# Hunting Ethics



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

g/o made this post in a different forum. I though it deserved its own place.



> blhunter3, So in your debate, why not ask,why it is ethical to shoot a bison in a pen and not an Elk or Deer.


Obviously, its not. But the anti-hunting, we can do whatever we want on our own land crowd would have you believe that we have some undefined and sinister motives behind this referred measure because we didn't specifically exempt bison.

Well, we didn't exempt chickens, horses and pigs either. Shame on us? I do not think so. Shame on them for blowing smoke anf trying to confound the issue? I think you got it!

Jim


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Well you cannot do what ever you want on your own land, if you don't believe me take a look at what happened at the Red Brim Ranch.

The thing about ethics is that there is no solid answer to anything thats why its hard to say what is right or wrong.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

blhunter......you are 100% correct. ethics is a personal thing.

That is why if people have a problem with high fenced hunting because of treatment of animals, disease, etc. Then fine. But if it is because they think it is unethical....then that is a personal choice.

It is the whole......I am better than you mentality. Or my way is better than yours.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

blhunter3,
I googled "Red Brim Ranch" and got nothing. Fill me in.

Chuck,
I do not believe ethics is a personal thing. Is robbing a bank OK if the person doing it doesn't have an "ethical" problem with it? A lot of laws are based on ethics. Would you rather have a free-for-all society where anything goes? I don't think so.

Jim


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think it is Red Rim Ranch. If I remember it's where a rancher put up a fence across an antelope migration route to winter range and starved hundreds or thousands.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Your right plainsman. Red Brim Ranch happened in Wyoming. A rich business man put a a huge fence around his property for his cows. But he also bought the land so he could mine coal out of it. The fences he put up where escape proof for the pronghorn's and thousands died because of it. The fence he put up, was not a cattle fence, he knew what he was doing. If you think you can do what ever you want on your own land, your completely wrong.

Its weird I did a search too and could not find anything. It was a huge case too.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Apples and oranges as the Red Rim fence was conceived to harm if not to completely eliminate animals but here is the story.

http://www.nationalwildlife.org/nationa ... cleID=1233


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

jhegg said:


> Obviously, its not. But the anti-hunting, we can do whatever we want on our own land crowd would have you believe that we have some undefined and sinister motives behind this referred measure because we didn't specifically exempt bison.
> 
> Jim


I was refering to this. That you cannot do what ever you want on your own land.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

cwo,
Thanks for the link.
Jim


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I looked for a long time to find something on it so I'm glad you found it. I just watched a video in my ethics class.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Jhegg.....

Your example of the bank robbery is hurting other people. taking money from individuals, assault, etc.

The high fenced hunting is not hurting anyone. Apples and oranges.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Well, we didn't exempt chickens, horses and pigs either. Shame on us? I do not think so. Shame on them for blowing smoke anf trying to confound the issue? I think you got it!


Jim Hegg, Do a google search for ND Chicken, Horses, and Pig hunts. Then do one for Bison hunts, and Elk and Deer hunts on preserves. You will find all kinds of Bison hunts being offered. They shoot the bison behind fences same as they Elk yet you find that ethical. No what the truth is its all political and you guys know the bison industry is way to powerful.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

g/o,

If you are so adament in banning high fence bison shooting, then by all means start your own petition! That way you can include anything you want.

Jim


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Yeah g/o,

Begin sarcasm:
Everybody knows penned up bison are livestock, but those penned up elk are still wild big game animals, even though the semen came from a straw, they were bought and paid for by the rancher, inoculated against disease, and theyve spent the last god knows how many generations behind a fence. :roll: :roll: :roll:

End sarcasm.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Tell ya what, if anyone thinks Bison are so tame I'll give them a $100 to walk out amongst them calling here Bessie. See if any of them moo you and walk up to you. Odds are you won't walk back out. Bison, just like Africa's Buffalo are herd animals. They feel safety in numbers and don't usually hide or run at the sight of a predator. But approach them where they feel threatened and you'll find out just how tame these so called non big game animals are, fenced or not.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

> Tell ya what, if anyone thinks Bison are so tame I'll give them a $100 to walk out amongst them calling here Bessie. See if any of them moo you and walk up to you. Odds are you won't walk back out. Bison, just like Africa's Buffalo are herd animals. They feel safety in numbers and don't usually hide or run at the sight of a predator. But approach them where they feel threatened and you'll find out just how tame these so called non big game animals are, fenced or not.


