# Hunting Ethics #2



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Bareback Jack posted the following comment on another forum. Again, I thought it deserved its own place.



> So eating a steak from a penned in beef steer is unethical? Because, according to your statement, it was fenced in, and couldnt escape. Or eating some cheap burger made from one of your farms dried up old non-producing milk cows is unethical, because she too was penned in and couldnt "escape"?


Give me a break! This measure is about ethical hunting methods, not farming practices. We have no quibble with those who raise beef, poultry, pigs, elk, bison, deer or any other livestock for food. What we do object to is those who raise big game animals as "trophys" and then "sell" the rights to shoot one of these animals in a high fence arena and call it "hunting". It is not hunting, never has been hunting and never will be hunting.

Yet, the unscrupulous individuals that try to market this activity as a hunt are demeaning the very essence of what hunting is. But they claim they are only making an honest profit for their endevors. I would not expect a pimp to say anything less.

Jim


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

If this is about ethical hunting methods......why not go after bow hunters. Some think bow hunting is unethical. How about long range shooters.....some think that is unethical?

So is this really about ethical hunting methods or is it because people think that shooting animals in pens is wrong?

Because if they think shooting animals in pens is wrong then the argument of beef and pork slaughter is 100% justified in the argument. Because those animals get shot in pens.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jhegg said:


> Give me a break! This measure is about ethical hunting methods, not farming practices. We have no quibble with those who raise beef, poultry, pigs, elk, bison, deer or any other livestock for food. What we do object to is those who raise big game animals as "trophys" and then "sell" the rights to shoot one of these animals in a high fence arena and call it "hunting". It is not hunting, never has been hunting and never will be hunting.
> 
> Jim


Your right, this measure is about ethical hunting methods. But who's? Obviously yours.

I dont think sneaking up on a flock of geese and blaring away helter skelter like into the flock is very ethical. But its done to (get this) WILD geese. And its legal. I dont like it, dont really consider it hunting, does that mean it should outlawed?

I personaly dont think whackin a deer at several hundred yards with a hi-power scope/rifle combo is very sporting, and im sure if I wanted to spin it I could spin it as unethical as well. I dont consider it hunting, does that mean it should be outlawed?

Like was stated above, some dont believe bowhunting is ethical. Does that mean it should be outlawed?

The list goes on and on.

The point being, you are trying to push your PERSONAL ethics on somebodies ranch raised livestock. Your trying to tell them how that animal should die. The animal will still die, just by another means. It doesnt matter if somebody shoots it in the pasture, or shoots it in the chute, its still dead. And as long as its done in as humane a way possible, I have no problems with someone doing such.

So your mad that they call it "hunting"? Are you jealous? 
Im sure youll counter with the standard "it gives all hunting a black eye". Well news flash, ALL hunting gives hunting a "black eye" to the people that want to do away with all of it. It doesnt matter how "pure" and "ethically correct" its done.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Bareback Jack posted the following comment on another forum. Again, I thought it deserved its own place.


Then leave it in the other forum where it belongs and stays in context to that discussion. :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Chuck,
If you want to have a petition against bow hunting or long range shooting, start your own. 
This petition is not about killing livestock. It does, however, address the issue of selling a "hunt-in-a-pen". The people that do this state that these are livestock and they can do whatever they want to with them. Then they turn around and sell the right to shoot a hand fed trophy game animal in a fence and call it hunting.
I'm sorry that you do not understand the difference.
Jim


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

barebackjack,



> The point being, you are trying to push your PERSONAL ethics on somebodies ranch raised livestock. Your trying to tell them how that animal should die. The animal will still die, just by another means. It doesnt matter if somebody shoots it in the pasture, or shoots it in the chute, its still dead. And as long as its done in as humane a way possible, I have no problems with someone doing such.


I am *not* telling them


> how that animal should die


. I am saying, don't shoot that animal in a fenced enclosure and try to pawn it off as a hunt. That sure is a difficult concept to understand, isn't it.

Jim


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

cwo,

If you do not like this forum, you do not have to participate.

Jim


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I think what people are mad about is that its called hunting, the penned shooting that is.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Jim,

The answer is simple: we hunt for "fun" (for lack of a shorter rationale), but we slaughter animals for necessity.

Anyone who actually has fun killing animals for slaughter could probably be considered pathological. Folks that deny that difference could probably considered the same. Its a very simple difference. It is clear to everyone.

M.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

MRN,
That comment will probably tighten up someone's shorts!
Jim


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Jhegg....

Then if your problem is the high fence people calling it "Hunting" then set restrictions on that. every other industry in USA has advertising restrictions. Don't just eliminate a way of life. Don't take away opportunities from people (yes these places are outlets for people to get into the sport.) Don't spread the gap between landowners and hunters. Don't give the anti's any ground. etc.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> What we do object to is those who raise big game animals as "trophys" and then "sell" the rights to shoot one of these animals in a high fence arena and call it "hunting". It is not hunting, never has been hunting and never will be hunting.


