hypothetical ethics discussion

[Art Eatman]

"If a dozen voters walk into a state representative's office things tend to happen."

Before passage, 67% of the American people opposed Obamacare.

 

[JerryM]

I suppose one can think of a scenario to justify in his own mind whatever he might desire, but we are a nation of law, albeit poorly executed sometimes. I am not aware that any state does not have a game department that is dedicated to proper game management.

If you do not agree with the way they do it then go to the legislature, but the thought that you should break the law just because you think you know best is the height of nonsense. It will also get you convicted of a rather serious crime.

Let the state game management people handle it. I do not think such a scenario as posed by the OP can be reasonably possible today.

Jerry

 

[Art Eatman]

Jerry, in general I can agree. But a goodly number of people understood "carrying capacity" long before anybody ever heard of a game department. For that matter, even TP&WD didn't understand it until the 1970s. Such knowledge was commonplace in my family in the 1800s.

It's not always a matter of "thinking" about knowing best--or at the least, better.

Based on sixteen years of employment in government, I guarantee you that such employment does not create wisdom.

 

[Pahoo]

All that we do or don't do, has consequences !!

The foundation in any hunter's code of ethics, is to obey "all" state's DNR laws. That is what we teach to young hunters during our hunter safety classes. ....

That is not to say that they don't make mistakes that we have to live with but that's life. Iowa has made it's share of mistakes and hunters and game are now paying the price. ....

so say a group of outdoorsmen take it into their own hands to thin the population and take some of the strain off both the animals and the land.

Perhaps totally uninformed and somewhat self serving and they know better than the state's DNR. There are town meeting where these concerns can be addressed and prefered to breaking the law.

Be Safe !!!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

We have a tradition in this country of doing the sensible thing.

Wow, to say that and then follow it up with Prohibition and treason sort of kills the argument. You can just as well argue that in this country, we have the tradition of doing stupid things. This is a valid point and anyone who does not understand this needs a refresher course in American history.

 

[JerryM]

[Jerry, in general I can agree. But a goodly number of people understood "carrying capacity" long before anybody ever heard of a game department. For that matter, even TP&WD didn't understand it until the 1970s. Such knowledge was commonplace in my family in the 1800s.

It's not always a matter of "thinking" about knowing best--or at the least, better.

Based on sixteen years of employment in government, I guarantee you that such employment does not create wisdom.]

Hi Art,
Usually the dedicated hunters are ahead of the game biologist. I saw it here in southern NM where a hunter found his kill of a bighorn had scabies mites. He reported it, but the expert PhDs had to study it, and for several years. It resulted in decimation of the herd here. Quick action could have saved many sheep for restocking. It has never been clear to me why problems that require quick action with obvious solutions have to be studied for years, and then they conclude what hunters have known for many years, as in the case of your family in the early years. In some cases severe damage has already occurred, and it takes years to correct the situation.

However, I think in general the game departments do have the best
interest of the game populations at heart. Accordingly, I think that
the scenario posed considering what we have learned about carrying capacity would prevent such. In addition we have annual meetings of the game commission and whoever is interested to make our voices heard.
NM waited much too long to institute a permit system for deer, and we were far behind AZ in our game management.

I do not think we are doing a good job in the area of predator control, and along with the drought the deer herd has greatly decreased in the last 15 or so years due to mountain lions and coyotes.

In any case, I think most of us agree that ignoring of the law and poaching is not the way to correct the sometimes obvious errors of the game managers.

Regards,
Jerry
__________________

 

[Gunplummer]

Art Eatman--

I hit this late, but you said "It is not possible to poach out a woodlot or pasture of mature bucks" (Or something like that). You live in Texas and things are different there. You better believe it can be done in the North East.

 

[tahunua001]

The foundation in any hunter's code of ethics, is to obey "all" state's DNR laws. That is what we teach to young hunters during our hunter safety classes. ....

interesting, game laws were never even brought up when I was in hunters ed. they do mention that it is your responsibility to educate yourself on local game laws but ethics and law have almost nothing to do with each other.

it is illegal to purchase a Cuban cigar while it is legal to purchase an identical cigar made in the Dominican Republic. is a person smoking a Cuban cigar automatically an anarchist and unethical person.

in some areas of the united states it is actually a punishable offense to swear in public. this is not a law that was made for your safety, it serves no purpose whatsoever and only exists because someone, somewhere felt that foul language was so repulsive that it should be illegal. if you catch yourself swearing like a sailor even though you know it's wrong are you automatically a criminal?