Dan B. if you still peruse the forum, please post the video link to the penned buffalo hunt. As you will see cwoparson, THE major fault with your statement and logic, is the penned buffalo have lost their fear of humans. Especially since, in most circumstances, the operator of the fenced enclosure also happens to be a human that is feeding them. Therefore, humans + food = no fear.

As you will see (if Dan links the video, if not I will find it), the "john" err idiot err hunter stalks and shoots err hunts the buffalo. But wait, the plot gets better. The buffalo just happens to be feeding where a human has placed haybales, remember we don't want our investment to starve to death. Back to the story, so when the "john" err idiot errr hunter, shoots err harvests his buffalo, guess what the other buffalo do??? cwoparson, I guess you will have to watch the video to see if your statement about herd mentality is followed :lol: .

Also, please post some statistics to those tragedies where buffalo ranchers or others have actually been harmed while in proximity to a herd. Even better yet, please call the National Park Service in Yellowstone, since they have the largest remaining herd of wild BISON, and offer up some real statistics of those humans that have died, been maimed, or otherwise injured while being in proximity to a wild bison herd  :eyeroll:.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Also, please post some statistics to those tragedies where buffalo ranchers or others have actually been harmed while in proximity to a herd.


If you insist.



> WILDLIFE UPDATE: OF BISON AND GRIZZLIES
> by Bruce Gourley
> 
> YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. (YNET) -- For years, new Yellowstone employees have been shown video tape of bison charging and even goring tourists who approached too closely. One famous video is of a bison darting around a tree and attacking a tourist who mistakenly thought the tree afforded enough of a barrier. The truth is that bison are both faster than they look and more dangerous than many people think.
> ...


One more for the road?



> In comparison, Yellowstone has recorded 81 incidents involving people and bison since 1978.
> 
> Yellowstone holds about 2,200 bison, while Antelope Island has 700, which are rounded up each year for inoculation.
> 
> ...


Just to round things off.



> Epidemiology: Bison attacks
> Most attacks occur in Yellowstone (largest free-ranging herd)
> Average 3 attacks/year; 4 fatalities since 1975
> http://members.aapa.org/aapaconf2005/sy ... 7Freer.pdf


When do you want to collect your $100? Since you're in Colorado I know of a very good place where there are plenty of Bison roaming on thousands of acres.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Yellowstone visitation numbers since 1978.

2007 3,151,343 
2006 2,870,295 
2005 2,835,651 
2004 2,868,317 
2003 3,019,375 
2002 2,973,677 
2001 2,758,526 
2000 2,838,233 
1999 3,131,381 
1998 3,120,830 
1997 2,889,513 
1996 3,012,171 
1995 3,125,285 
1994 3,046,145 
1993 2,912,193 
1992 3,144,405 
1991 2,920,537 
1990 2,823,572 
1989 2,644,442 
1988 2,182,113 
1987 2,573,194 
1986 2,363,756 
1985 2,226,159 
1984 2,222,027 
1983 2,347,242 
1982 2,368,897 
1981 2,521,831 
1980 2,000,269 
1979 1,892,908 
1978 2,618,380

81 incidents resulting from 81,402,667 visits equals an incident rate of 9.95053E-07. Nice try though.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

:lol: Talk about trying side step and spin out of a blunder. You said they never happen. You were as usual wrong. Sorry buddy, you'll have to remove your own foot from you mouth.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

cwoparson,

Since I actually worked on the interagency EIS, I knew how miniscule the chances were for an encounter. However, since you are omnipotent, you already know that you have a better chance of dating a supermodel than being attacked by a bison.    .


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> http://www.thebisonranch.com/bisonht_testim.html


Here you go Bioman, tell me how is this different than Elk or Deer in a pen???????


