Discuss Ted Nugent's Article, "Ethics...Schmethics!"

Discuss articles and commentaries from our recent issues!
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:44 am

RE: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article, "Ethics...Schmethics!"

Postby hunter480 » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:25 pm

We can feel as self righteous and be as self congratulatory as we want about our "ethics" as hunters, but we need to realize that our opponents neither share, nor care about those ethics. We won't win them over with ethical behavior because in their lexicon there is no such thing as ethical hunting. Finally, we may actually be endangering our game populations as well as the future of hunting with malicious adherence to an ethical standard that precludes us from achieving management objectives, and keeps people who might otherwise hunt from having the success that would bring them back to the field.

Absolutely could NOT disagree more.........

Let game biologists make game bag limits and quotas based on sound wildlife management and not the wants of the trophy guys, or even, the blow-hard celeb who uses their status to make their extreme agenda to have more of a voice than the regular guy. What would actually endanger our game populations would be letting cultural pressure, rather than sound, scientific wildlife game management dictate bag limits and quotas.
And it needs to be pointed out, again, that the majority of the American, non-hunting public are not our opponents......and they, do indeed, care about our ethics......we only hurt ourselves, NOT in policing our own ranks, but in needlessly offending and turning this group against us.
Greg Russell

The Second Amendment, America`s Original Homeland Security

Highlander Archery
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:29 pm

RE: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article, "Ethics...Schmethics!"

Postby Highlander Archery » Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:51 am


How would you like to make a donation to the anti-hunting movement? You wouldn’t, of course, but like it or not, you already have. In 2007, for example, $280,000 of your tax dollars went directly to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)—the nation’s preeminent anti-hunting group—after HSUS successfully stopped the delisting of wolves from the Endangered Species Act in Minnesota.
Yes, your tax money is going straight to anti-hunting groups that file lawsuits to end legal hunting opportunities. If that’s not enough, taxpayers gave more than $436,000 to anti-hunting groups for blocking wolf management in the northern Rockies. All told, 13 environmental and anti-hunting groups, like Defenders of Wildlife, sued the federal government 1,159 times in the last 10 years and were reimbursed an estimated $34 million in legal fees from the federal government. Many of those suits had a direct impact on your freedom to hunt.

User avatar
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:56 pm

RE: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article, "Ethics...Schmethics!"

Postby scotman » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:13 pm

Do you agree or disagree with Nugent's comments? Do you think game laws in your area are ethical? What does it mean to be ethical? Should hunters need to point out their ethical behavior? We look forward to hearing from you.

I do not get to post as much as I want here at D&DH forum so this is not dragging up an old topic but just picking up were I last left off.

I whole heartily disagree with Ted and his perception of hunting ethics. Ted uses words like "bastardized, fear mongering, lunatic fringe..ect" to elicit the same type of hateful rhetoric from fellow hunters. To use it as ammunition to throw it back in our face. He is attempting to divide us hunters as whole. By getting other hunters on his side he is attempting to change the current laws for his own personal ideals of what hunting should be.

Just so happens he used these tactics in attempt to take the spot light off his recent run in with the law for poaching. To be honest after I heard that story of him being charged for poaching I'm not worried anymore about Ted and his hateful hunting ethics ramblings.

Do I think the game laws in my area are ethical? Ethics where never intended to be instituted into game laws. For instance we can't use salt licks here  in NY? Why is that? Is it because a salt lick is unethical to use? I thought the same in-till I asked our DEC office. The answer was, the law is not in place for ethics it is there based on scientific findings that deer readily contract and spread diseases when using the same salt licks.

Sunday hunting is now allowed in NY. Do I find it more ethical now that Sunday Hunting is allowed? Ethics never played a part in the law of no Sunday hunting it was there because the majority went to church on Sundays back when the law first was created. Now that most don't go to church on Sundays the law is changed. It has nothing to do with ethics it was based on the principle of respecting one's religion.

What does it mean to be ethical? Ethics is based on obeying hunting laws. Being ethical means obeying the current hunting laws and regulations even if you don't agree with them. Ted crossed that line when he was charged with 11 counts of poaching. He is unintentionally teaching young hunters it is fine to break the hunting laws if you think they are their for ethical purposes.

Should hunters need to point out their ethical behavior? No I don't think they should. Ethics is a personality trait something the religious type might call being modest, giving glory to the one who created them. It would be like if I gave to the poor then stood on the street corner shouting "Look at me, look how great I am, I gave to the poor." I would find that to be self serving.
"The deerskin rug on our study floor, the buck's head over the fireplace, what are these after all but the keys which have unlocked enchanted doors, and granted us not only health and vigor, but a fresh and fairer vision of existence" -Paul. Brandreth

User avatar
Sam Menard
Posts: 117
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:50 am

RE: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article, "Ethics...Schmethics!"

Postby Sam Menard » Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:59 pm

I'm not a fan of Ted, but I did agree with some of his points. For instance there are some useless laws on the books.

After reading the article, I thought that Ted sort of side-stepped the ethics debate by taking aim at laws that he doesn't agree with. Unfortunately, not everyone uses due care in the woods (or along roadways) as Ted claims to , so laws are usually drafted to include the lowest common denominator.

Ethics are important and relevant to hunters. Tell me Ted, what do you think about deliberately shooting a deer in the guts? Or, shooting at game beyond your capabilities?
What about snaring deer or using leg-hold traps to catch them? Clearly the last 2 questions are against the law, but have nothing to do with safety or wildlife management.

