different opinions

[passin through]

Hal- A-Loo -Yah Brother!  Ethics are what you make of them I think.  I love the historical bits here.  I never knew anything about J. Audubon but the rest I had read and am glad somebody trotted it out.  In the days of supermarkets and sport hunting people forget that time was, no matter how famous you were, you ate what you shot and if you wern't famous you often shot to eat.  One of our more painful family trads involves a handful of shells and a single barrel 410.....bring back the shells or a squirrel for every shell you don't bring back.....the need for that is not there any more but the cause and effect makes you very sure of your shot. 

We are the same way here with the white oak acorn drop and we have always hunted over corn or bait and are no more successful than the next guy. 

I find it very interesting that you mentioned the shooting of the does because that is a major problem I face with the older generations in my camp....they just won't do it.  Speaking of old traditions and ethics heres a couple for you:  Cutting a downed deers throat to let him bleed out.  It did not matter if the deer had been dead 2 hours ....you had to cut his throat according to my Grandfather.  The purpose was of course like a steer for slaughter letting the heart pump the blood out.  (always thought they were kooks for that especially when the deer was dead) He said his dad and grand dad would enforce that with a switch from that same tree you mentioned causing problems with acorns.  (come to think of it thats where they got thier accuracy aids from during squirrel season too....reminds me I got a tree to cut[:D])
Another thing that a lot of modern day robin hoods(& I are one) seem to want to forget is that bows themselves were once looked down on as an unethical means of hunting for thier inability to kill quickly and cleanly  and the supposed high loss of game animals attributed to them.  I still know of properties here and in Texas that the owneres simply will not let a bow on the place.  Do not even have one in your truck.  In the hot and humid deep south anti bow was, and in some places still is, as firmly held to as an unethical means as using hounds is reguarded in the north.  Lots more loss down here I guess... It is rare here for a deer left overnight to be edible due to hi temps and spoilage before say Thanksgiving.

[:D]BTW--- I think the bats need to be wood...aluminum makes too much noise to carry on much conversation.[:D]

[gutpile]

ORIGINAL: Sailfish

Gut the answer (IMHO) is yes.

But really, a 1 acre island would support little wildlife.

Say a 100,000 acre island And I would say yes too.

I posed the question cause people seem to think if there is a fence involved then they can't get away, but thats not the case..And usually those that scream the loadest how "ethical" they are, are usually the ones doing "unethical" things while hunting...

[shaman]

ORIGINAL: passin through
 
Hal- A-Loo -Yah Brother! 

 . . .

  Speaking of old traditions and ethics heres a couple for you:  Cutting a downed deers throat to let him bleed out.  It did not matter if the deer had been dead 2 hours ....you had to cut his throat according to my Grandfather.  The purpose was of course like a steer for slaughter letting the heart pump the blood out.  (always thought they were kooks for that especially when the deer was dead)[:D])

 . . .
[:D]BTW--- I think the bats need to be wood...aluminum makes too much noise to carry on much conversation.[:D]

Thanks! I appreciate your appreciation.

Slitting throats is one of my favorites.  It is absolutely useless on a dead animal. I had a fun time discussing this with a rabbinical student one night.   The idea of course is to bleed out the animal, but you need a pumping heart to do it.  Kosher slaughter slits the throat and then hauls the animal up by the back legs to pump it all out. Done right, the animal loses consciousness immediately.  Of course, no game shot with rifle or bow is going to be Kosher either, but the intent is to remove blood out of the meat.  You go a long way to accomplishing the same thing with a double lung shot. (except the whole dedication to God part). Its' just the blood  stays in the cavity until you gut it out. 

So somebody hears Jews slit throats to slaughter to keep it the carcass clean for God, and the next thing you know every hunter thinks you have to slit the throat of every dead carcass to remove blood.

The earliest mention of it I can find is in Genesis 9:4-5

  "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."

The problem is that in Palestine and other hot climates, the blood spoils quicker than the rest of the meat.  If you don't remove as much blood as possible, you will face the wrath of God about six hours later when the pathogens in the tainted meat start working over your intestinal tract. A few iterations of this, and somebody is going to have this written down and posted on the side of the tent: Don't eat the bloody meat.