let's swing that another direction. all persons living in Nazi occupied europe during WWII were required by law to turn in any Jews that they found to authorities. many didn't because they knew it was wrong to do so and many were caught and faced severe punishment from the german SS. were these people anarchists and unethical?

a person that walks by their neighbor's house everyday and notices that they own a large number of pets that appear malnourished and unhealthy is considered a hero for turning that neighbor in for animal abuse and what is the final outcome? usually the animals are taken for their protection and if a suitable home can not be found ina timely manner those same animals are euthanized.

how is a person that sees a bunch of starving animals in the wild that are unable to recieve enough nourishment from the land anymore any less ethical for performing the euthanizing when it has become obvious that the authorities are not willing to control the population?


again, I am neither advocating or condoning the actions described and though my analogies are a little in-proportionant in scope, the overall precedent remains the same. laws and ethics are not interchangeable and anyone that argues contrary has obviously not spent much time in history class.

 

[Sarge]

I don't think they'll have to worry much. Since MO started its antler point restrictions, we are seeing lots of spikes, fours and sixes meet their demise in the grills of cars and pickups.

 

[rickyrick]

It's poaching and with added crime of failure to make reasonable attempt to recover the animal. Even if you kill a game animal illegally you have to attempt to recover it.

 

[TheNatureBoy]

Poaching!

 

[gaseousclay]

how is a person that sees a bunch of starving animals in the wild that are unable to recieve enough nourishment from the land anymore any less ethical for performing the euthanizing when it has become obvious that the authorities are not willing to control the population?

this is why we have hunting season. it's poaching no matter how you slice it.

 

[Art Eatman]

gaseousclay, the system of the OP has created the problem, so it's obvious that "hunting season" shooting of the deer fails to deal with the problem. If anything, it makes the problem worse.

If those in authority won't deal with the problem, who is left to do so?

To believe that obedience to a law is sufficient unto itself, regardless of harm: That is a Statist attitude, and is exactly what we see in government in WashDC today. It is what is desired by the TSA and Homeland Security.

Note: In a normal ecosystem, killing out of season or after hours, etc., etc., is indeed poaching.

I guess it's that I believe that rational killing for what is factually "the good of the species" or "protection of an ecosystem" is not poaching.

Although wildlife agencies try to have the best interests of game animals as their credo, that is irrelevant to the thesis of the OP.

 

[tahunua001]

this is why we have hunting season. it's poaching no matter how you slice it.

but that is the thing, the vast majority of these overpopulated animals are female or very small males so when he established hunting season rolls around they are still going to be illegal to harvest and no matter how long you leave the females they will always be untouchable by law. maybe if they are lucky and left for several years the bucks may eventually grow to legal size but that still does little or nothing to solve the immediate problem.

growing up in montana there was a similar situation with the mule deer population. they rarely congregated in large herds but there was way too many for the land to support and for the longest time only the bucks were allowed to be harvested. interestingly enough nobody seemed to care that the average buck was only around 120-140 pounds and usually was not the best of of eating but once dozens of cases of deer having blue tongue disease were confirmed fish and game started population control measures, easing restrictions and even allowed the purchase of an extra doe tag in certain areas. inside of just a few years, the average buck went up to around 170-190 pounds, had an extra couple points on his rack and though the disease problem never fully went away the numbers dropped down to only a couple confirmed cases a year.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

let's swing that another direction. all persons living in Nazi occupied europe during WWII were required by law to turn in any Jews that they found to authorities.

Wow, please don't tell me that you are invoking Godwin's law to justify poaching.

the overall precedent remains the same. laws and ethics are not interchangeable and anyone that argues contrary has obviously not spent much time in history class.

I have spent considerable time in history class and laws and ethics are sometimes interchangeable. In fact, the creation of many laws comes from the ethics of lawmakers at the time and the laws are really nothing more than codified ethics. Just because you don't share the same ethics as the law maker doesn't make the law unethical, but only unethical to you. Much of this is covered not under history, but under philosophy.

The notion of going out and killing off animals because you think it is the right thing to do because you don't have the patience to let natural selection deal with the issue really doesn't make your actions correct. I would posit that going out to kill the animals that you think are suffering is very unethical because while you may be putting an end to their suffering, you are taking from them their opportunity to survive. Not only that, but your criteria for killing them does not help the species from a natural selection perspective. Just because an animal is starving does not mean it is genetically inferior. So your shooting of starving animals (which are thusfar the smarter or genetically superior animals that have fought and struggled to remain alive under stressful conditions) means that you are actually doing more harm to the survival of the population as the genetically inferior animals are likely amongst the first to die off naturally.

