Hunting Ethics

Status
Not open for further replies.
1.Shooting a deer after sunset is illegal. Why would this even be questioned?
Click to expand...

In some locals, it is legal to shoot a deer up to thirty minutes after sunset. I don't see an ethical difference between shooting a deer after sunset where it is legal and where it isn't. There is a legal difference but not an ethical one.

I also don't think that shooting a deer well after dark is unethical if someone must do so to put down a wounded animal that has been tracked. It may well be illegal to shoot the wounded animal after dark.
 
Last edited:
Back to the basics

We teach that the foundation of an individual's hunting code, should be the the hunting laws of our state. These are based on ethical and moral principals. Hardly ever perfect but certainly fair, good and equitable. What happens in the field after our classes can only be controlled by individual's conduct. If a any hunter can't even get past that, then there is really something wrong. ..... :eek:

Of course we question some of these laws but we should still do our best to follow them and I really mean; Do your best in your own best ways. ... :)

Important to keep in mind that as Hunters, we are all connected and;
Be Safe !!!
 
Yes Here in MN the legal shooting hours are 1/2 hour before S-R and 1/2 hour after sunset.
I took the poster to mean dark/night time hunting.
Now there is an ethical value in that legal shooting time.
There is going to be a difference in our ability to see out target and what is beyond 1/2 hour before or after even on clear mornings now factor in heavy overcast, how well will be able to see our target and what is beyond?
Having a loaded firearm afield before or after shooting hours will get us a ticket here in MN.
 
What is the ethical difference between shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that allows shooting for thirty minutes after and shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that prohibits shooting after sunset?
 
What is the ethical difference between shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that allows shooting for thirty minutes after and shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that prohibits shooting after sunset?
Click to expand...
There is none. you're throwing out ridiculous straw man arguments to derail the main course.

Sunset to sundown is a law. It's a law, because you have to have laws to keep people from shooting 24 hours a day. The state draws a line, whatever time that might be, and creates legal controls. Unfortunately, setting a 5:00 pm cut off isn't going to work, so, they set it at the time that the sun disappears below the horizon, as anyone ought to be able to tell if there is a sun present.

There is nothing immoral about shooting after the sun has set, but it is illegal in some jurisdictions, and breaking the law is unethical.

It places the position of legal control in dire jeopardy when numerous people flout the law. It creates the slick slope of shooting a half hour late, an hour late, maybe even with a flashlight on the muzzle, then out of season, and so forth.

It is the duty of all good citizens to obey the law. they have been written (mostly) for the good of all. I'm not talking about BS laws like no smoking on the sidewalk or not eating ice cream on the sabbath, I'm talking about laws of substance that regulate important issues. It is important that you even obey laws that you don't agree with, as shown very clearly by the legal and moral crisis brought about by prohibition. Al capone and the entire organized crime system came to be only because of the millions of dollars that could be made selling booze to people who would rather hand money to criminals than go without liquor.

When the good citizens ignore the laws that they disagree with, and give their blessings to ignoring the laws that don't fit personal belief systems, you have the beginning of the sort of anarchy you see scattered around the world, and around our nation.
 
It is the duty of all good citizens to obey the law. they have been written (mostly) for the good of all. I'm not talking about BS laws like no smoking on the sidewalk or not eating ice cream on the sabbath, I'm talking about laws of substance that regulate important issues. It is important that you even obey laws that you don't agree with, as shown very clearly by the legal and moral crisis brought about by prohibition.

How do we decide which laws are bs and which laws are not? Do we contact you before we decide to eat ice cream on the Sabbath?

you're throwing out ridiculous straw man arguments to derail the main course.
Click to expand...

The main course is hunting ethics. Hunting ethics are not necessarily the same as hunting laws. Pointing this out is important.

It is the duty of all good citizens to obey the law. they have been written (mostly) for the good of all.
Click to expand...

Sometimes doing the ethical thing is illegal. I won't let a wounded animal I find after legal shooting hours suffer until legal shooting light the next day. Whether it is dispatching a wounded animal after legal hours with a gun or bow, using a knife to dispatch a wounded animal or popping the head off a wounded bird, doing right by the animal outweighs the technical legality. Most COs would agree but some might enforce the letter of the law. Doing the ethical thing doesn't lead to anarchy even if it violates a law.
 
What is the ethical difference between shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that allows shooting for thirty minutes after and shooting a deer five minutes after sunset in a state that prohibits shooting after sunset?
Click to expand...

If you will read the post that you just got through putting on earlier, you will note that you are asking what is unethical about shooting a deer 5 minutes after closing time, when you are clearly and consciously violating a law.

