Since the thread that had a good ethics discussion going was locked...

So who are these behavior cops going to be?

I remember fighting long hard battles here in Arizona in order to save Contest Hunts. There were those (many outspoken people) whose ethic values felt it was so distasteful that any hunting venture would be associated in any form with contest. The focal point centered around coyotes, bobcats, fox and lion. These feelings and the wording essentially affected Bass tournaments, Big Buck contests and more. My involvement in fighting these morality experts found me before the AZ Governor’s Regulatory Review Council. One of 3 of their final conclusions was that a large group of people had no right to impose their will on a small group.

So who are these behavior cops going to be?
‘Majority Rules’ doesn’t always make it Constitutionally right.

Duck hunters believe it wrong to shoot a wounded duck on water but have no peoblem sic-ing their retriever on one.

Waiting 30 minutes after pursuing the deer you shot is acceptable but certainly doesn’t qualify as putting it down as quick as possible. Words that come to mind we’ve all heard are “Let it have time to bleed out” and even “ Wait for it to get sick and die”. Ethical?

Hanging a coyote carcass on a fence post for everyone to see was acceptable 40 years ago. Why was that? Strapping a deer on a fender 50 years ago was common. Not now. Why is that?

Ripping the lips off fish and tossing them in a confined livewell in order to grab at the terrified creatures later to kill them is acceptable. Why is that?

One poster had it right when he mentioned that each persons ethics differ. i.e. Your personal beliefs don’t make other’s wrong.

I like to believe that I have mid-west values and those do not align themselves with other regions very well.

I have pictures and we all have seen them of that mentioned earlier of the deer strapped to a fender. These tend to be looked on as nostalgic rather than grotesque.
Movies are filled with hand-to-claw encounters whether real or imagined. I have a photo somewhere of an uncle with a live rabbit in his hands ready to do the ‘dirty deed’.

Today, cameras and camcorders are common to every backpack and shirt pocket and even phones have cameras so why not pause for a picture before the pet Fido Destroys Briar Rabbit entirely.

Rodeo guys wrestle down live steers. Some believe that to be unethical, inhumane, etc.
The list is endless. All this because of snapshot in time.
Given the circumstances, opportunity and star alignment, I would most likely pause for a picture. I'd wager that most would too.

So who are these behavior cops going to be?
 
Quote:
public hangings would go a long way in crime prevention.
some crimes are so haines that the perpetrator should be skinned alive then stretched over a ant pile

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowingsmilie.gif
 
Quote:
Can we assume that if something is illegal in some states, that someone somewhere finds that activity unethical?


Of the top of my head, I can think of a list of things hunting wise that are legal in some states, and not in others:

baiting
party hunting
night hunting
use of leg hold traps
decoys
shooting jakes (turkey)
hunting on Sunday
hunting with dogs (bears, deer, might be others)
shooting fall turkey
shooting hen turkeys
hunting from vehicle
minimum callibers
minimum draw weights
hunting under high fence

I'm sure there are others.

If we confine the discussin to hunting, what are some things that are legal in some states, but you find unethical?




No one has commented on this yet.

The question "who gets to decide what is ethical for everyone" is very to the point.

I would say quite possibly that it is those who make the laws. Unless you consider breaking the law ethical.

"An eye for an eye" is most certainly in the Bible as part of the Mosiac Law.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is also in there under God's law.
 
So what's the problem, Jay?

You don't like the fact that some of us have voiced our opinions?

Ethics aside, do you think it is okay to let a wounded animal suffer?
 
Quote:
So what's the problem, Jay?

You don't like the fact that some of us have voiced our opinions?




On the contrary, I find Jay to be joining in the discussion, and asking valid questions. I would also suggest that he simply voiced his opinion. Do you not like the fact that he did?
 
Quote:
Quote:
Can we assume that if something is illegal in some states, that someone somewhere finds that activity unethical?


Of the top of my head, I can think of a list of things hunting wise that are legal in some states, and not in others:

baiting
party hunting
night hunting
use of leg hold traps
decoys
shooting jakes (turkey)
hunting on Sunday
hunting with dogs (bears, deer, might be others)
shooting fall turkey
shooting hen turkeys
hunting from vehicle
minimum callibers
minimum draw weights
hunting under high fence

I'm sure there are others.

If we confine the discussin to hunting, what are some things that are legal in some states, but you find unethical?




No one has commented on this yet.

The question "who gets to decide what is ethical for everyone" is very to the point.





I think ethics are often determined by social norms. Someone mentioned Hitler's treatment of certain ethnic groups earlier in the thread. Apparently, back in 1940 Germany it was socially acceptable to methodically exterminate an entire race of people. This wasn't ethical by our own standards, but it was ethical to the people in power in Germany at the time.

