Recently we discussed the issue of how to, or even whether or not to, present data, verbal, body language or pictoral to the world. Thank you Biggie for asking that question.
Made me think... a lot. I know, that is dangerous (and it hurts).
We often say things like. . "we owe it to the animal". . .and I would love to understand that better.
What do I owe ? To what / who do I owe this ?WHY do I owe it ? How do you know this ?
Is this a regional thing ? A religious thing ? Family teaching ? Exactly what do I owe to some animal and why ? Do I owe this to all animals on this earth, or only the pretty ones, or the ones that are popular ?
Does it say to do this in the regulations ? the Bible / Koran / etc ?
If I don't feel the same way, am I a bad person ?
ChuckC
My personal ethics(take it for what you want):
I believe we are given stewardship over the game we hunt, and we are accountable for how we conduct ourselves towards game we've been entrusted with. Whether it means practicing good conservation towards a species, or simply making as much use out of what we kill. There's also simply my own personal morals. I don't particularly enjoy seeing any game animal suffer, so I do whatever I need to to ensure a quick and humanr death. And as far as pics and representation go, it's just about having a little class, and then it goes back to the fact that I'm not going to disrespect the gift I've been given..
Overall, I guess I feel accountable to God for how I conduct myself.
That's my take, and you'll get a million different answers, but I think we all inheirantly feel some obligation to show respect to the game we kill. In one form or another.
I personally believe that what you(actually all of us) owe is respect. Respect for the animal, because you are taking its life and respect for yourself. NO self respecting hunter would take a bad shot. I say take, because there is always going to be the unfortunate situation where you "make" a bad shot, but "taking" is a voluntary choice. It may not be as blatant as taking a shot on a deer while it is facing you, it could be not practicing enough, not checking your gear, not clearing proper shooting lanes or using gear not properly suited for the job.
Do I believe that people that don't believe they owe the animals something are bad, NO. Do I believe they have the wrong opinion and should reconsider, YEP.
I think its more of a personal thing.
If I am going to take the life of any animal, I sure think I owe it to them to make it painless. I certainly don't want to be tortured when I die. Why would I expect an animal to do the same thing. I spend a lot of my time, money, and spirit chasing wild animals around the country side, and I want to be able to say at the end of the hunt that I did it correctly, didnt cause any undue stress to that animal more than needed to have a fruitful hunt. I guess when it comes down to it, if I make a bad shot or lose an animal, that emptiness in my gut sticks with me longer than a clean shot and quick kill. Sorrow is a tough emotion to get rid of and knowing I caused some real pain and stress to an animal causes me a great deal of that.
Proabably not many readers of the koran on here, but The Bible talks about hunting animals from Genesis on. The fact that God has given us the earth to dwell on and to have dominion over the animals tells me that we are to have respect and reverence for both. I take what I believe as a christian and apply it to every aspect of my life. Whether at work, or in the woods, or next to the Skagit River with a line in the water, even if nobody is watching, I try to conduct myself in a manner that is suiting to him.
And to answer your question about which animals to respect, I don't believe in taking a shot on a coyote or a stinky old pig that I wouldn't take on a beautiful animal like a deer. Your level of respect shown and your personal ethics are up to you. After all, you are the one that has to live with your decisions.
I take a fairly open stance on other persons choices and a very narrow look and stance on my own.
I have a duty to every animal I hunt to try and make a clean quick kill. I make the choice to take close shots to ensure a clean kill. That is my personal ethic. Having said that I will shoot 25 yards at a rabbit or an elk. That was ingrained into me early in life by my parents. Being a christian I also believe I have a responsibility to be a steward to all animals as called out in the bible.
I shoot hard and practice on my form to help ensure clean kills. I only take close shots that I believe will hit where I am looking. I will happily show pictures of blood and wounds, hit points on the animals I shoot. I will simple choose to show them to hunting buddies and not to feeble minded folks who can't handle what death looks like. I take a few cleaned up shots for the feeble minded yet curious types.
These are just my thoughts and my way. Each person chooses their own way and ethics. It is not my place to decide what they do is right or wrong. We have laws and Lord knows we pay enough taxes for the regulatory groups to handle enforcement.
I wonder if the archers of old, flinging a quiver full of arrows at 100yds at a deer, had thoughts like are expressed here? I guess time changes ethics? I'll bet that over the last thousands of years of man taking game with a bow, thoughts of ethics were even nonexistent.
if i put a shot on an animal i owe it to that animal to do my best in the recovery effort once i recover that animal i owe it respect and to a point my life because i killed it that i may live
EAT WHAT YOU KILL !!!!!!!!
Current hunter ethics have been evolving for a long time. Back in the 1800's, whole buffalo herds were slaughtered for the hides and not much else. The carcasses were left to rot on the plains. If you read through "Witchery of Archery" by Thompson, you will find many occasions where they took long shots at herons, etc., just for fun, and if they hit one, they would maybe take one of its feathers, if they wanted one, or just leave it on the ground if they didn't. When bowhunting began to become popular in the early to mid 1900's, people thought it was incredible that anyone would go hunting with a bow, mainly because by that time, there wasn't much game left out there to hunt! Some of our heroes from the 1900's, like Fred Bear, had hunting ethics (or lack thereof) that would raise more than a few eyebrows today.
I would imagine that if we had the chance today to get to know Maurice and Will Thompson, or Fred Bear, or some of the unknown buffalo hunters from the 1800's, we would like them and would want to get to know them better. I don't imagine their basic character is any different from our character today. Not enough time has passed between then and now to change the basic character of man.
Who knows what people will think of us 100 years from now? Will they hate us for burning through most of the remaining oil and polluting the planet? Or for some other thing we do that doesn't even occur to us as being questionable at the present time?
I think much of our ethics is based on hindsight. We look back at the way game was treated in the past, and it seems wrong to us on reflection, so we don't want to repeat or continue those practices. I'm sure the same is true with other ethical issues, such as slavery. We recognize Jefferson as a great human being and respect what he did on behalf of our country. But we believe he was wrong to hold slaves, even as we recognize that he felt no moral issues in doing so.
Cruelty to non-human animals can be an early indicator of cruelty to humans or indifference to human suffering. Many sociopaths exhibit animal cruelty.
I don't assign human emotions to non-humans so I don't really know if I owe a non-human a humane death.
What I do know is that different humans have different tolerance levels for witnessing suffering and death. We owe it to ourselves and our hunting heritage to exhibit our kills and killing in the best light possible to preserve our lifestyle. It's common decency in a sense.
It's also a privacy issue. Most people don't want to watch what we do in the restroom everyday. We don't hide that because we are doing something wrong. We do it behind closed doors because most folks don't want to see it.
I look at it like this- if im gonna get shot,make it a quick kill cause I don't want to walk around my yard till the bleeding stops and end up coyote food.So i wouldn't want any animal to feel the same way.JMO
QuoteOriginally posted by McDave:
Current hunter ethics have been evolving for a long time. Back in the 1800's, whole buffalo herds were slaughtered for the hides and not much else. The carcasses were left to rot on the plains. If you read through "Witchery of Archery" by Thompson, you will find many occasions where they took long shots at herons, etc., just for fun, and if they hit one, they would maybe take one of its feathers, if they wanted one, or just leave it on the ground if they didn't. When bowhunting began to become popular in the early to mid 1900's, people thought it was incredible that anyone would go hunting with a bow, mainly because by that time, there wasn't much game left out there to hunt! Some of our heroes from the 1900's, like Fred Bear, had hunting ethics (or lack thereof) that would raise more than a few eyebrows today.
I would imagine that if we had the chance today to get to know Maurice and Will Thompson, or Fred Bear, or some of the unknown buffalo hunters from the 1800's, we would like them and would want to get to know them better. I don't imagine their basic character is any different from our character today. Not enough time has passed between then and now to change the basic character of man.
Who knows what people will think of us 100 years from now? Will they hate us for burning through most of the remaining oil and polluting the planet? Or for some other thing we do that doesn't even occur to us as being questionable at the present time?
I think much of our ethics is based on hindsight. We look back at the way game was treated in the past, and it seems wrong to us on reflection, so we don't want to repeat or continue those practices. I'm sure the same is true with other ethical issues, such as slavery. We recognize Jefferson as a great human being and respect what he did on behalf of our country. But we believe he was wrong to hold slaves, even as we recognize that he felt no moral issues in doing so.
Worth reading again...I never read a more insightful and eloquent response to this often repeated question. Thanks you
It seems to me that no other animal on the planet cares about this or even considers it.
On larger game wolves and coyotes appear to often start feaasting before the critter is even dead. A video I watched very sadly showed a doe on her side, watching as a wolf (or coyote. . can't recall) was eating its rump.
ChuckC
First let me say that religion has nothing to do with my answer and IMO should be left from the discussion.
I believe since we are taking the life of an animal what we "owe" them is as quick and honourable a death as possible.
No animal, should die with undue suffering. That being said let us not be mistaken that we do cause some suffering just by the act of killing.
In the end we are all accoutable to ourselves for what we do and how we do it.
To address one of the questions; "Do I owe this to all animals on this earth, or only the pretty ones, or the ones that are popular?"
It should be that we respect ALL animals, but I would venture to guess many of us are a bit hypocritical in that respect.
How many people won't kill ants or bees at a picnic? Is that life worth less because it is small?
QuoteOriginally posted by shortstroke 91:
First let me say that religion has nothing to do with my answer and IMO should be left from the discussion.
Hmmmm, you have an avatar that is a likeness of the devil and then say religion should be left out of it? The op clearly asked about whether religious beliefs have a bearing on the matter for somebody. Your religion or the lack thereof may or may not influence your beliefs on hunting, but if someone asks the question I don't think you should tell them to leave it out. Its their topic, let them ask it however they want.
QuoteOriginally posted by ChuckC:
It seems to me that no other animal on the planet cares about this or even considers it.
On larger game wolves and coyotes appear to often start feaasting before the critter is even dead. A video I watched very sadly showed a doe on her side, watching as a wolf (or coyote. . can't recall) was eating its rump.
ChuckC
The difference is that they don't have a conscience and you do. I do believe in God, and that belief is apart of every decision I make and therefore relevant to any discussion. Even without that belief I think people should feel a responsibility to any animal taken to do it properly and without carelessness and unnecessary suffering.
I don't tear up when I shoot an animal or feel badly for that animal. God put them here for us. I am using the resource. I just feel as though it should be done in a proper manner.
QuoteOriginally posted by bornagainbowhunter:
QuoteOriginally posted by ChuckC:
It seems to me that no other animal on the planet cares about this or even considers it.
On larger game wolves and coyotes appear to often start feaasting before the critter is even dead. A video I watched very sadly showed a doe on her side, watching as a wolf (or coyote. . can't recall) was eating its rump.
ChuckC
The difference is that they don't have a conscience and you do. I do believe in God, and that belief is apart of every decision I make and therefore relevant to any discussion. Even without that belief I think people should feel a responsibility to any animal taken to do it properly and without carelessness and unnecessary suffering.
I don't tear up when I shoot an animal or feel badly for that animal. God put them here for us. I am using the resource. I just feel as though it should be done in a proper manner. [/b]
Bornagain, I have to ask how you know they have no conscience?
lpcjon2, a conscience is a human emotion that animals are incapable of. The instinct to survive, breed, and protect their young are all they know. When a wolf, bear, coyote, cougar, or other predator kills, it is for their survival.
In many Native American cultures I am fairly sure they believed the animal had a spirit to be honored. Whether they believed ALL animals had a spirit I do not know. Many modern hunters(especially bow hunters) follow in that tradition.
I think each of us kind of create our own perameters on this.
For exaample: It's kind of wierd, but I wouldn't want to shoot a primate or elephant since they mourn their dead(Google elephant graveyard). It would appear they have the intelligence and soul to understand death. On the other hand, there are many animals you can shoot and it seems like the others don't really notice or care. I have seen deer feeding near other dead deer until some coyotes showed up.
Is it just an intelligence thing for me in regard to what animals I will hunt? Well yeah, I guess.....until I get hungry enough. Then there is no telling to what depths a man will sink.....
All that being said, I don't want any animal to suffer more than is necessary. I am not sure if any of that made sense, but that just shows the complexity of the issue.
Those elephants act like they have a conscience to me...LOL
Different ideas and opinions are always good I guess. Im gonna go outside and :archer2: .
Nature is cruel. I am not. I believe in ending it as quickly and humanely as possible. I don't know what goes through an animals mind. I do know what goes through mine.
Pain and suffering are exclusively human concepts. I sincerely doubt that any other animal is sentient enough to experience what we feel, for a number of reasons that I won't attempt to elucidate here. That's not to say that it doesn't matter how we treat the creatures we share the planet with, but I won't lose any sleep worrying about how some animal feels about how some human treated it.
I kill animals and eat them. No apologies for that, and no apologies if I screw it up and wound or cause a slow death to some of them. I won't do it on purpose, but sometimes it happens. It goes with the territory, and if someone can't handle that reality they should only shoot at foam.
Death is real and permanent. All of us will experience it some day. Until my turn comes, I will do my part to insure that another bunch of animals will experience it before I do, so that I may get nutrition from them before my personal elements go back to the earth. The wheel keeps turning, no matter how we feel about it.
This is a good thread.
Myself, I am a Pagan. As in I am polytheistic; I believe in many Gods and Goddesses. When I give thanks for a meal (be it whatever), I give thanks to the Gods, but also to the Spirit of the animal that died and, yes, the Spirits of plants and water. I see the Sacred all around me, in all things. I am part of it. How I treat Nature will determine how I am treated later; or perhaps my descendants.
Because of this, I believe I owe the animal a lot. For one thing, the animal will give me life. It will become part of me and live on in me. So, not only do I owe the animal respect and thanks, but as it lives on in me, how I treat others reflects the value I give that gift. I feed birds. I try to help other people when I can.
I am living a dream. To shoot a longbow, to hunt, to walk the forest, to hear wild, running water speak its wisdom. So, I act with reverence towards all things, not just the animals.
This is pretty touchy. I hate to say this, as it seems to be against normal hunter beliefs. . . but I am pretty sure animals are capable of feeling and they could have a conscience. It is really a mute point as none of the animals I know can say for themselves.
They deserve respect! End of discussion!
"I am living a dream. To shoot a longbow, to hunt, to walk the forest, to hear wild, running water speak its wisdom. So, I act with reverence towards all things, not just the animals."
Hunting is a dream that I cannot live without. My wife and I were talking the other day. I said I could not deal with the reality of never hunting again. Same with never stepping foot in a boat or canoe to pursue fish. It is a dream as old as time.
Oddly, it makes me feel good to know I will be dust one day. My body will feed the plants that then live on through some yet undetermined herbivore. Then, that animal will be hunted and I will again become a small part of the predator in new form.
Some of are just born for this. THAT is why we do it and there is no explaining all the differences we take to the field as individuals.
Why do we do it? Because of the interaction. The chance to be less human and more animal. Science says we have been human for a relatively short time. Some of our instincts are not dead. Some people carry more leftover instinct than others.
For some of the lucky, instinct is still strong.
Case in point...each and every one of us who love to hunt. Those of us who are stirred to the center of our being when we smell the forest floor. Those of us who can spot a bedded deer in the nearby trees, as we speed along a highway. Maybe a thousand motorists have passed by, but WE are the ones who noticed the deer.
As hunters, we know exactly how much blood must be spilled for us to eat our steak. Because we know, and are actually part of the process, I believe we can appreciate the life giving meal on a different level than those who are disconnected.
For some of us, the reason "we do it" is simply because we are aware of the fact that we MUST.
Sadly, I firmly believe there are alot of people who live their lives, knowing, something is missing...and circumstances came about preventing them from ever finding out that they are natural born predators.[hunters]
Another cool thread. :thumbsup:
A lot of this depends on how we view ourselves as "hunters." To some, it is almost a religious experience and treated as such. Other's view hunting as a management tool used to insure and maintain a healthy resource. Others view their role somewhere in between the two.
Strictly from a management perspective, a certain number of any given species have to die each year in order to maintain a healthy resource. To the ones that die, it matters not how they were killed, or even whether they were recoverd or not. Once they are dead, they don't care, and something is going to use them as a food source and it will not be wasted. The only difference really is who or what is in posession of the carcass.
In my opinion, as stewards of the resource, we owe animals nothing more two things.
1. Our best efforts in eliminating unneeded suffering.
2. Doing what is best for the resource over all, and over time.
Anyting else we attach to the process doesn't really have anything to do with the animal, but to our own personal needs, wants and desires.