And yet another:



> This petition is not about killing livestock. It does, however, address the issue of selling a "hunt-in-a-pen". The people that do this state that these are livestock and they can do whatever they want to with them. Then they turn around and sell the right to shoot a hand fed trophy game animal in a fence and call it hunting.
> I'm sorry that you do not understand the difference.


By golly Jimbo, Bison are sold as trophy's and are shot in a pen and are hand fed as you say. Hmmm yet you forgot to include them in this why?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

g/o,



> By golly Jimbo, Bison are sold as trophy's and are shot in a pen and are hand fed as you say. Hmmm yet you forgot to include them in this why?


We did not "forget" them. They weren't included because they are not considered a big game animal in ND. But, as I said in a different thread, if you really want to ban shooting bison in a high fence arena, start your own petition!

Jim


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jhegg said:


> g/o,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And yet, penned elk are termed "livestock", and un-penned are termed big game. Sounds simple. If its in a pen, it aint big game, if its not in a pen, its big game.
Two different distinctions under the law depening on circumstances, two different sets of rules to govern.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jhegg said:


> barebackjack,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes you are! You are saying "dont shoot that animal in a fence" plain and simple! How its worded, "hunt", "shoot", is a moot point. YOU are trying to dictate how that animal will die. 
If it was just about the wording, you wouldnt be trying to abolish the practice as a whole, you would be trying to get advertisement restrictions put in place.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Barebackjack,



> I am not telling them Quote:
> how that animal should die
> . I am saying, don't shoot that animal in a fenced enclosure *and* try to pawn it off as a hunt. That sure is a difficult concept to understand, isn't it.
> 
> Jim





> Yes you are! You are saying "dont shoot that animal in a fence" plain and simple! How its worded, "hunt", "shoot", is a moot point. YOU are trying to dictate how that animal will die.


I wish you would learn how to read and understand what you read.

Jim


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jhegg said:


> Barebackjack,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you admit its the wording of the act that bothers you?

So why not try to get advertisement restrictions put in place rather than complete abolishment?

You say you dont want them to call it hunting, fine.....but than you turn around and take steps towards complete abolishment of the practice (dictating the scenario in which that animal will die).


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So why not try to get advertisement restrictions put in place rather than complete abolishment?


I'm not debating, but I do have a question. That has been brought up before, but I don't think it will work. I think that because another person who advocated it subconsciously contrasted himself in the same post. If you notice the post below advocates that very thing. Then he says he don't like hunters against hunters. Well, if it isn't hunting, then they are not hunters. If they are not hunters, then it is not hunters against hunters. I do like the idea of not calling it hunting, but then lets not call these people hunters either. 
OK, now I would like to hear your opinion about that train of thought.

I will bold the two comments.



> Chuck Smith
> Supporting Member
> 
> Joined: 22 Feb 2005
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman.......splitting hairs.

But here are three takes on your comment:

1. But I personally think that people who use these places are hunters. They do hunt down their animal of choice. It may not be able to escape but they still stalk/hunt them and harvest.

2. They can advertise as a hunt...so the people going to these places can be called hunters. Get the advertisement restriction in place and they can't be called that anymore.

3. Hunters against hunters is.....you and I. I don't use these places and you don't use them either. But yet we are on opposite sides.....A Hunter against a Hunter. Just like the R vs NR ordeal.....it pits hunters against hunters. Just like bow hunters against rifle hunters.....hunters against hunters. Just like fly fishermen against bait fisherman......well you get my point. It is dividing a group of people.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see how your thinking Chuck. I can see where this would just add a couple years. We change the terminology today, then next election we eliminate them and it will not be hunters against hunters.

I wouldn't be for the measure Chuck if I considered these people hunters now, so we are thinking somewhat the same. I agree fully that I don't like to see hunters against hunters. There is no segment of the American public that I respect more than hunters. Lets hope our great great grandchildren are still doing what we do today.

Well back to the yard work.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

I see your point plainsman.

But I also agree with Chuck, it is kind of splitting hairs.

There are all kinds of things out there that I dont consider hunting. But it doesnt mean that the person doing them doesnt consider them hunting. I dont consider shooting big game with a hi-power rifle hunting, its more shooting than hunting in my book. But millions of americans every year go shoot a deer with a big gun.

No matter how its advertised, the people that do utilize these facilities will still refer to themselves as hunters, and the event as a hunt. You cannot stop that. You can put advertising restrictions in place, but when it comes down to it, the guy that partakes of it is still going home to tell stories of the hunt. Its no different than the slobs that chase deer down with the pickup during gun season, or chase coyotes via snowmobile, im sure he called it hunting, I dont.

My question is where does it stop? Everyone is so worried about what the other guy considers "hunting" (yes, im guilty too).


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bbjack I understand.