By voicing our collective opinions, sometimes we can change the standard of what is ethical in this day and age. The above example of photos of deer strapped to the bumpers of vehicles years (or decades) ago is a good example. We don't see this as much today because the social norms have changed.
 
Quote:
Quote:
So what's the problem, Jay?

You don't like the fact that some of us have voiced our opinions?




On the contrary, I find Jay to be joining in the discussion, and asking valid questions. I would also suggest that he simply voiced his opinion. Do you not like the fact that he did?


I do not see that he asked a valid question by asking several times who the behavior cops are going to be.

He is trying to make his point in a condescending manner. This doesn't add to our discussion, it takes away from it.
 
Quote:
He is trying to make his point in a condescending manner. This doesn't add to our discussion, it takes away from it.



Possibly. I didn't take it that way.
 
Quote:
Quote:
I believe that something can be legal in one state and illegal in another, but that thing will be either ethical or unethical in both states, no matter what the laws.




Can we assume that if something is illegal in some states, that someone somewhere finds that activity unethical?


Of the top of my head, I can think of a list of things hunting wise that are legal in some states, and not in others:

baiting
party hunting
night hunting
use of leg hold traps
decoys
shooting jakes (turkey)
hunting on Sunday
hunting with dogs (bears, deer, might be others)
shooting fall turkey
shooting hen turkeys
hunting from vehicle
minimum callibers
minimum draw weights
hunting under high fence

I'm sure there are others.

If we confine the discussin to hunting, what are some things that are legal in some states, but you find unethical?



Good idea. But ethics are never cut and dried. Ethics arise from somewhere other than law and have to do with what we believe is right, fair, honorable and good, not just legal.

For example, I think it is unethical to hunt fenced animals. It is legal here, but I have serious problems with it. But my objection is also difficult to pin down because the size of the enclosure is a part of the ethics, and the handling of the animals is part of it too.

If the fenced area is 3 acres with no cover, very few people would consider it ethical to shoot an elk that was trapped in that enclosure and call it hunting. Now, I have shot pigs in a corral, but that was slaughter not hunting.

What if the fenced enclosure was 25000 acres and included lots of natural cover? Does that make it more ethical? Hmm .... Maybe.

What if the farmer has handled that elk so often that he can actually walk up to it with a handful of alfalfa (this is actually a true story for one hunt farm near here) and touch it? I think that changes the ethics of the "hunt" too. What if the animals never see a human except the hunters?

Every situation must be individually judged on its ethical merits (that's partly why we have trials and judges and all that in our legal system). But I am prepared to say that my definition of "fair chase" does not include hunting animals that are owned, fed, doctored, and sold from inside a fence (farmer's livestock in other words) of any size. So I believe hunt farms are unethical, or more accurately, I have never seen a hunt farm I thought was ethical. Or even, there are no ethical hunt farms in Saskatchewan.

They do a thriving business, however, from hunters (almost exclusively American or European) who pay thousands to shoot a trapped elk or deer and then take the antlers home to hang on the wall as trophies. It is absolutely legal.

That does not mean, however, that there could never be a hunt farm that I would agree was ethically run. But my ethical standards would make it very, very rare, and likely unprofitable.

So in conclusion, I think I have proved nothing. And that is often how ethical discussions conclude. I do not believe, however, that discussion of ethics is useless or without value just because we will seldom prove anything. Perhaps it would be even more to the real point to discuss where and how one should look for sources of ethical value systems from which to make such judgments.
 
Great posts Tim. I agree with you in the way you teach your students and I agree with the fact that not every thing that is legal is ethical. To some misguided people though if it is legal then it must be ethical because there is no "law&" that says otherwise. Ethics is muddy water so if you can create a student that understands that ethics is a personal choice rather than a legal one you have created an independent thinker. That is a good thing.

The issue as I see it is a conflict of ethics but ethics being what they are cannot be enforced other than by law. Caliber restrictions on deer are enforced for ethical reasons. Carcass display laws are also enforced for ethical reasons. There are a lot of laws on the books that are in place for ethical reasons. Why? It is because there is a small minority of idiots that don't have a common sense of decency. They are the ones that prescribe to the though that if it is legal then it ethical. And it is these bottom feeders that will be the first ones to throw that in your face.

No one likes every aspect of there lives legislated. I hate it, I hate every thing about it but the sad truth is that there has to be laws to enforce some ethical values for the overall good. Take big game hunting for instance. If it were not illegal to shoot elk from helicopters there would be a population of "hunters" and outfitters that would be actively engaging in the activity. Wouldn't the media have a hay day with that one? That would give all hunters a black eye.