Often there is a fine line between ethics and our definition of cruelty. As far as I can tell, most places have animal cruelty laws.

"The true hunter counts his achievements in proportion to the effort involved and the fairness of the sport."

Dr. Saxton Pope

Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:44 am

RE: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article, "Ethics...Schmethics!"

Postby justime » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:53 am

 Currently the law in NY does not permit a hunter to locate and end the suffering of a wounded deer after dusk. This means that the hunter either leaves the deer until the next morning or breaks the law and ends the deers suffering. I think many can agree that whether they approve of hunting or hunters we want to facilitate humane treatment whenever possible. I also think that hunters in general would prefer that their first shot be mercifully accurate; however, it is often not the case.
I write this letter because my brother recently made the decision to end a deers suffering after dusk which had been shot and wounded by another hunter. He has readily admitted to breaking the prevailing law and willingly paid the penalty for his actions. I would expect no less since he served the community as a police officer until he was gunned down when he placed himself between a citizen and a gunman in pursuit. His life changed forever on that dark morning. He struggled to find another way for his life and has spent much time in the outdoors hunting and fishing which I believe has had a healing effect on him. I also don't doubt that he would not change his decision regarding his ending a suffering animals life even if it violated law. I have always seen him act out of the most ethical motives.
Yes there are those who downplay or ignore the less attractive elements of hunting with professions that animals don't suffer as much as we think. Yet we insist on quick and humane slaughtering of all other animals who make up part of our diet. Deer deserve the same regard. Some unwarranted fear that changing the law would lead to whole sale poaching is pure conjecture at best. There are always poachers regardless of what law is in effect. There is no reason that the deer should suffer because we are worried about the outlaws in our society “getting away with it”. And, there is no reason to believe that poaching is going to create a major threat to the New York State herd population.
I urge you to make a phone call or write an email to change the current law so that law abiding hunters can do the “right thing” when encountering a wounded deer no matter the hour of the day. Certainly there can be a process via cell phones by which a hunter could obtain verbal authorization to take the appropriate action.

Posts: 86
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 3:06 pm

RE: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article, "Ethics...Schmethics!"

Postby Huntingdad » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:31 pm


Look at this link. This guy is great. He had the law in NY changed so deer trackers can put down deer after dark. If your brother has the time maybe he could train a dog and join his group.

Eat or be Eaten!!!!

User avatar
Big Horse
Posts: 301
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:53 pm

RE: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article, "Ethics...Schmethics!"

Postby Big Horse » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:33 am


I'm curious why Nugent did not serve in Viet Nam !!! He's always talking "smack" to the troops. How can anyone believe anyyhing this Narcissist says. When he had his chance he did the "Chicken Walk".

Well, I haven't been had.

It's apparent your curiosity for why Nugent did not serve in Viet Nam is not near as strong as your desire to continue to spread a long refuted myth. I doesn't take much research to find out that Ted signed up for the Selective Service but was never called.

Heck, it only took me a few seconds to find the information right here on this site.


For the factual record, you will find that Nugent had a 1Y deferment during that period of time, and that when the draft lottery was introduced, (about the time of the Rolling Stone story) his lottery number was something in the 300s, (311 I think). The highest number ever called was in the 200s. Nugent was never a candidate to be drafted.

Live to Hunt, Hunt to Live.

Maxie Bordeaux
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article,

Postby Maxie Bordeaux » Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:47 pm

I Posted my opinion on ethical shots a few days ago so if anyone read what I said then it is pretty clear how I feel about what Uncle Teddy had to say. I do believe that way to much is made about the ethics that are involved in any type of hunting especially big game hunting. As I have said before it is hard to be ethical when you kill something. The very act of killing could be seen as unethical to some people. I understand that good clean shots kill the animal faster with less suffering. But, sometimes mistakes are mad. Some people's nerves get tore up worse than others and they rush a shot and make a bad hit, Is that unethical? In my opinion some people do use the ethics question to put themselves on a higher level, or to make themselves feel better about what their doing. I don't think North Carolina game laws are unethical.

Posts: 238
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 8:20 am
Location: Northern Wisconsin

Re: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article,

Postby MZS » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:54 pm

Shooting a deer at a standstill from a rest at 70 yds with a scoped rifle surely is pretty darned easy. Does that make it unethical? I don't think so. Shooting a deer over bait from 20 yds with a bow is perhaps more challenge than the 70 yd shot with a rifle, yet many would say it is unethical.
Really, much of hunting is not so much "sport" as it is prep, equipment, stand placement, etc. The whole process makes it a sport. And a good one.

Where "ethics" comes in, IMHO, is when a hunting method robs another hunter of his/her hunt. This is why I think the baiting in WI should only be allowed for early pre-rut archery. In early season, deer do not divert off their natural patterns so easily for bait like they do in later season when food is scarce.

So I don't have an "ethical" problem with baiting, until the practice messes up someone else's hunt. And sure, food plots might do the same thing, but at least they allow the deer to develop regular patterns as opposed to all of sudden seeing all deer disappear from your land 3 days before gun season cause the neighbors dumped all kind of bait out.

User avatar
Posts: 426
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:06 am
Location: Land of Lincoln

Re: Discuss Ted Nugent's Article,

Postby jonny5buck » Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:07 pm

I think this subject should be buried with Osama Bin Laden.....ethics ...like morals leaves too much to interpretation... :|


Return to Deer & Deer Hunting Features

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests