hypothetical ethics discussion

[Art Eatman]

"Art, the scenario the OP presents is basically non-existent anywhere in modern America."

Which is exactly why in my first post I pointed out the false premise of the OP.

"I believe the key word in that statement is Factually."

With well over a century of family history in farming and ranching, "factually" as I used it is child's-play simplicity. It doesn't matter what species of herbivore is of interest. Carrying capacity is carrying capacity.

"...the patience to let natural selection deal with the issue..."

How long is "patient"? In the central Texas hill country, a half-century hasn't been long enough such that any natural selection has made any improvement.

"How factual is it that an average person can estimate game populations driving down the road @ 70 MPH?"

Can't. But observing a browse line in trees/brush is a lead-pipe cinch; most any rancher can do it. That shows range conditions.

Then there was the night on a highway north of Ozona when I had to stop and wait a moment before going very slowly through a herd of well over fifty whitetail which were wadded up from borrow ditch to borrow ditch. Or the evening on the way home from Luckenbach via Blanco and saw well over a hundred whitetail (by head count) in a five-acre oat patch; mostly does, about greyhound size.

 

[tahunua001]

Art, the scenario the OP presents is basically non-existent anywhere in modern America.

on the contrary. art himself gave personal experience with such a situation. the claims that the only overpopulated area are on private property and are the landowners fault is utter foolishness. most farmers prefer to get rid of deer because they compete with domestic animals for food and eat food crops. if wild animals are eating everything then that means more money that has to be spent to buy feed for cattle, sheep, goats, hogs and other livestock. there is not a farmer around that would ever be so stupid as to completely ban hunters from his property.

also this conversation is based off a real life situation that has been an ongoing problem in eastern Washington along the snake river basin where it just so happens to be on public land and open to everyone for hunting. it is accessible by boat and car so there really is no explanation as to why these deer are not hunted....oh yes except for they are illegal to hunt.

How factual is it that an average person can estimate game populations driving down the road @ 70 MPH?

now you are talking accurate census of the game. I can tell you that I do not have an accurate accounting of the animals....asside from taking the time to count them myself witha pad and a pencil to avoid losing count. after around 300 I gave up, my brother has counted over 400 on occassions. once you hit numbers like these accurate accounting of game numbers is irrelevant, general rule of thumb is 3 acres of wilderness or 1 acre of farmland per deer, this is wilderness so just one of these herds requires a ball park estimate of around 1500 ares of land to sustain itself and that is not counting the animals that do not belong to these herds. that is a pretty good indication that this animal is overpopulated in the region.

Art in the case of Obama Care you had very powerful special interests supporting that legislation. The same is true of the invasion of Iraq and the Bush tax cuts which weren't supported by a majority of citizens.

That generally isn't true of changes in to game limits. Another consideration there is lots of difference between a state rep and a US congress person.

this is not true at all. special interests groups shape a great number of our game laws. why else would there be special hunting seasons specifically for archers and muzzleloaders? there is no reason why a bowhunter can't hunt at the same time as rifle hunters are muzzleloaders.

there is no reason why some states should outlaw certain calibers, or others outlawing shredder arrowheads. there is no reason that some outlaw the use of electronic calls or why some states outlaw mineral licks.

these restrictions and concessions are made for the sole purpose of appeasing special interests groups. special interests groups are one of the few reasons that hunting is still legal in some states.

 

[Buzzcook]

this is not true at all. special interests groups shape a great number of our game laws. why else would there be special hunting seasons specifically for archers and muzzleloaders? there is no reason why a bowhunter can't hunt at the same time as rifle hunters are muzzleloaders.

Name me one bow or muzzle loader that opposes an increase in the number of deer they can take.

 

[tahunua001]

Name me one bow or muzzle loader that opposes an increase in the number of deer they can take.

the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one. unless we are talking about hunters that fill every tag they have ever bought then there is a high likelihood that they would feel adequate with whatever the limit is. many shooters are lucky to fill even half of the tags that they buy. the issue is the animals that the existing tags can be used to harvest.

many people, especially in washington, oregon and california consider it unethical to kill a doe (whether legal or not). it is just a matter of the culture in which they find themselves. if you think logically. a single buck can impregnate over a hundred does in a single year while a single doe is only going to have a handfull of fawns over the course of it's life time. so to the uneducated masses, saving all of the does to hunt the bucks sounds like a good strategy for population control however all it takes is a single buck that is too small to be harvested to get mixed into a herd of does and he can quite easily impregnate the entire herd in short fashion.

the only way to effectively control a population is to control both sex of a given species and due to a strange squeamishness among west coast society, does are left alone and only mature bucks are allowed to be harvest. states such as washington are at a great disadvantage because the majority of the population lies on the western part of the state meaning that when the eastern part of the state has a dire need to get rid of does, the western part which may not have that same problem is easily able to vote against a proposed change to hunting laws because they see no need for it.

 

[twins]

OP,

Good luck in court with your reasoning. I'm betting you'll be a disgruntled citizen afterwards.

You don't like your state's hunting laws?
1) run for governor
2) start your own special interest group, since you think they have the power to change laws
3) don't follow it and if you get caught, let a court decide if you're right or not

otherwise, enjoy it legally.

I respect my local department of wildlife for what they've done to educate the public and management of resources. I've never met a bad wildlife officer but I've run into a number of unscrupulous hunters. For me, I put my trust in the DOW.

 

[tahunua001]

OP,

Good luck in court with your reasoning. I'm betting you'll be a disgruntled citizen afterwards.

ok first of all I would like to point out that I have been very clear that I neither advocated or condoned this action, I am simply pointing out that I empathize with the actions being taken by private citizens to protect their ecosystem.

You don't like your state's hunting laws?
1) run for governor
2) start your own special interest group, since you think they have the power to change laws
3) don't follow it and if you get caught, let a court decide if you're right or not

I am not a resident of Washington so none of those are going to do me much good. I live in Idaho on the I-W border and as soon as those dirty, diseased, starved does and midget bucks step over the state line they are fair game because my state realizes that controlling only one sex of any given species is a horrible way to manage game populations unless they are intentionally trying to bolster numbers rather than minimize them. they also realize that a statewide census of game animals is foolish and so they have the state split into about 100 different units based on geography and constantly increases or decreases restrictions as necessary per unit to maintain a healthy population across the board. however I do get a little perplexed when I take a 30 minute drive from my house and see hundreds of deer suffering that nobody is allowed to harvest and wonder why?

I respect my local department of wildlife for what they've done to educate the public and management of resources. I've never met a bad wildlife officer but I've run into a number of unscrupulous hunters. For me, I put my trust in the DOW.

I have the greatest respect for MY local F&G dept. however I have seen a great many public hunting areas closed because of people offroading and tearing up the countryside with 4 wheelers and then finding F&G vehicles sunk down to the frame in a mud pit well off of established roadways and trails so yes there is hypocrisy everywhere you go. does that mean that I would impede a game wardens duty? no

 

[twins]

I am simply pointing out that I empathize with the actions being taken by private citizens to protect their ecosystem.

A citizen has to follow laws, rules & regulations like all other citizens within the ordinance. Empathizing with illegal activities won't solve the problem. Ethically or not, hunting outside the law won't earn you any empathy points with the court, public, or fellow hunters.

 

[Art Eatman]

twins, I suggest that you do some reading on "jury nullification", when it comes to obedience to bad law.

Personally, I find that the concept of blind obedience to law as outweighing the health of an ecosystem to be philosophically disturbing.

DNS, it occurs to me that the idea of "let nature take its course" was thrown out the window sometime back when the first settlers began moving west. Highways, canals, railroads, farms, fences, pipelines, dams & reservoirs, navigation projects, timber-cutting, mining, cities and towns...What course is nature "supposed" to take?