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

bioman,

I don't care where you worked. Working in a certain field only proves someone hired you to work there. Says nothing about your actual ability to perform. Actually I wasn't even aware EIS would be studying Animal attacks by Bison. I just read through the "SUMMARY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE INTERAGENCY BISON MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA AND
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK". Maybe you could point out where in that report it address the chance of being attacked by a Bison. You jumped up flapping and tried to insinuate that no one is ever attacked by Bison and even challenged me to post proof that an attack ever happened. Not only did I give you that information but showed you just in one location there were over 80 recorded attacks in the last 33 years. So many in fact that the Bison in that one location has been declared far more dangerous than the big Bears that are also there. Then you attempted to slip out of your obvious blunder by trying to say, well there has only been so many attacks with so many visitors to the area. Doesn't matter if there was only one attack. The fact is a Bison are and can be dangerous and will attack if threatened. The only person here trying to present themselves as omnipotent is you.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

g/o,



> Here you go Bioman, tell me how is this different than Elk or Deer in a pen???????


Bison are not included in the petition. You know that, I know that, and just about everybody else knows it too.

So why do you insist on argueing about something that is not pertinent to the issue at hand? I know why you are - you are just blowing smoke out of your a$$ to cloud the issue.

Again, if you think that shooting bison in a pen should be banned - start your own petition!

Jim


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

cwo,


> The fact is a Bison are and can be dangerous and will attack if threatened.


Right - so will a sow. Holstein bulls can be pretty nasty too! So what does that have to do with hunting ethics and the petition. The same as g/o's ramblings - nothing!

Jim


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jhegg would like to talk about the ethics of high fence shooting of elk and deer. It would be polite to do that. I'm not saying you can't debate Bison and high fence shooting, but it would be appropriate to start your own thread. This one isn't about that. Please don't derail the original thread subject. It's like going to the rifle form and insisting on talking about archery.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

jhegg said:


> g/o made this post in a different forum. I though it deserved its own place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Plainsman, This is how this thread started, J Hegg thought my comment to blhunter3 who was debating in class ethics of shooting Elk and Deer in a pen. I asked a simple question the same question thousands of ND voters are asking also. How is it different shooting an elk vs Deer vs Bison. Of course Jim has no answer except, go make you own petition, that is why you guys are losing big time.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right, it is appropriate on this thread, but not the others. Sorry, carry on. I had not gone back to the beginning, and thought it was just one of those attempts to derail the subject.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> So what does that have to do with hunting ethics and the petition.


 :huh: Why ask me? It's your thread that you started about bison. Has a lot more to do with the topic than Red Brim Ranch and what you can do on your own property.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

CWOparson, I absolutely loving debating nameless internet trolls like yourself. When you have nothing else to debate, you resort to third grade attacks on one's profession which you try to glean from a username or when all else fails, some sort of attack on by using their location. 


> Example 1: I don't care where you worked. Working in a certain field only proves someone hired you to work there. Says nothing about your actual ability to perform.





> Example 2: Coming from someone that calls them self bioman, well what can one say.


You trolls are all the same, anonymous authorities and wannabes that simply hide your true identity. 


> Most everyone on here uses anonymous names for various reasons not to mention personal safety.


Like I always say, trolls like you always find a way to justify your cowardous. I mean why not, it is sure a heck of a lot easier to be an authority when you hide beyond a keyboard and refuse to be judged because you don't have the mettle to be a man and stand behind your views.

I called your bluff because you were bloviating about herd activity and very lamely attempting to correlate domesticated buffalo to African buffalo.



> Bison, just like Africa's Buffalo are herd animals. They feel safety in numbers and don't usually hide or run at the sight of a predator. But approach them where they feel threatened and you'll find out just how tame these so called non big game animals are, fenced or not.





> 'Buffalo' is something of a misnomer for this animal as it is only distantly related to either of the two "true buffaloes", the water buffalo and the African buffalo.


 Oh look, I can do an internet search also.

Please post your credentials as an expert authority on the subject. The chance of getting attacked by a wild bison is astronomically low. And in the case of Yellowstone, which actually has a herd of wild bison, roughly 1:1,000,000. And in the case of the buffalo, the odds get even less likely when you domesticate the creature. Like I said, even you have a better chance of getting a date with a super model than being attacked by either a wild or a buffalo.

Feel free to pm as I will gladly take this offline.

