ETHICS - WHAT ARE THEY?

[BT]

I see this alot anymore and it is usually brought up by one guy saying that the other has none and that person accused claiming there is no such thing ;D

I believe that there is a code of ethics in the field and I believe most people know what it is.....reguardless of the fact as to if they follow it or not.

Now I may be wrong and there may be people who really don't know that there is a right or a wrong
Generally I save this judgment for children but hey!....could be , right?.

Now as to ethics.....certainly there are those who have a different code and those are not the ones which I am talking about

Differences are in the upbringing and location of birth (in general)and if you don't see eye to eye but both have set rules for right and wrong.....it is hard to say that either side lacks ethics

What I am saying is that there is a code whatever it may be and there is also a bottom line

The fact is that people are (IMO) getting away with alot of nonsense in the field and on the boards by simply stating that "you cant tell me whats ethical" based on the truth that there are differences across the map.

My position is that regardless of what your location , there are rules of fair chase based on simple humanity that guide all of us who speak of ethics.

So can there be a standard with which we strive to guide others who fail to acknowledge their short comings?.

I think that there needs to be.....if for no other reason than to give back in turn what has been given to us.

Lets hear your position ..... no arguments and no judgment

Questions however....should be expected and answered in order to provide understanding of what you mean (and know) to be your own ethical guide line.

I fully expect to be questioned and held to account for my own beliefs.
I also feel very sure that I will be able to provide support for my contentions

If not ..... Perhaps I need to rethink the area's where I lack a defense

With all of this being said....I do believe that ethics play a huge roll in success.

[Greg Krause]

well, there is a thread floating around here from last year about ethics. I just can't seem to find it now. If memory serves me, Tedicast had just about the best defenition I have ever heard.
It's true that "what is ethical" can vary from person to person, but ultimatly I believe that the bottom line remains the same. I'll give an example.
there is a guy who lives near Albany NY. He shoots, hand me down compounds, not set up properly. He shoots fingers with no sights. His "good" groups are 5" at 20yds. Is it unethical for this guys to go out in the deer woods....... it's possible, but not in this case. He is a very good hunter with many of the top scoring deer taken in the state. He limits his shots to 15yds, where he has a 4" group. He hunts smart and hard and knows his abilitys. he rarely takes a shot where a deer dosen't pile up very quickly. In my book he is a ethical hunter.
Take a guy (probably the guy calling man #1 out, on his shooting ability) who shoots great groups at 40yds. He is very proficiient in his shooting but lacks in his "hunting ability". Now for this reason any deer that gets with in his 40yd circle gets shot at. reguardless of obstructions or angles. he says, "can't kill what you don't shoot at" .........this guy is unethical.
Now you the opposite scenarion where a guy only takes close shots but obstructions and angles don't matter to him and a guy who takes carefully aimed/planned longer shots.
It is impossible to say "this" is what an ethical shot is. it varies case by case, but in the end it's all the same. to me an ethical shot is one that has a very high(as close to 100 as posible) percenatge of killing the animal, quickly, cleanly and consistantly.

That is just one aspect of ethics.......let me think on a more broad term.

[Greg Krause]

This is what tedicast said in relpy to another thread. I know he speks for me when he wrote this and I bet he speaks for most of you. This is the thread it came from
btreviews.proboards57.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1155087439
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORALS

Moral are something that is taught to, and ingrained in most of us, starting at a very young age. It is how we differentiate between what's right, and what's wrong. What's good and what's bad.

ETHICS

In my opinion, ethics differ from person to person, up to a point. What is ethical for one, might not be ethical for the next guy. Depending on experience, and ability, and to a lesser degree need. What I mean by this is....Lets say you have a 35 yard shot, at a hard quartering deer. You know where the shot needs to enter. You know you have the ability to make the shot. You have practiced at those ranges, and angles. You are confident you can make a quick, humane kill. To this hunter this is an ethical shot. Now put the same shot in front of an inexperienced hunter. Someone who hasn't practiced at these ranges, who isn't really sure of deer anatomy. It is the same shot the last guys just made, but it doesn't make it ethical for this hunter. Can an experienced hunter make a bad shot?...lose this animal?...of course he can. We are all human. none of us are perfect. But, the first hunter had the knowledge and confidence in his equipment and abilities to make this shot. It was still an ethical shot.