I had a dog one time that just laid on the ground and didn't pay any attention to flies, lizards squirrels or any other varmints ...I got another one that just the opposite ..I guess I'm moreee like him
QuoteOriginally posted by Buckwheaties:
I wonder if the archers of old, flinging a quiver full of arrows at 100yds at a deer, had thoughts like are expressed here? I guess time changes ethics? I'll bet that over the last thousands of years of man taking game with a bow, thoughts of ethics were even nonexistent.
Just how "old" are the archers of old you speak of. I'm sure that if your choices are hunt and kill something to feed yourself and/or your village or starve to death your ethics would change drastically. Realisticly there aren't many, if any of us that hunt today that are in this situation.
QuoteThey deserve respect! End of discussion!
Problem arises when someone wants their definition of "respect" to be the only one.
That brings out yet another point. Yeah , I know this is a series of questions, but you almost can't ask one without the other.
Buckeye, I am not so certain that "there aren't many, if any...." . That is probably very true of the TradGangers as we all have internet access and likely live in more material surroundings.
There are yet many many beings, yes they are people too, who don't share our good fortune. They do hunt and gather to survive every single day of their lives. Do you think that they feel differently about this ?
ChuckC
I can't speak for them, but I would feel differently about it. If I was in a situation where I had to bring some type of animal home from the field to keep my family from going hungry there would be no end to what I would do to provide nutrition for my family whether it was considered ethical or not. I feel it would be more ethical than letting your family starve. To answer this portion of the question, yes, I do feel that different circumstances can and do change the way people feel about this. I also feel that different circumstances will change what people will deem as ethical.
As for my there aren't many if any comment, you are correct and thank you for pointing that out as I was not considering the people outside of the circle of this conversation.
QuoteThere are yet many many beings, yes they are people too, who don't share our good fortune. They do hunt and gather to survive every single day of their lives. Do you think that they feel differently about this ?
ChuckC
Yes.
"Ethics" really only enter into hunting when you don't have to do it to survive. When it's either kill or starve, "ethics" go out the window. Just ask the rugby team who's plane crashed in the Andes.
The Bible is my guide for appreciating and accepting my role as a hunter -- dominon over, use and stewardship of the beasts that creepeth and crawl upon the earth.
I think the comments above are very thoughtful and incredibly consistent. I too have thought about this most of my hunting life. Why do I work so hard to pefect my hunting and shooting skills? Why am I such a conservative shot? Why does a wounding loss cause me such turmoil? I think the answer to the first two questions is found in the last question -- the turmoil over a lost animal.
I'm a retired wildlife biologist. Animals are not people and I don't see them with any human traits or emotions at all. We were created in God's likeness, but the beasts of the earth were not. When I wound an animal it is likely that I made a bad decision or didn't execute the way I know how .. I failed to do my job (but not always). I have disrepected myself and my preparation. I may have also been an unworthy representative of the hunter. I am ashamed of myself and there is no hiding or lying from one's self. If the bad result (wounding loss) is due to my carelessness or disregard then I have been guilty of practicing poor stewardship. I feel less of a hunter as a result.
For me its not really the "pain and suffering" of the animal because those are human emotions.
I've evolved a theory about folks who take low percentage (to put it nicely) poor shots; running, brush, too far, etc. -- I don't think folks that do this routinely put much effort in trying to recover animals that don't appear to be mortally hit. If they spent most of a day or more trying to follow-up on a poor hit they would be less likely to try them.
By the way, the only way to short-circuit the turmoil (for me) of a wounded and lost animmal, is to do it right the next time. If I learn from the incident and do better next time, I can let it go.
I must ammend my comment about consistency mentioned above. By the time I finished my post several different points of view were aired.
Regarding the mosquito, spiders, and ants. Yep, same God created them. They have their own unique roles in the grand scheme. Some of these critters clean up the mess made by others -- decomposers have a job too.
I don't dare dog these beasts that many consider pests because that's a whole 'nother' can-of-worms (which I respectfully consider fish bait).
QuoteOriginally posted by Bowwild:
For me its not really the "pain and suffering" of the animal because those are human emotions.
I would respectfully disagree here in that pain and suffering are universal(meaning all animals).