There are such things as a common code of ethics. Things that should be engrained socially as you grow up. That is what makes debates on these forums so important. I don't think we are feeding the ARA agenda for debating ethics on line. I think we are addressing important issues amongst ourselves to help regulate a standard of acceptable behavior. If we do not or are not willing to do this amongst ourselves it will be at some point forced upon us by law. And that is not what any of us want.

There are a small minority here that dose not conform to even the minimum ethical standards of the majority. There area a lot of despicable and disgusting things that people can "legally" do to coyotes and other animals. The question is that should we allow this behavior to spill over on a public forum?

It is an ethical standard to try to finish off your game as quickly and humanly as possible. It is unbecoming of sportsmen not too? Everyone prides themselves on one-shot kills. Barry went against the grain and instead of finishing off the coyote like the vast majority of sportsmen would have he seized the photo opportunity and gloated over it for a hero shot. He posted it on PM, quickly got booed off of stage and it is over. I don't think for a second that berry will ever think he did anything wrong. I do think that he will think twice about posting crap like that again though.

It was unanimously agreed upon that gory, graphic pictures serve no positive purpose here on PM so they are banned. Cussing and name-calling serves no purpose either so it is not allowed. They have to be in the TOS or a minority will do those things and upset the majority.

I have said for years now that pictures of dead puppies and wet females have no use here on PM but they fall on deaf ears. Every year with out exception there are huge debates, blow ups and banning because some guy thinks it is cool to post pictures of a female with her [beeep] swelled up and hanging out.

It is ignorant and distasteful to post those kinds of pictures no matter what the reason you killed the coyote for. I am sure it is a God given right to kill puppies and wet females but it is also are responsibility as a group to represent the interests of everyone. A simple fix would be to group small puppies and wet females into the "graphic" category and not allow them to be posted.

No one that I am aware of has ever had a problem with pictures of dead coyotes shown in a respectable manner. That is what it is all about. To hunt, kill cleanly and share the photos and story with your friends on line. Everything really goes south when people show disrespectful photos. Why not nip this thing in the bud before it gets out of hand?

Good hunting.

Q,
 
Quote:
I think it is unethical to hunt fenced animals.



Do you think it is ethical to kill a fenced animal such as cattle, sheep or hogs? Does the term "hunting" cause one to be unethcial and the other ethical?


Quote:
if you can create a student that understands that ethics is a personal choice rather than a legal one you have created an independent thinker. That is a good thing.




If a persons "personal choice" differs from our own, (e.g. thinks something is ethical or unethical that you don't) is that a good thing? Is it still respected even though it differs?
 
Wow there are just too many questions to answer.
But what might be right in my eyes might not be in your eyes.So we might as well just agree to disagree.
Someone brought up an interesting point on the other thread about shooting prairie dogs and wounding one at 5 or 600 yards and not going ahead and putting it out of its misery.Just because their vermin does that make it right?To some people shooting a prairie dog and having it crawl back into its hole to die is alright,me included.But when they lose a coyote because they gut shot it they about crap their drawers over it,me encluded.Why is that,their both animals arent they?
I dont think anyone will agree with me on this but this is the way I hunt and the way I do things.If Im coyote hunting or bobcat hunting I want the critter to die right there when I squeeze the trigger.If it doesnt I do everything within my power to get that critter.To me a coyote or a bobcat is a trophy just as much as a 10 point buck,even more so,to me anyway.But I cant say I do the same for prairie dogs and such.Not because I think somehow coyotes or bobcats deserve more respect than a prairie dog but because I've shot millions of prairie dogs,the pelts aint worth anything and their destructive.If I wound a prairie dog its no big deal.In fact if one gets wounded more times than not it will make distress sounds and that brings more out for me to shoot.Is that unethical?To you Im sure it is.But for me it means alot more shootin and less waitin around for the others to get brave enough to stick their head out of the hole.
An animal is an animal no matter which way you prefer to look at it.I shoot to kill and if I dont,I make the second shot count.Sometimes I just dont get into that big a hurry to put the second shot in the critter.But thats only if the critter is helping me out by being hurt.Unethical?Mean?I dont know but I've shure killed alot of varmints doing that,which is good because thats what I was out there to do.Prairie dogs and starlings both fall for it.
 
Quote:
So who are these behavior cops going to be?



Duck hunters believe it wrong to shoot a wounded duck on water but have no peoblem sic-ing their retriever on one.

Waiting 30 minutes after pursuing the deer you shot is acceptable but certainly doesn’t qualify as putting it down as quick as possible. Ethical?