To me, ethics comes down to respect. Respecting the animal your hunting. Doing everything in your power to make a fast humane kill. Practicing until your weapon is part of you. Knowing when to let an animal walk, and being OK with it afterward.

Now to the need part.... To me, part of being an ethical hunter, is not harvesting more then you need. If a hunter has a family, and they eat the game that is harvested year round...there is nothing wrong with tagging out, and taking 8, or 10 deer a year. But if you turn the situation around, to a hunter that doesn't eat what he harvests, and it goes to waste. That is way less then ethical. Almost everywhere there are programs like hunters for the hungry, or soup kitchens that will gladly accept venison to feed the homeless. If you feel the need to tag out, and have more then you or your family and friends can consume....thats is a great way to get rid of excess meat. Much better then letting it go to waste.

Ok...I'm done rambling now. In a nutshell, to me, Morals, and Ethics can be summed up in one word.......RESPECT

[tedicast]

Well....Skip just saved me a lot of typing.....thanks Skip

[michihunter]

It's a persons own standard belief in what is right and wrong and performing to those standards accordingly. Tedicast is right, morals are taught (knowing right from wrong) and ethics are following those morals in your actions. There are many differing opinions of these things amongst individuals. For example, hunting with dogs, hunting over bait, shooting fawns, etc. Some will say "If it's legal, it's right" and I for one couldn't disagree more. Just because someone follows the law, doesn't necessarily mean they are ethical. But that would be only in MY terms of ethical. Not necessarily theirs. Societies views on a certain situation is basically what determines right from wrong too. And that is what makes ethics such a hot topic. Sometimes it's tough to go with the "majority opinion" when living life. Especially for hard headed people like myself!! ;D

[BT]

I do think that is a very good answer indeed and I would like to take a portion of that answer and examine it.

Lets say you have a 35 yard shot, at a hard quartering deer. You know where the shot needs to enter. You know you have the ability to make the shot. You have practiced at those ranges, and angles. You are confident you can make a quick, humane kill.

Although I understand how to survey this situation prior to the shot....I am looking to get to the heart of this dilemma.

If this hunter knows all of these things to be true as it pertains on his ability to make the shot , the deer does not

The potential for the wound or miss is very real at this distance even for Randy Ulmer , simply because the reaction time for that animal far exceeds the flight of the arrow at that distance.

In knowing this fact , is the same hunter now taking the unethical approach ?

For that matter....is taking any shot beyond the capability of the equipment/self unethical?

[michihunter]

Deer are LESS likely to jump at a greater distance. Think of a paper bag being popped in your ear as opposed to one being popped two rooms away.

[Greg Krause]

michihunter said:

Deer are LESS likely to jump at a greater distance. Think of a paper bag being popped in your ear as opposed to one being popped two rooms away.

BINGO! A deer is less likely to "jump" but it has a bit of time to move, once the arrow is on it's way. it is important to "read" it's body language and know it's not oing anywhere. That is really the key to any shot, no matter what the distance is, wait for a relaxed animal. it makes your chances of a good hit much better.

[SPIKER]

What about the gender and type of deer taken. I've heard many arguments about shooting does, or young bucks that can grow into trophy animals. On another board, one of the members quit the hunting contest, and the board after seeing what he considered to be unethical hunting practice by many of the other members. Mainly the harvesting of young does, to which the other members took offense at saying that they were the best eating and that there was nothing wrong with it at all.
I'll be honest, I'm a meat hunter, and a deer is a deer is a deer, and I don't care who cares. I will say that I would never shoot a fawn, or a nursing mother, or even at a group of deer with fawns present.
But that's just my credo.

[Greg Krause]

to me a deer is a deer. period. If I get the notion to shoot a deer then i do, reguardless of size....as long as I have a tag. I do like to let small bucks walk on a few of my properties where I am doing a bit of managing.
I will say that one time I shot a mother that had a very small fawn with her. When I found the doe, the fawn was only 20yds away and bleating. I felt like garbage. I shot the fawn and felt like, at least she won't die a slow death. Now i prefer to shoot the fawn(if I shoor either) cause at least the mother will survive and won't hang around for 2 hours bleating. The small ones are very good eating and I don't care who you are. Around here the population is out of control and a dead deer is a dead deer. actually the fawn has the capability of producing more offspring then the mother, just based on the # of years left to breed.