That is it. Period. If you shoot a deer after closing, you have deliberately broken the law. there is nothing ethical about breaking a law for no better reason than you think it's stupid.

Don't compare it to a mercy killing of a previously wounded deer, it's not the same.

Shooting a deer after legal hours is illegal, that's all there is to it. And don't kid yourself. Once you start violating laws, showing your kids, friends and neighbors that laws are made to be broken if you disagree with them, you start spreading disrespect for the law, and create a group of people who think the laws are only for people who agree with them.

Right now, we have tens of thousands of people who are pushing the limits of trespass and other laws, violating them in a lot of cases, because they think it's a just cause and laws don't apply to just causes.

The mexican drug wars are all about one thing. Millions of people who decided that drug laws are stupid and should be broken.

Ethics is about doing the right thing for the group, (this includes the deer).
 
I'm still trying to figure out where people get the idea that most laws are written for the good of everyone. I can guarantee that we could take 90% of existing laws and regulations off the books, and life would do nothing but get better.

What gives anyone so much confidence in the ability of a corrupt and bankrupt government to decide correctly what everyone should do under any circumstances? And what makes people think that they are in any way obligated to follow orders given by those who they do not support or whose authority they strove to prevent? Especially when the authority is exercised unConstitutionally?

It sounds like people believe that the system still works and that their vote really matters despite evidence to the contrary. I will voluntarily and willingly comply with all laws the day all unConstitutional laws are taken off the books and the lawyers are thrown out of power to be replaced by true representatives of the people. Until that day I follow the law because it is ultimately backed up by the muzzle of a gun, not because it is right to subordinate my own will to that of another simply because they say I should.

I think people need to remember that about laws: they are ultimately backed up by violence. If you stubbornly refuse to obey, they will make you, or you'll be locked up or killed. What that means is this: if you're not willing to kill someone who refuses to submit to punishment for breaking a law, you have no business supporting that law.

Brian, I think people would agree with you more if there weren't so many unnecessary and stupid laws. The problem is, it is actually difficult to EXIST without breaking laws now. I can guarantee that every person who is reading this thread has broken the law this week. If these laws mattered, if they had merit, it would be different... but they don't and it isn't. What you're proposing is that personal judgement be discarded in favor of an ever-growing stack of commands that might as well start with "Thou Shalt Not - "

It's not that I believe in NO laws, but I darn sure don't believe in what we have now, a society dedicated to telling people what to do, and sheep perfectly willing to go along with it. If you need more confirmation that linking legality with morality is a path to disaster, take a look at history and examine what has been done with full sanction of law. If you have trouble finding anything that disturbs you here, Google "Trail of Tears," or look abroad and consider that neither ethics nor legalities are constant. Me, I think there's plenty to disgust simply in the last 100 years, and more than enough to discredit the idea that the law equals morality. The fact is, the fact that a law forbids an act has no bearing on its moral ramifications, and conversely the endorsement of law does not make it right.

Another good example is the annexation of Hawaii... not our best moment.

Or better still, the upcoming ban on 100 watt incandescent bulbs. Anybody here want to claim that making a 100W bulb will be immoral because it will be illegal? But the very same act isn't immoral now, when the setting is exactly the same and the environmental impact difference is negligible compared to practically anything else you care to name?

There are plenty of examples... but you don't need me to list them for you.
 
Daekar,

I think there may be more here that agree with Brian than you think.

While there are some, IMO, valid points in your post regarding laws of our society as a whole, when it comes to the State of Ohio's conservation laws, I don't agree there are to many, are not unConstitutional in any way and wished the penalties for many of them were greatly increased....too, I've not knowingly broken any of Ohio's conservation laws for as long as I can remember....but I promise you, since we just had our deer shotgun season and a wounded,suffering deer staggers through my yard, he/she won't leave, day or night.

Will that be breaking the law, yep...but I'll take my chances. Why, cause it's morally right to not let that animal suffer.

I've sit in meetings held by ODNR and know for a fact that our conservation laws are based for the well being of all.
Safety being the number one ruling factor. I don't agree with every law on our books, but I understand why they're there. Many are there due to the fact they are needed. Sadly, cause to many people took advantage. Many are there cause more than a few showed they didn't have enough common sense not to have some of the laws we may consider stupid. I.E. In Ohio, during deer shotgun season, we have to plug our shotguns as to not hold more than 3 shells. Why? Cause many morons think if you pull the trigger once, you have to empty your gun rapid fire style.

Opening morning just a week ago last Monday, I was watching a neighbor in his stand. He had five does at 140-150 away, nibbling on some tree tops. He pulled up and started shooting. When he was done, he had shot eleven times @ 140-150yds with a smooth bore 12 ga. None of the deer fell but they scattered and he doesn't know if he hit any of them or not cause he never came down out of his stand. Furthermore, that was 11ozs. of lead that went somewhere and at the rate he was firing, I guarantee you he didn't know for sure where they all went or if he even had a backstop. This guy has a 16yr old son that hunts just like him cause he's never been taught any different. So in theory, the 16 yr old will be the 'next generation' moron.

Morons like this doing stupid things is what usually creates what some consider to be stupid laws. :mad:
 
Shortwave,

I see that we are fundamentally in agreement, since you acknowledge that ethics and legality might diverge. You're prepared to knowingly violate the law for what you consider to be a good reason. That's exactly the kind of behavior that we need never to lose.

I can't speak for the laws of Ohio, but I will say that I can see the logic behind most game laws I've heard, even if I don't agree with them. In general, they are there because some idiot at some point did something stupid, and the rest of us have to suffer with restrictions because of it. They're hard to argue with, because they're so well-intentioned... kind of like laws that are "for the children." The fact that policing and enforcing many laws may take more resources from society than simply letting the accidents happen (possible but unlikely for game laws, I think), or that actually enforcing the laws requires unconstitutional powers (game wardens don't need warrants or anything else, at least around here) are frequently overlooked. I find it interesting that the rules vary so widely state-to-state, but you never really hear much about the things some state's residents are "protected" from.

I should qualify that last statement - it is rare that I ever read about hunting accidents. Is there a place that tabulates statistics about accidents per hunter per hour or similar metrics?

Edit: A note about drug wars. They exist because the government decided to outlaw certain drugs (I'm looking a marijuana here, for the most part) without considering the lessons learned during Prohibition. The South American cartels are funded largely by sales of marijuana, a non-addictive drug that is similar to tobacco in its carcinogenic properties, and high in demand. By outlawing this substance (which literally is a weed south of the border, and grows out of control unless intentionally kept down), the government has created vastly increased prices which keep the crime rings in business, while doing little to prevent the sale of the drug in the states. Essentially, the illegal nature of the drug CREATED the cartels, because if it were legal the value would drop like a stone. Without inflated prices, the cartels would lose their financial power, and the "drug wars" would be over. The fact that marijuana was outlawed and tobacco was not is one of the more bizarre bits of the whole story, and is likely economic in nature... too many farmers depended on tobacco for income, and the more visible effects of "reefer" made it an easier target. There are some great propaganda ads from the 50s, I think it was, warning people about how bad marijuana was... they didn't KNOW that this dangerous leaf was making their children delinquent and destroying their communities, the government had to tell them. Sounds odd, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
I will never disagree that this system is a messed up and cumbersome leviathon of corruption, nannyism, and protectionism. Every yahoo in the land believes that he knows what is best for everyone else, and most of those ideas are actually centered on what is best for themselves.

For example, up until the late 1980s, missouri still had blue laws. On sunday, you could only buy absolute life essentials, such as food. You could not buy a hammer. You could not buy clothing. Up until the late 1980s, in purdy missouri, you could not dance. How did this happen? this is a bible belt community, and they jealously guarded their control over everyone's moral behavior.

The problem is that we write laws based on every idiot's whim.

Not meaning to drag another controversy in, but didn't the ten commandments pretty much cover every kind of possible sin? you will not kill, steal, philander, beat your neighbor or wife, even run through red lights? "live considerately" is what the very first one said.

Unfortunately, we are a civilization of people who don't know how to live considerately, so every waking moment has to be controlled, so you won't step on someone else's toes. (or rape them, shoot their dog, or burn down their house)

Laws, and the ability to enforce them, is the only thing separating us from complete anarchy. When we lose the ability to enforce them, we have riots and looting like in new orleans. wholesale crime is engulfing certain areas of the country, (Juarez mexico is another great example) because we have lost the ability to police those regions.

The reason that this happens, is because we as a people choose to do as we please. People grew up lacking the moral/ethical compass that their parents should have taught them. Then, they make up their own morality. In that one action, they completely discard the one prime directive, "live considerately."

This is why we have swat units. This is why a person's car will be impounded for parking violations. This is why kids can't drink, and parents can't give them the booze. Because all over the world, there are billions of little things that people do on a routine basis that harm other people, and the only way we can make them stop is to first make a law, and second, punish them for breaking it.

Without our tendency to crap on everyone else on the planet, we wouldn't need laws. All we'd need are guidelines.

But we're at this point beginning to really digress from the question of why it is unethical to cleanly kill a critter with a small bore rifle, but perfectly ethical to wound one badly with a howitzer.
 