 

[buck460XVR]

But observing a browse line in trees/brush is a lead-pipe cinch; most any rancher can do it. That shows range conditions.

Kinda like this one on the edge of a woods near me? Looks almost professionally trimmed, but it's not.

I am not a resident of Washington so none of those are going to do me much good. I live in Idaho on the I-W border and as soon as those dirty, diseased, starved does and midget bucks step over the state line they are fair game because my state realizes that controlling only one sex of any given species is a horrible way to manage game populations unless they are intentionally trying to bolster numbers rather than minimize them.

Funny, you claim Washington has so many deer that they are tripping over each other while they are staving to death. There's so many of them that they are evolving into midgets just to survive. But in this same hunting forum a few threads down, another poster claims that the gigantic 300 pound wolves are decimating the deer and elk populations in Washington State to the point there soon won't be any left. Which is it?

Managing game populations is not an easy thing to do. Most hunters know which way they want it for THEM, but they don't consider the rest of the hunting population....... nor do they consider the non-hunters that may also enjoy watching and photographing those same animals. But state wildlife agencies do. They also have to consider crop damage to farmers along with property damage to vehicles and safety to the general public due to the result of deer/car crashes. They have to try and find the fine line between having populations high enough for the average hunter to have success, but still low enough for carrying capacity and safety. On public land many times they keep recruit(small, young deer) populations higher than normal because of high kill ratios for mature deer. Many reasons deer on large tracts of public land tend to be smaller......they are just younger. Their methods are not perfect, but over the years we still manage to have deer to hunt.....and a lot more than 40-60 years ago when we used Grandpa's method of game management. Thanks to Grandpa's game management deer populations were much lower than they are now with a buck/doe ratio that was completely outta wack. Grandpa's game management eradicated the wild turkeys from many states where they were native for centuries. Modern Game management has brought them back to record numbers and in places they were never found before. Grandpa and his dad hunted the passenger pigeons that once numbered in the billions around here to extinction. No modern Game management is not perfect, but it's pretty damn good. Much better than what most gun forum posters can muster. If one thinks they can justify poaching because they know more than the experts, so be it. Still makes them a violator and a poacher, even if their intent is noble.

most farmers prefer to get rid of deer because they compete with domestic animals for food and eat food crops

Not around here. Around here they hunt deer themselves. If they don't hunt, they sure as 'ell know how valuable deer are as a cash crop as per pay to hunt/lease options. In both cases, they prefer deer numbers to be high and allow very little, if any, access to other hunters. Many have access to state funded crop damage, but refuse it because they must shoot a good amount of antler-less deer to get it.

 

[oneounceload]

Poaching and no excuse whatsoever for their actions - even if they all had wildlife mgt/biology degrees

we do not choose which laws we follow and which we don't.

Yes we do - everyday, but we should be aware that there are possible consequences if we do not

When I lived in NV, poaching was a serious crime and the punishment was severe - if you chose to ignore the law you took the chance on jail, property confiscation, monetary fines, etc....

It's simple OP - if those folks feel there is a serious situation, then they should be talking to the state game folks and providing proof via photos or other means

 

[tahunua001]

Grandpa's game management eradicated the wild turkeys from many states where they were native for centuries

uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

another poster claims that the gigantic 300 pound wolves are decimating the deer and elk populations in Washington State to the point there soon won't be any left. Which is it?

that particular poster (wait a minute...oh I see what you did there ) was describing the current situation in montana, wyoming and idaho which were all part of the original wolf implantation programs. and yes, elk and highland deer populations have plummeted in recent years and due in no small part to wolves. those points were brought up in that topic to show a very possible and almost inevitable outcome if washington should also fail to control their wolf population. but that topic is not very central to this conversation although it also deals with the dilemma of carry capacity and over population of a specific species.

 

[Hansam]

uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

You've got that wrong bud. Turkey is indigenous to the US. Turkey however is NOT indigenous to Europe.