I think we need to seek a position that we know the general public will support. Then we barricade that position with good public relations. We need to be proactive from this point on because anything less will let our rights as hunters erode. Seek a point that we can put forward to the general public as highly ethical, and start an organization for hunters much like the National Rifle Association that champions the second amendment. 
We need a strong hunters association that promotes hunting, habitat improvement, and has a strong lobby in Washington. We will need it in the near future, and we need to start now, not as the old cliché goes: close the barn door after the horse is out". 
The starting point must be a consensus among hunters, and no one else. Not landowners, not guides, not outfitters, not government agencies, but hunters, and hunters only. Keep the dollars and political agendas away from the formation of the organization.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> and start an organization for hunters much like the National Rifle Association that champions the second amendment.
> We need a strong hunters association that promotes hunting, habitat improvement, and has a strong lobby in Washington.


Excellent idea. I would join.

The general public has no idea what kind of conservation dollars hunting and hunters produce. I would hope, if they knew all the facts, some opinion of it would change. But getting the word out is the trouble.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I think we need to seek a position that we know the general public will support. Then we barricade that position with good public relations. We need to be proactive from this point on because anything less will let our rights as hunters erode. Seek a point that we can put forward to the general public as highly ethical, and start an organization for hunters much like the National Rifle Association that champions the second amendment.
> We need a strong hunters association that promotes hunting, habitat improvement, and has a strong lobby in Washington. We will need it in the near future, and we need to start now, not as the old cliché goes: close the barn door after the horse is out".
> The starting point must be a consensus among hunters, and no one else. Not landowners, not guides, not outfitters, not government agencies, but hunters, and hunters only. Keep the dollars and political agendas away from the formation of the organization.


That is a great idea. :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I think we need to seek a position that we know the general public will support. Then we barricade that position with good public relations. We need to be proactive from this point on because anything less will let our rights as hunters erode. Seek a point that we can put forward to the general public as highly ethical, and start an organization for hunters much like the National Rifle Association that champions the second amendment.
> We need a strong hunters association that promotes hunting, habitat improvement, and has a strong lobby in Washington. We will need it in the near future, and we need to start now, not as the old cliché goes: close the barn door after the horse is out".
> The starting point must be a consensus among hunters, and no one else. Not landowners, not guides, not outfitters, not government agencies, but hunters, and hunters only. Keep the dollars and political agendas away from the formation of the organization.


That is a great idea. :beer:

Like the group that is behind this bill.......but yet not force your views. Keep the Fair Chase group but don't force view or opinions. Just do what is right and that group will hold clout. Then when this group would denounce high fence hunting/shooting then the public would understand that not everyone does this and it is not in association with hunters. No political agenda not bills getting introduced. Just a public statement saying.....WE DONT SUPPORT HIGH FENCED OPERATIONS. Then that is it.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

It is a great idea, having an organization out there, lobbying, and speaking the TRUTH about hunting.

But, didnt the National Wildlife Federation used to do just that? Until they became infested with anti-hunters and animal rightists.

As Chuck said, simply stating "we do not support high fence", and perhaps other relative benign comments as "this is not your 'typical' hunt", when made by a proper organization, would speak volumes. Again, with no agenda (other than properly informing the public), no bill introductions.

I think far more good would come about if the proponents of this measure were to not attack the industry as a whole, and spend their time and energy at the sportsmans shows, and what have you simply informing the public that these "hunts" are not the norm. That your average Joe Blow sportsmen, doesnt use these sort of facilities.


----------



## catfisherman2 (Apr 17, 2008)

Are these big game animal trophies eligible for Boone and Crockett or Pope and Young? I guess I am not quite positive. If not, no big deal for "raising" these animals for profit...I think that may have been the point...raising for a profit. As far as being a good hunter for shooting one of these animals in a high fence area, depends on the size of the area fenced. There are a lot of deciding factors but it still remains that hunting these animals for money still doesn't bother me. I guess I am very much neutral, just commenting some points of the attack.


----------



## DeluxeGoodness (Sep 29, 2008)

barebackjack said:


> jhegg said:
> 
> 
> > So your mad that they call it "hunting"? Are you jealous?
> > Im sure youll counter with the standard "it gives all hunting a black eye". Well news flash, ALL hunting gives hunting a "black eye" to the people that want to do away with all of it. It doesnt matter how "pure" and "ethically correct" its done.


It DOES make hunting look bad! It's just one more thing that all the anti's can put in their stupid little documentaries featuring Pamela Anderson (of PETA) and convince all the old bleeding hearts that hunting is the root of all evil. You give them an inch to work with, they'll stretch it for a damn mile. I personally watch some of these videos, and I actually have seen one talking about high fence hunting. And the PETA people, as much as I hate to say it, were right when they said it was unethical. It's not fair chase and it's wrong. This whole argument about livestock animals being similar is stupid too. Your not chasing a panicked cow into a corner of the field and firing upon it. You walk up to the cow while it's munching it's alfalfa and dispatch of it in a manner that is not mimicking a "wanna be" hunter. Whatever. :eyeroll:


----------