You use aluminum bats, because the they are much easier to keep clean.  Too much bacteria is going to accumulate in the wood bats.  I would keep barrels filled with a combination of degreaser, anti-bacterial detergent, and some citric acid to lower the PH.  A good dunking and a wipe down between uses would hold down the bacteria count. 

Sorry, I couldn't help it-- I used to work in a frozen food plant.

[hunter480]

Different opinions are fine-and just like everybody has one, everybody`s entitled to theirs.
 
It`s a hoot how many guys around "know-it-all". Been there, done that, read it, heard it, but it ain`t really so, never was either.
 
Whatever.
 
I`d say that it`s all about whatever each of us can live with, and still look at ourselves in the mirror each morning, but for too many, that wouldn`t be a problem no matter what they`ve done.

[EatDeer]

ORIGINAL: shaman

I guess I am just an old Fudd at heart.  So many of the Indisputable Truths that get bandied about online aren't, never were, and probably never will be.

If you check out Traditional American Wild Turkey Hunting by Ed McIlhenny (first published in 1914) you'll find out the preferred method of hunting turkeys was shooting them off the roost. The preferred weapon was a rifle.

Teddy Roosevelt eschewed hunting in raised stands over salt licks and perpetrated the myth that salt blocks will bring in deer during the Fall season.  The truth is that salt should be applied in March, and the big rush at the lick is over by August-- at least in my neighborhood.  By September, you may see deer, but they won't be using the lick. TR's experiences with salt and treestands comes from a summertime hunt in (IRC) July in Pennsylvania. However, folks today still try and copy what he was trying so hard to  ban, and the sale of salt blocks skyrockets the week before season starts.

Jack O'Connor used to shoot deer in the butt when he was hunting in heavy brush. This was called an "anchoring shot."  You then trailed them for a while until you could put in a coup d'grace.  Teddy Roosevelt did the same thing, and if memory serves me correctly TR once shot a doe 14 times, before reducing it to posession.    So much for 1-shot kills.

Let's not just throw rotten tomatos at  TR and J O'C.  Meschak Browning would try for whatever shot he could and was pleasantly surprised if the deer fell over dead.  Usually his hunting trips ended with him wrestling the deer until he could plunge his knife into its chest.  James Audubon drew all of his wonderful bird pictures from specimens he shot. That's why he usually got the position of the necks wrong-- birds necks become distorted and curve backwards when rigor mortis sets in.

The bottom line is that most of what we visualize  as ethical hunting behavior has little to do with historical tradition. Most of the great outdoor legends, were still alive, would be invited to leave the camp, if not arrested outright. Whatever we we practice as ethical today is but a shadow of what has come before.

It is mostly a matter of fashion. Our grandfathers would roll in their graves if they saw us shooting does. Shooting a deer without antlers used to be considered the ultimate sin. Never mind the fact that two generations earlier than that, hunters preferred doe to buck, due to the quality of the meat.

It took D&DH magazine about 15-20 years ago to put to rest the myth that bait piles are an unfair advantage.  Sure, they will bring in deer, but it tends to bring them in during the dead of night. D&DH was the first popular magazine to publish a study that showed that hunters were no more likely to shoot deer over bait as an unbaited site. Hunting over bait piles is not unethical, it's just generally not as productive as one might think.

Food plots?  Listen, when the white oak acorns are dropping in my neighborhood, you can sit all day over your food plot and never see a deer. I pity the guys who spend a couple grand every year on food plots only to have the deer mysteriously vanish in late October. Do not talk to me about food plots being an unfair advantage.

Now we have QDM stirring the water, and everyone is worried about buck-to-doe ratios.  The truth is that you will seldom get things skewed beyond a 1-3 ratio, and most deer hunters do not control enough acerage to effectively enforce a plan.  Then states start putting on antler restrictions, and the next thing you know, a 12 year old boy may wait years before he can bag his first shootable buck.  No wonder kids are staying home with their video games!