BTW, mj has been illegal for generations. Nobody alive has been able to buy mj legally. Every ounce of mj sold in america in most of the past century was illegally bought.

Equating this drug problem, which involves people raised to know that it was illegal and doing it anyway, with the sudden banning of a theretofore legal product isn't correct.

You could make that argument work if the drugs were banned 20 years ago. But, as it is, there aren't a whole lot of people in this country who habitually use illegal drugs that were ever able to legally buy them. the whole situation from beginning until now has been generations of people saying "to hell with the law. I wanna get high."

Legalizing them won't solve anything, either. It's too late for that, and all it will do is create an even more attractive situation for the stoners.
 
Yes, we have wandered a bit, haven't we?

One last observation: There was a point in time where we didn't have so many laws, and people didn't act like idiots nearly as often even without them. Why?

To answer the OP's question: a poor shot with a big rifle is just as bad as a poor shot with a little one. Anybody who says otherwise needs to watch a deer that's been gutshot with a 300 WinMag.
 
I'll tell you something about ethics. I live in Ohio, Tuscarawas County infact which is usually number one or atleast in the top 3 in deer kills every year. I went deer hunting 4 years in row, got married then went hunting again this year for the first time in 5 years. I shoot all the time, have a good load which I've tailored to my gun. I have no doubts about my ability to make a clean shot out to a certain point. Anyways, from all these times of going hunting I have yet to get a deer. I have passed up many shots where a bullet could have gone towards a house or in a dangerous direction, the deer was too small, range was too great, or the deer just didnt present itself, was behind cover, etc. Point is, sure it sucks when your buddies all get deer and you're the only one that doesnt. I'm just not going to spray and pray and maybe wound something. Even though I've not got a deer yet yeah its fun to be out in the woods and all, I figure though my day for a good deer is coming and all of this patience will pay off. Doing something stupid just for some meat isnt really worth it.
 
Big yac, what you are saying there is the one universal fact about being the good guy. Sometimes you go hungry, while the guys eat steak.

I've committed a lot of sins in my lifetime and broken a few laws. Obviously,everyone has broken a few laws, I figure. not any longer.

I'm never going to say that you can't pull the trigger with a little uncertainty, because there is no certainty once you do.

but IMO, when you have a slim chance of a miss or a poor hit, I'm with you, take that shot.

When the situation has turned into having a "slim chance that I just might hit some part of it and cripple it till I can shoot it a couple more times" it's kind of out of the gray area.
 
One last observation: There was a point in time where we didn't have so many laws, and people didn't act like idiots nearly as often even without them. Why?
Click to expand...

That's an entirely different can of worms there. I think that up until the past 50 years or so, people actually grew up as they grew older.
 
First off, I think the word "ethics" has no business in a hunters safety coarse. Ethics vary far and wide and the only thing the class should teach is legal not moral issues. A buddy of mine, a 4H firearms instructor, got into a heated debate at his daughters hunters coarse because the instructor was spewing personal, sometimes extreme, opinions about ethics. Can't remember the exact subject matter but it was pretty out there from what I recall.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about teaching ethics in our Hunter's safety course. I said
the definition of ethical we give to new hunters is "doing the right thing when no one else is around".
Click to expand...

One should read posts thoroughly before they start to criticize. Ethics are a personal choice and generally have more to do with location and influence of family, friends and peers. We don't have the time to try and influence other's judgement and morals, we spend most of our time teaching "hunter safety" in our hunter safety classes.
 
If you will read the post that you just got through putting on earlier, you will note that you are asking what is unethical about shooting a deer 5 minutes after closing time, when you are clearly and consciously violating a law.
Click to expand...

I asked what the ethical difference is between shooting deer at the same time after sunset in states that have different laws and your reply was "There is none." Either there is an ethical difference or there isn't one. I think there is and you think there isn't.

Don't compare it to a mercy killing of a previously wounded deer, it's not the same.
Shooting a deer after legal hours is illegal, that's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Shooting a deer after legal hours is indeed illegal but that's not all there is to it. It may or may not be ethical to shoot a deer after hours. Shooting a healthy deer after hours is unethical because it is unfair to other hunters that abide by the law. Shooting a mortally wounded deer after hours to put it down is ethical because our primary obligation is to the wounded animal and other hunters are not loosing anything. Both actions are illegal in my state. One is clearly unethical and the other is not. A person that puts down a wounded animal after legal shooting hours might get a fine but that is the ethical thing to do.

Laws are not ethics. A hunter can follow all game laws and not be ethical and a hunter that violates a game law can be ethical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top