G/O:


> Here you go Bioman, tell me how is this different than Elk or Deer in a pen???????[/quote
> 
> Jim, do please enlighten me.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Bioman, you've just proven the old saying that if you have no ground to stand on, if you have blundered and can't support your comments then personally attack the messenger. I never called you a troll, idiot, or a coward. You've certainly done that though. I did not attack your profession. I simply pointed out it didn't matter to me because your statement was wrong. You made a statement, said prove me wrong and I did just that. When your attempt at injecting exceptions to your comment being wrong failed you then attack me. I didn't bring your profession up, you did. So I read the Yellowstone EIS which you eluded to as proof you were correct. It does not support your comment in any shape or form which makes your profession moot as far as the discussion goes. That's why it didn't matter to me. You would do well to come down off your high horse and maybe read the forum rules.

Your position of attacking and saying anyone that uses a anonymous user name is a troll and a coward is baffling to me. It is baffling because you yourself use the anonymous name Bioman. Probable 95% or more of the posters on here, including most moderators use a name other than their own. *Just like you do.* All you're doing now is making up useless excuses to cover your own actions and lay blame of your mistakes at the feet of others.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

As a hunter safety instructor the subject of "ethics" vs "Laws" often came up. I tried to explain it thus:
"Ethics" is the personal values one holds or shares governing their actions.
Common practices (in some areas) include
It is unethical to shoot at a flying turkey, yet also unethical to shoot at a sitting grouse or duck.
When ethics become widely shared, and so strong that people collectively impose them on others.....they pass a "Law" to implement the "ethics".
Example, You are a "sportsman" in most states if you use a dog to locate and retrieve gamebirds, or rabbits. You are a "criminal" if you use dogs to chase turkey or deer.......unless you go to another state where use of dogs is permitted. Then you are once again a "sportsman".
"Sportsmen" obey the laws of whatever state they hunt in, and may impose additional restrictions on their own behavior based on their "ethics".


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

oldfireguy, your comments make a lot of sense. But what do you call it when the ethics in question is not widely shared, and is not so strong except in a small minority, but that small minority uses the uninformed people (public) that never gave the subject any thought before, to push through their personal ethics as law? Kind of a messy deal all way around isn't it. Seems to me the last two lines in your post is the right answer. "Sportsmen" obey the laws of whatever state they hunt in, and may impose additional restrictions on their own behavior based on their "ethics". Restrictions on their own behavior seems to be the key words.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> but that small minority uses the uninformed people (public) that never gave the subject any thought before, to push through their personal ethics as law?


So the " Public " is not entitled to their opinions? If the public votes for it and passes it, they are uniformed? :eyeroll: WOW......


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Maverick said:


> So the " Public " is not entitled to their opinions? If the public votes for it and passes it, they are uniformed? :eyeroll: WOW......


I wouldn't go as far as saying uninformed, maybe the correct word to use would be misinformed.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

You're right, misinformed would have been the proper word.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ah yes, misinformation....the cornerstone of american politics.


----------



## catfisherman2 (Apr 17, 2008)

I'm quite postitive that many of you have ethics, whether they are hunting or fishing, they will always be the same with all you do in your life. I have seen many, many people that violate these ethics, most of the younger crowd, but in a sense, a lot of the older crowd too. I have hunted with over a hundred different people and not too many were very ethical of their approach. Having worked for the Game and Fish Department also, I have seen it within the field also. I guess the people that give this subject a bad name will in turn ruin it for the rest.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

bioman said:


> Yellowstone visitation numbers since 1978.
> ...
> 81 incidents resulting from 81,402,667 visits equals an incident rate of 9.95053E-07. Nice try though.


This is incorrect. You can not use the total number of visitors to Yellowstone because the probability of being attacked is a conditional probability. The likelihood of being attacked depends on who puts themselves in a provocative situation. The vast majority of visitors listen to the ranger and don't get out of their car and place themselves in a dangerous situation when they see bison. The small, arguably tiny, set of people who approach a wild bison close enough to elicit an aggressive response is the right population to use in the calculation.

After reading this thread I thought I would try and correct a common misconception about this approach to calculating probability. You see this all the time. Especially, when people are trying to claim wild animals are not dangerous. Sometimes this kind of reasoning is called the "Prosecutor's Fallacy" because prosecutors try and use this kind of reasoning often unjustly.


----------