In a few years, the deer herd may get so far oversized in urban areas like mine, I predict that the state will promote running them off cliffs. Everyone will fall out on a chilly November afternoon to do their civic duty. Shiny aluminum baseball bats will be issued ,and the whole community will beat the bushes and gradually herd the deer to special  state-run cliff sites.  Then we will all spend the rest of the day finishing off the wounded and butchering the rest.  In places like Cincinnati, where the deer herds are so large and the professional football is so bad, I see this catching on rather quickly.  Paul Brown Stadium will be empty, but 100,000 people will join in to drive deer off the newly prepared cliff at Mount Pisgah. Reefer trucks will be lined up for miles.  As we bludgeon the stragglers, we'll talk dissmissively of the old days when folks tried to do this all piecemeal fashion with guns and bows, and we'll talk glowingly of how civilized we have become.

Could it be that TR and such old time hunters, are why the B&C club installed fair chase rules to thier record books,and persued the states to make laws revolving around fair chase? QDM isn't only about buck doe ratio's, thats just part of the idea. Sure many land owners don't have the larger parcels. That is why management co-ops are relied on to create a better deer herd for everyone in the area.  If kids can understand why to pass on younger bucks, or take a doe they really come to enjoy hunting more from a management perspective. Let them shoot a young buck if the want to harvest it, but after that it's really pointless when your trying to manage your deer herd to do so after that. It takes everyone hunting to really see the greatest results from QDM, not just the large landowners. I have seen facts where most states are harvesting atleast 30% more doe's every year since 1997, so regardless the ratios, QDM doe harvesting is being used by more hunters everywhere. Even the number of record book bucks harvested has increased by great numbers over the last few years.  I really don't think most hunters will want to be a part of a deer cliff drop drive ethier.

[Hunt4life]

Debate and discussion is important (not to mention very American). Getting personal isnt discussion, it's an argument and few productive things get accomplished during an argument (not that I'm personally opposed to a little good natured sarcasm along the way [8D])

ORIGINAL: hunter480

Come on-this really doesn`t require explanation.

You all know what`s ethical and what isn`t. Shooting turkeys off the roost? Shooting into a squirrel nest? shooting a pheasant on the ground?

Oh, I think it does [;)]

Ethics? Really? It's totally ethical to shoot a turkey on the ground but not a pheasant? I have trouble dealing with that comparison as having do to with ethics. Traditions, sure. Ethics? No.

7 acre food plots are OK? Is that with a gun or a bow? Cuz I can dust off a critter with my trusty rifle anywhere on 7 acres, like shooting fish in a barrel. Put me in one of those outhouse looking things y'all use out there in the East or a portable blind and I'll sip coffee (to hide my movement) until I decide to snipe Mr/Mrs Backstraps. Which brings up an interesting discussion point for "ethics" folks...

If it's unethical to shoot a pheasant before flushing it... how can blinds that totally conceal your movement be ethical? How can it be ethical to NOT flush the deer, taking it on the run and giving it every sporting chance before taking the shot when its "unethical" to not do the same with a pheasant?

Or a turkey?

Why arent we flushing them before the shot? They are bigger, we're using essentially the same tool for the kill...

We arent talking ethics here, we are [mostly] talking traditions. And, in some cases, managing the success rates of certain methods so we don't over harvest - You have to balance hunting pressure/success rates with the resource.

Some people will persist in confusing hunting ethics with hunting traditions. But in the end, ethics need to be consistent to be of value and that is especially so when dealing with the non-hunting public - They can spot a hypocrite when the see one and the HSUS and PETA are very good at exploiting weakness, trust me on this.

[Hunt4life]

ORIGINAL: hunter480

ORIGINAL: howhill1

having posted on the old boards and now kepping up with the new ones a bit more and posting and readnig some of the recent posts its obvious ther is a whole spectrum of views on several subjcts. this should come as no suprise as the old saying goes opinios are like .......... every ones got one.ive been as guilty as anyone of looking down my nose so to speak on the methods of others over the years. some of which ive tried and actually ffound great joy and fullfillment in doing. im not trying to preach or get on my soapbox just reinterating the point that were all hunters and at the end of the day its us against them the more we fight each other the less work they have to do and the less time were spending fightng the true threat.