 

[Pahoo]

It is what it is !!!

interesting, game laws were never even brought up when I was in hunters ed

Well, I find it interesting but mostly disturbing. Not only do we teach this in the ethics section of our classes but we also dedicate about an hour for a state's conservation officer to review the exising laws, new laws as well as a question and answer segment. ....
We also hand out the current copy of Hunting and Trapping regulation. I'm sure all you guys read these every year. Right

These are times when it's quite common to grill the officer on concerns and problems. Just naturally comes out and handled quite well. One thing that does supprise me, in the level of politics that bureaucracy that exists. There are those at top that don't know the diference between a Muskrat and Tree-Rat. ....

Be Safe !!!

 

[buck460XVR]

laws and ethics are not interchangeable and anyone that argues contrary has obviously not spent much time in history class.

I've yet to know of any history class that teaches Game Management and hunting regulations. Again, comparing modern hunting practices to the Revolutionary War is BS. Stating that breaking any law you don't agree with is perfectly fine is a snub and a kick to the groin of any brave soul that fought in that war to give us that right to govern ourselves. You're right tho, ethics and laws are different. One can use poor ethics while hunting that are legal and just be considered by many to be a slob hunter. Break the law while hunting and you are a criminal....period, no matter what the personal justification is. Consequences if caught are much different.

gaseousclay, the system of the OP has created the problem, so it's obvious that "hunting season" shooting of the deer fails to deal with the problem. If anything, it makes the problem worse.

Art, the scenario the OP presents is basically non-existent anywhere in modern America. With the popularity of hunting, the modern tools available for use and the multitude of seasons, the only reason this could ever happen is on private land that is not accessible to other hunters. Modern hunting bag limits and game management everywhere in the country allows for the harvest of female and juvenile animals when needed. State agencies can only control game populations in areas of public access, so if an area is overpopulated, it is because the private land owner created it themselves. Now you think they should be able to shoot animals outta season because they mismanaged their land? So much for them knowing better than the state as for carrying capacity. If this is a fantasy scenario, then the answer should be fantasy, but if one wants it to be realistic, they themselves should be realistic. Again, every poacher alive justifies to themselves why they poach, problem is, that reasoning don't float to the general public and game wardens.

I guess it's that I believe that rational killing for what is factually "the good of the species" or "protection of an ecosystem" is not poaching.

I believe the key word in that statement is Factually.
How factual is it that an average person can estimate game populations driving down the road @ 70 MPH? How factual is it that the majority of those claiming they are doing what's best for the land are just slob hunters justifying their poaching? I doubt that anyone here would tell another not to do what is right for "the good of the species" or "protection of an ecosystem", but the fact is, giving folks the right to hunt as they see fit is what decimated many game populations and drove others into extinction. Remember, if you're better qualified to manage the game in your state than wildlife officials, than so is your neighbor Bubba, and his nephew and the 14 others that hunt next door. The real facts are, that game laws and wildlife management as lame as they can be at times, are the only reason you and I have game to hunt at all.

 

[Buzzcook]

Before passage, 67% of the American people opposed Obamacare.

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.

 

[arch308]

Poaching is poaching, even if the reasoning is sound. I have heard that the landowner can "PETITION" TPW for special tags or some such. They eventually send an observer to count the deer on your property and then tell you what to kill for a few seasons. From what I have been told its is a long drawnout deal that is very restrictive.
I've had the same problem in the past and felt there were only 2 choices. Leave or spend a few seasons using your tags wisely, and your wife's if she hunts. And your buddys who want some extra meat for the freezer. As long as it's legal do what you gotta do. You can fix it, we did. After 3 seasons it proved to produce some decent bucks and overfilled the freezer every year.

 

[jason_iowa]

What's right or ethical is not always legal.
What is wrong or unethical is not always illegal.

Yes we are a country of laws but often times the laws are written to protect the interests of a few people even though they are clearly destructive to the majority of the people and the very fabric of the USA. On the other side their are many laws that people hate even though they are in the peoples best interest.

I have on a couple occasions shot deer that were hit by cars when the dnr or sherrifs department would not come deal with it. I won't stand by and watch an animal suffer because officers are to lazy to come do their job. I had another instance where a doe with a broken leg during a very hard winter was stuck in a drift in my back yard and was going to stave to death. I called the sherrifs dep. A deputy came out and was afraid his 9mil was going to skip off the snow and endanger the houses 300 yards away so he would not do anything. So when he left I put a 22 up to the does forehead and shot it. It was to weak to even struggle as we walked right up to it. So I guess I was guilty of poaching but I also did what I thought was humane. I'm not sure that what the people in the OPs example are right or wrong I'm no expert on game management its not something I would undertake.