joe Public, just as much as it belongs to hunters. There are land owners that enjoy the wildlife on their property that should have a voice, there are folks that participate in outdoor activities and enjoy wildlife on public property that should have a voice and there are non-hunting farmers with concerns of crop damage that should have a voice. There also are the insurance companies and health care providers that have legitimate concerns over the amount of animal/vehicle collisions and the damages and injuries derived from them. Hunters do not own the rights to the wild game out there, nor do they or should they have the only voice in their management other than local wildlife officials. Most of the time, decisions on wildlife numbers and their habitat made by wildlife officials takes the concerns of all of the above into consideration. While deer hunters would like to see a deer behind every tree in the woods, those numbers are unrealistic to the local farmers with excessive crop damage and to insurance companies paying out comp claims for car/deer collisions.

All I am saying is that G&F biologist are waaay more qualified to assess herd conditions than anyone. If anyone thinks they know better, they should be employed by the state. There is nothing political about hunting and managing game, until the PC police get involved or there is financial gain in play. I tend to be optomistic and believe - at least in my state - G&F have the best interest of both the hunter and the hunted in mind and not the special interest groups.
Click to expand...


To this I partly agree. Most DNR/F&G/Local wildlife authorities are more qualified than the average Joe. They have hunter and kill numbers in front of them along with crop damage and vehicle collision reports. They also are the ones at the annual local wildlife meetings listening directly to hunter and land owner concerns. They are the ones that take the needs and concerns of everyone(including the game species)into their decision making, not just their own personal agenda. Unfortunately tho, since many are appointed officials and their job requires that the one that appointed them continues to stay in office, there may be some decisions on management made to satisfy the majority of voters out there. There also may be decisions made that appeal to large contributors to the same official(insurance companies for example). Most of the time, especially when it is decisions about large game like deer that are made, not everyone is happy, and the displeasure is voiced loudly. Many times herd numbers are reduced below what local hunters feel are adequate because of the crop damage, destruction of habitat or high amount of car/deer collisions. Generally, carrying capacity goals are not always the number the average hunter wants to see when he's out in the woods. These are examples of where sometimes, the interests of others are more important than the interest of the hunter. It's not a bad thing, just not what hunters want. This is where the local bar stool expert tends to think they know more than the experts, basically because he came home empty handed again this year. Funny if he was such an expert, he should know where those few deer left are at.........;)
 
Joe Public has no business participating in the decision making that the Game and Fish are experts at.
Click to expand...

G&F Biologists are not elected officials. I am not calling them politicians, you are.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I called them Bureaucrats. Different cat altogether.
Click to expand...

The problem with G&F is that the ones actually making the real policy decisions often are not biologists or not biologists in the area of study for which decisions are being made. Hence, they are NOT any sort of experts.

That isn't to put them down, but to simply note that making policy/rules/etc. isn't always based on specific expert knowledge and their situations are often quite diverse. Imposed rules might fit a particular situation very well, but fail to fit numerous other situations.

Joe Public does have business participating in the decision making of G&F because what G&F imposes does affect Joe Public.

And while you may not think that the "experts" at G&F who are making these decision are politicians, you can darn sure bet that politics plays a big role in the mandates they put forth. That is the nature of government.
 
Fish and Game agencies are run by each individual state and I'm sure vary greatly. Ohio does an excellent job, and most reulations have heavy input from sportsmen at open meetings. Most political influence is from antis, and they typically don't go to meetinsg and make logical arguments for their positions. They are better at carrying signs, and standing infront of zoos gettiing the ignorant to sign petitions. The state assembly pretty much acts on the recommendations of the Ohio Dept of Nat Resources. Other states I've lived in varied.

Where politics plays a bigger role for us is in the federal agencies that manage migratory birds, endangered species, etc. The mandatory use of steel shot for waterfowl is but one example.
 
Hunting is a game of chance, sometimes the chances favor the man "hunter", sometimes they favor the prey. There are no guarantees with any shot or hunt though odds increase at certain times and the more you go. I define my hunting as relaxation and stress relief, not by the number of animals I take. The older I get the more it is about patience and observation and less about bag limits.

Stage 1: The experience of getting to go with dad
Stage 2: The experience of going alone with little success
Stage 3: The experience of bagging game and filling the tag/limit
Stage 4: The experience of quality over quantity
Stage 5: The experience of getting to take sons/daughters and seeing it through their eyes.

I'm in the 4-5 stage these days.

Fishing is the same for me but I still like a full fish box at the end of the day. Nothing better than when it takes the cleaning crew longer to filet the catch than it takes the clean up crew to wash the boat.
 
Hunting is more than just the stalking and harvesting of game; to me, anyway.

Hunting is that precious time right before legal light on the first day of duck season when you and you're partner are in position and doing nothing but waiting.

Or when that Tom comes gobbling right in front of your little sister as you call him in.

Or you're big sister dropping that big old whitetail buck with "your" .270 on her first time in the stand without either you or your old man.
 
I've found in my experience that when someone asks "What do you consider hunting." It is just a lame attempt to make themselves feel and sound superior to someone else that doesn't do it exactly the way that they do.

The question "What is hunting" is like "What is success?" Everyone has an individual answer.... and no answer is incorrect
 
Hunting and wildlife management are political in Colorado. Some years back the spring bear hunt was eliminated because of the feel gooders whining about it. The bear population in Colorado is getting, shall we say, interesting since the people that stopped the spring bear hunt now have bear in their back yards eating from their fruit trees.

Another interesting snafu is the State of Colorado has a rattlesnake season. I am sure that managing the rattlesnake herds are of prime importance to our ecosystem. :rolleyes:

This kind of thinking is mystifying to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top