IF you`re describing the issue of different hunting weaponary, I agree. IF you`re talking about different "hunting" methods, i.e., baiting, enclosures, then you`re incorrect. In those instances, we`d better be in front, demanding that such unethical practices be shut down.

 
I have a question for you...
 
How is killing a pig in a tiny little poke totally ethical and killing one in an large enclosure totally unethical?
 
Seriously.

[EatDeer]

ORIGINAL: Hunt4life

Debate and discussion is important (not to mention very American). Getting personal isnt discussion, it's an argument and few productive things get accomplished during an argument (not that I'm personally opposed to a little good natured sarcasm along the way [8D])

ORIGINAL: hunter480

Come on-this really doesn`t require explanation.

You all know what`s ethical and what isn`t. Shooting turkeys off the roost? Shooting into a squirrel nest? shooting a pheasant on the ground?

Oh, I think it does [;)]

Ethics? Really? It's totally ethical to shoot a turkey on the ground but not a pheasant? I have trouble dealing with that comparison as having do to with ethics. Traditions, sure. Ethics? No.

7 acre food plots are OK? Is that with a gun or a bow? Cuz I can dust off a critter with my trusty rifle anywhere on 7 acres, like shooting fish in a barrel. Put me in one of those outhouse looking things y'all use out there in the East or a portable blind and I'll sip coffee (to hide my movement) until I decide to snipe Mr/Mrs Backstraps. Which brings up an interesting discussion point for "ethics" folks...

If it's unethical to shoot a pheasant before flushing it... how can blinds that totally conceal your movement be ethical? How can it be ethical to NOT flush the deer, taking it on the run and giving it every sporting chance before taking the shot when its "unethical" to not do the same with a pheasant?

Or a turkey?

Why arent we flushing them before the shot? They are bigger, we're using essentially the same tool for the kill...

We arent talking ethics here, we are [mostly] talking traditions. And, in some cases, managing the success rates of certain methods so we don't over harvest - You have to balance hunting pressure/success rates with the resource.

Some people will persist in confusing hunting ethics with hunting traditions. But in the end, ethics need to be consistent to be of value and that is especially so when dealing with the non-hunting public - They can spot a hypocrite when the see one and the HSUS and PETA are very good at exploiting weakness, trust me on this.

It's illegal in IL, to shoot a pheasant on the ground, there for its unethical regardless of traditions.  I think ethics are more about how the comon folk percieve hunting , rather than being tradtion among hunters. If someone could legaly shoot one on the ground it would be alot easier to do than a turkey that I'm certain of because they are slower to take flight.  How is a 7 acre food plot any different that a 20 acre bean field, that someone is hunting the inside corner of ? When in blind the deer can still smell someone, catch a glimpse of thier movement, or be leary from past expirences, unethical or not ,I'm not sure on that one yet. I'm wondering how personal your response quote is?  Your right about the public quick to spot a hypocrite, that's for sure. In fact thats what scares me the most about the anti's is the neutral public taking thier side,because Joe Shmoe set a bad exsample of ethics. So much for unifying the hoards of hunters to rally against the anti's I guess huh?

[shaman]

Gosh, but I like a discussion like this.  This is normally a sure-fire nuclear flame war type of topic. I've got a bunch of  thoughts on what's been posted since I checked last night

1)  I'm a QDM convert, but I recognize that QDM exercised on a grand scale is not going to be everyone's cup of tea.  My beef with statewide antler restrictions is it means that a lot of folks at the edge might give up and stop hunting. My example of the 12 year old that has to pass on young bucks for several years is one example.  However, the average suburbanite that goes out for Opening Day is also going to be deeply affected. What we need to do is spur interest in the sport and encourage more people to harvest more deer. QDM attempts to handle including greater numbers of hunters by improving the overall herd.  The problem is that not everyone agrees with it, and some folks see this as co-opting the hunting rules to cater to the big antler crowd.  All I know is that QDM is not for everyone, and these are people that want to hunt and want to hunt responsibly.