If I recall correctly the first turkey was introduced to Great Britain in the early 1500's and then it spread to the rest of Europe from there.

I may be off on when the turkey first went to Europe but the fact remains that turkeys are native to the Americas and not Europe.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Hansam is right. Turkeys were not known in the Old World until travelers brought them back from the New World.

I personally have examined numerous turkey burials from SW puebloan sites dating back over 1000 years, along with dog, merlin, hawk burials. Turkeys occurred over much of North America, Central, and South America. Of course, the turkey burials were apparently domesticated turkeys, which is rather neat when you think about it, but they were not your Pilgrim's Pride type of white turkeys. Turkey was a common food of prehistoric Native Americans and their remains can be found in refuse middens of sites with long occupations and even short term sites.

Probably the oldest turkey remains I have examined would be about 6000 years, but they are not the oldest turkey remains found in association with human sites, not even close, just the oldest I have examined.

Remember from your history that Ben Franklin argued for the turkey to be the national bird of the new fledgling country (pun intended). He felt it symbolized America nicely, being of true American origin.

 

[Art Eatman]

Can't blame old Ben. Turkeys taste better than bald eagles.

 

[buck460XVR]

uh I'm pretty sure that the wild turkey was brought to the US by european settlers. to my knowledge there are no indigenous turkeys to the united states.
same with pheasants and prairie chickens.

As others have stated........Turkeys were a native species here in North America. Same goes for Prairie Chickens. Prairie Chickens were once very abundant the U.S., but hunting and loss of habitat have made them almost rare in most of their original range. Maybe them there "europeans" are the ones that introduced them midget deer........

that particular poster (wait a minute...oh I see what you did there ) was describing the current situation in montana, wyoming and idaho which were all part of the original wolf implantation programs.

No...he wasn't. He was talking about a situation in Washington state and the migration of Canadian wolves there. You can tell by the title of his thread....Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population

 

[Buzzcook]

the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one.

So this is in your OP

with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.

The possible solution you offer in the OP is wide scale poaching. That is an illegal increase in the number of animals hunters take.

I stated that there is a legal way to increase the game limits. Part of my reasoning was that there is no opposition to increasing the game limit.

In reply you stated that there were powerful interests involved in hunting. You pointed to archery and muzzle loading as examples. What you didn't do is point to any example of a lobby powerful or not that would oppose an increase in game limits in the example you gave in the OP. PETA doesn't count

 

[BigMikey76]

Personally, I find that the concept of blind obedience to law as outweighing the health of an ecosystem to be philosophically disturbing.

I think this statement leans toward the heart of this topic - Philosophy.

"Blind obedience" is certainly dangerous, but in any organized society, no matter what the form of government, there is a social compact in place. The philosophical nature of that compact is that the populace agrees to give up some of their individual rights to the government, and the government, in turn, agrees to govern in the interest of the people. The level of rights given up individually dictates the amount of power the government holds, and if the balance is not right, then there is either a government that is too weak to maintain control, or a government with too much power that ends up bullying the populace.

Assuming that the balance is right (whether it is or not is probably not a topic for this thread), it is incumbent on each member of the society to follow the laws the government makes, since the right to make and enforce laws is the primary right that has been given up by the individual. It is then incumbent upon the government to make sure that the laws are, in fact, in the best interest of the people they are governing.

This is where it gets fuzzy. The government, being formed of human beings, is not perfect. Never has been, never will be. When the people perceive that the government is wrong, they have the right and the responsibility to make it known and try to get things changed. That can take the form of petitioning, protesting, voting out leaders in favor of new blood, or any number of other methods, but the nature of the actions taken should fall within the established rules for accomplishing change.

A distinction needs to be made at this point. If I feel that my government is wrong, and the rules they have established are unreasonable, I still have the responsibility to follow them while I am trying to get them changed. Only if it is clear that the government is acting illegally or in some way violating the compact that has been established do I have the right to disobey.