Ripping the lips off fish and tossing them in a confined livewell in order to grab at the terrified creatures later to kill them is acceptable. Why is that?





Jay,

You are really reaching here.

First off, Duck hunters have NO problem swatting cripples on the water. We'd rather have our dogs fetch a dead duck than chase a duck half way across a lake and then never catch it. I hunt ducks about 40 days out of a 60 day season. Everyone I've ever hunted with says, "If it's head is up when it hits the water, shoot it!"

Waiting 30 minutes after bow-sticking a deer? Letting it die where you can find it is far better than pushing it when it's wounded and then never retrieving it. Trust me, if bow hunters would be able to get up on a deer and finish it off with out it running off, they'd do it.

Ripping the lips off fish? HA HA HA... I catch hundreds of fish each year. I can honestly say I've never ripped their lips off before putting them in the live well.

Ethics? To each his own. Frankly, if you rip the lips off of fish before throwing them in a livewell, I don't want to fish with you. If you don't swat the cripple duck on the water, I don't want to hunt with you.

You are playing devil's advocate here. But, you really aren't doing a very good job of it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
4949shooter
Sorry to come across as condescending in your eyes. If you want to be Top behavior cop and decide we should all believe as you, be my guest. It's good to be King. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

edit: The smiley face didn't come across. I was attempting humor if it wasn't apparent.
 
Last edited:
I have a few questions about what you posted Q.

Hopefully if you would answer them it would help get an answer to my other question."Who gets to decide ethics for everyone?

How do you decide who fits in as a misguided, bottom feeding, minority of idiots? What are the qualifications of some who makes that judgment? And if "name callingserves no purpose, why would you do it?
Who decides what "decency" is?
Where do i find this "code of ethics" that i should engrain into my kids and grandkids?
Who decides what is "ignorant and distasteful"?

And lastly,how could we "represent the interests of everyone?
 
Quote:

He is trying to make his point in a condescending manner. This doesn't add to our discussion, it takes away from it.



He ain't condescending, he's right, IMHO.

"Condescending" would be pushing one's own self justified morals on another...

Humans can't go around picking & choosing which animals are OK to kill and what they is consider "cruel".

There are those who'd consider killing a sewer rat to be FINE, but killing a baby lamb for Easter dinner to be cruel. Says who? The 86%??? Phooooey!!! I've slaughtered plenty of baby lambs with nothing more than a frim grip and a sharp blade. Cruel? Nope. And I feel I'm a more level headed and humble person for doing so. Makes one appreciate much that is so often taken for granted...

Some would find absolutely nothing wrong with putting out glue traps for a rat, but would consider it cruel to deal with a feral cats in the same fashion? WHY???

This is the cruz of the issue

Who are WE to "pick and choose" which animals are OK to kill and which aren't?

Can't anyone see how silly and hypocritical is?

Who are we to deem an action toward one particular animal as "cruel" but to a different animal "morally justified"???

Has Walt Disney forever poisoned the human race?

Some people's moral compasses are so far off that they can't help but be raging hypocrites...
 
Quote:
Some people's moral compasses are so far off that they can't help but be raging hypocrites...



Your moral compass can only point you in the right direction. It cannot make you go there.

Randy
 
Quote:
Quote:

He is trying to make his point in a condescending manner. This doesn't add to our discussion, it takes away from it.



He ain't condescending, he's right, IMHO.

"Condescending" would be pushing one's own self justified morals on another...

Humans can't go around picking & choosing which animals are OK to kill and what they is consider "cruel".

There are those who'd consider killing a sewer rat to be FINE, but killing a baby lamb for Easter dinner to be cruel. Says who? The 86%??? Phooooey!!! I've slaughtered plenty of baby lambs with nothing more than a frim grip and a sharp blade. Cruel? Nope. And I feel I'm a more level headed and humble person for doing so. Makes one appreciate much that is so often taken for granted...

Some would find absolutely nothing wrong with putting out glue traps for a rat, but would consider it cruel to deal with a feral cats in the same fashion? WHY???

This is the cruz of the issue

Who are WE to "pick and choose" which animals are OK to kill and which aren't?

Can't anyone see how silly and hypocritical is?

Who are we to deem an action toward one particular animal as "cruel" but to a different animal "morally justified"???

Has Walt Disney forever poisoned the human race?

Some people's moral compasses are so far off that they can't help but be raging hypocrites...

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
 
Quote:
Your moral compass can only point you in the right direction.



And therein lies the answer. My moral compass may not point the same direction as the next guy's. Who's wrong, me or him? Depends on who you ask I imagine.
 
Back
Top