2)  We all have a habit of confusing game law with game ethics.  I am not going to argue which laws or ethics are wrong.  However, I want to point out that laws often dictate ethics.  It was a good decision generations ago to close the season on doe and hen harvests to build the herds and flocks. Deer and turkeys began to flourish. However, somewhere we lost track of why.

By the time I came on the seen, doe harvesting was BAD. Forget the fact that as a beginning bowhunter in Ohio in the early 80's, I was allowed to take a doe. It was BAD, and I passed on does every time I went out waiting for my buck. Doe was sacred. Now it's not only legal to take does and hens, but the states are doing whatever they can to turn several generations of thought around and make it fashionable.

Actually, taking a doe is not BAD.  It was just situationally inconvenient. The law changed as the situation changed.  Fair Chase dictates that we follow the law. Doe is still doe. Hen is still hen.  There is just more of them now. 

Now we try to apply that idea to other semi-sacred ethics, we get a lot of the same kind of pushback.  Guys get all worked up over crossbow vs. compound. Inline vs. sidelock, bait vs. no bait.

Bait?  There's a good one, and it has tripped a lot of triggers around here. I came from Ohio which did not allow bait (they changed after I left) to Kentucky, which used to allow unlimited baiting. Now Ohio is allowing baiting, where Kentucky has put some big restrictions on bait.  The problem in Kentucky was not that it was inherently "Wrong;"  the state officials decided:

--It was hard to enforce the ban on baiting for turkey, when baiting for deer was allowed. 
--  Bait was too easy a vector for some diseases.  If baiting was not limited, the deer and turkey herds might be put in jepordy in the future.

The deer didn't change, the bait didn't change, but they changed the law, and Fair Chase dictates we follow the law. A generation from now everyone will have wrapped their heads around the new law and accepted it as though it came from the sky on stone tablets. For now, there is dissension.

3)  The biggest problem I see with discussing hunting ethics is that it is so doggone personal, but it tries to be so universal.  Wrong is wrong, right?   Folks who can't see what's wrong have lost their way, right?  No.  This is about you, and what you hold sacred. So much of this boils down to this:  given the game laws, basic safety, and so on, how are YOU going to conduct yourself on your hunt?

[passin through]

2)  We all have a habit of confusing game law with game ethics.  I am not going to argue which laws or ethics are wrong.  However, I want to point out that laws often dictate ethics.  It was a good decision generations ago to close the season on doe and hen harvests to build the herds and flocks. Deer and turkeys began to flourish. However, somewhere we lost track of why.


3)  The biggest problem I see with discussing hunting ethics is that it is so doggone personal, but it tries to be so universal.  Wrong is wrong, right?   Folks who can't see what's wrong have lost their way, right?  No.  This is about you, and what you hold sacred. So much of this boils down to this:  given the game laws, basic safety, and so on, how are YOU going to conduct yourself on your hunt?
[/quote]


On point 2 --- Amen.  Law makers do not now and will not ever dictate what is ethical to me, hunting or other wise.  We really don't wanna kick over that can of worms.

On point 3 ---Amen and pass the collection plate![:D]

I try my hardest to be the most ethical person and hunter I can be.  However I know some of the methods that are legal, traditional and common here in Louisiana would probably give some posters here frothing fits.  I consider them ethical given how I personally conduct myself and I do believe them to be fair chase by my definition and traditions.  We use tree stands, bait, game cameras, ground blinds, box blinds, food plots, scent killers, attractant scents, almost every type of thing that will launch a projectile (except the atatl, blowguns and full auto stuff.[:D]) camoflage clothes, gum-o flage gum and almost every type of hunting dog known to man.  I probably have not mentioned that I am a 4th generation houndsman and do avidly pursue deer with hounds each December.  Not everybody here uses all these methods and I don't expect to force my opinions or ethics on anyone else.  (as an aside nobody will get very far forcing anything on me either....the hillbilly fuedist hasn't been totaly bred out) I guess my point is this I agree wholeheartedly with your statement in that it all boils down to how you conduct yourself on the hunt and the level to which you hold yourself.  My way may not be a method to which everybody agrees but that does not matter much.  I feed my family, I donate meat to those in need and occasionally I put horns on the wall.  Whats more I will always be there to help defend any form of hunting.