A couple of examples of a government acting illegally or violating the social compact:
- Violations of Civil Rights
- Unconstitutional actions

A couple of examples of a government acting unreasonably, but not illegally:
- Enacting tax laws that don't make sense
- Enacting game laws that don't make sense
- Enacting any law that doesn't make sense

Here is the question that must be asked: Was this law put in place legally?
If the law does not violate any other existing statutes, and it does not violate the rights of the people who are subject to the law, then it is not illegal and should be followed.

Notice that there is no allowance for "that law is stupid, so I'm not gonna' follow it." It is not the right of the individual to randomly decide which laws to follow and which to break, assuming that the laws are legal. It IS the right of the individual to be the catalyst of change by gathering support and demonstrating to the government that the people are not happy with the current state of affairs.

Here is the toughest part for a lot of people to swallow:
Even when the majority of the population feels that the rule in question is not reasonable and should be changed, the government is under no obligation to change it. Representative government does NOT mean that the government officials are required to follow popular opinion. They ARE expected to use their best judgement and make decisions that are in the best interest of the people. The popularity of a law, however, is not often a good indicator of whether it is a good law or not. One example of this is taxes. Taxes are incredibly unpopular, but they are necessary, and the government is under no obligation to change or eliminate a tax based on popular opinion (please don't let this statement be the impitus for a partisan debate. I hate to see a good thread put down because it got infected with those darn poli-tics).

The only way to legitimately get a law changed based on popularity is to exercise your right to vote. Get the people you disagree with out of office, and replace them with people you like. If you can't get rid of them that way, then maybe their policies are not as unpopular as you thought they were.

OK. I am officially dismounting the soapbox now.

 

[tahunua001]

No...he wasn't. He was talking about a situation in Washington state and the migration of Canadian wolves there. You can tell by the title of his thread....Should WA State Control Their New Wolf Population

the topic at hand was whether washington should control their wolf populations however many of the reports of widespread destruction are coming from MONTANA, WYOMING, AND IDAHO
the discussion revolved around what actions should be taken to control the wolf population based on what has happened elsewhere in the country.

the argument is not whether you should be allowed to take more than one.
So this is in your OP

Quote:
with none of these animals being harvested the population explodes and the animals begin to starve. the local authorities refuse to bring the population down to healthy numbers and refuse to lighten the restrictions on harvest requirements, meanwhile the animals suffer.

did you purposefully remove the single sentence that I added to make my point just so you could continue this argument?
it is a lot easier to fill a tag if you are allowed to take either sex. since you are not able to, these animals are not being harvested and many hunters are not filling their tags because few of the animals in the region meet the minimum requirements for legal harvest. easing the requirements would allow these animals to be harvested rather than just issuing extra tags.

I think big mikey summed it up very well. he observes both sides of the discussion and points out where both are right and where both are wrong and makes very good arguments for both.

my main issue is one that he pointed out very well,

The only way to legitimately get a law changed based on popularity is to exercise your right to vote. Get the people you disagree with out of office, and replace them with people you like. If you can't get rid of them that way, then maybe their policies are not as unpopular as you thought they were.

in this case, it has been addressed several times that there is need of eased restrictions for hunting in this unit however, by popular vote it is denied. the land can't withstand it, the wildlife can't withstand it, many of the landowners and hunters know it but statewide the majority vote lies in the western half of the state. whether through ignorance or just a fear of change will not support such an action. this is where we find ourselves.
now that I've added that quick side note, I think you summed this discussion up very well.

 

[twins]

I guess we can argue this till we're all 6 feet under but the informal poll from this thread should tell the OP and Art that majority rules in our country. So "jury nullification" isn't in your favor Art.

 

[Art Eatman]

twins, it's moot. It's now legally possible in Texas to do just what I did. I was just a good many years ahead of the "professionals" on habitat restoration. Hey, it's all a learning curve, and they're young folks, busy reinventing the wheel.

Read the fable about the shape of the cell in a beehive. Aesop, IIRC.