1. Ever see a dog with bloat(stomache flip)? That is a nasty bit of suffering.
2. Ever accidentally step on a dog's tail or paw? They don't yip because it felt wonderful. It was pain.
Pain and suffering translate to more than humans. If not, then honestly, what is an ethical shot? Why do we bother? We could just shoot away with no care as to the result of the shot other than to eventually bring home some groceries.
No disrespect, but I just don't see that.
Any input from folks in other countries ? Other experiences or ways of thought.
I didn't post this as a test. We are all correct for ourselves. But there are so many of us and so many versions of "ourselves". I am really interested in what othes think, and maybe why they think that way.
ChuckC
Originally posted by Buckwheaties:
"I wonder if the archers of old, flinging a quiver full of arrows at 100yds at a deer, had thoughts like are expressed here? I guess time changes ethics? I'll bet that over the last thousands of years of man taking game with a bow, thoughts of ethics were even nonexistent."
Well, hunter-gatherer cultures were supreme woodsmen of a type that didn't require making those shots. If you've ever made a primitive arrow from total scratch (shoot or cane shaft you had to cut-season-sand, fletching cut from a feather, stone point you knapped, sinew you processed and all this with stone tools), then you know one arrow could have several hours of work in it. You won't be just flinging those about at animals 100 yards away. Good arrows were labor-intensive. Hunter-gatherers wouldn't do that for two reasons:
1.) Too many lost arrows and too time-intensive to replace for little gain.
2.) Wouldn't hit the animal and easier to stalk, because you don't survive as a hunter culture without hunting skills that don't involve "spray-and-pray". "Spray-and-pray" is a modern construct. It doesn't have a hunter-gatherer equivalent.
Remember, these are folks that didn't live in chemical environments of modern soap, perfume, aftershave, laundry detergent, gasoline, oil, and what-not. Their odor didn't give them away, for one thing. For another, there was a lot more game back then than now. Remember, there was a time in this land a buffalo herd could take several days to pass a given point.
While they didn't have "ethics" per se as we know them, they did attach a religious reverence to the animals they hunted. The Plains tribes and the buffalo, for example. Certain right behavior and certain pre-hunt taboos were observed. Read Joseph Campbell.
That's not to say that there wasn't something called the "Buffalo Jump" where a herd of buffalo was stampeded off a cliff. But, again, there were religious ceremonies involved in that, too.
Yes, we call them "ethics" now. But take a look at some posts here. People have "lucky" bows or favorite bows or name their bows. People have this or that lucky talisman or doo-dad. There is nothing new under the sun. We're hunters.
QuoteOriginally posted by Tsalagi:
For another, there was a lot more game back then than now.
I'd have to disagree with you on that one. That may be true for buffalo but over all, there are many more game animals today than there were at that time. We, as managers (hunters) can be thanked for that. That and the reduction of old growth forests that provide little or no value to game animals and the conversion of this land to crops and natural new growth.
Gone are the days of feast and famine due to disease, overpopulation, uncontrolled predation, etc.. In terms of numbers, the absolute best thing to happen to game animals is, simply put...US.
I also tend to disagree with the idea that if an animal is wounded and goes unrecovered, that is always the fault of the hunter. We can be as prepared, and ethical as we can possible be and the fact still remains that the animal has as say in the process also. As much as we want to play the role of predator, they want to play survivor more...MUCH more. As much as we practice, as much as we take only "high percentage" shots, etc., things still happen that are totally out of our control.
Ethically speaking, what we "owe" the animal is our best attempt at one thing. Before we release an arrow, or fire a bullet, we need to be reasonably sure that we are capable of a quick, humane, kill. Once the arrow or bullet is gone, we have no control over the outcome.
For all intents and purposes, game animals really only have 4 or 5 ways to die. Old age (starvation), predation, disease, acdidents and at the hands of a hunter. I would maintain that although it's not always pretty, dying at the hands of a hunter is by far the most humane.
My motto is : "don't do to others what you wouldn't like them do to you", this apply for everything, and therefore I owe a quick and clean kill to the animals I hunt.
My few cents:
Despite of past generations, history and habits I think this way:
I owe respect for the nature in all, because of:
What I eat, breath, drink etc. comes from nature and if I spoil it I and especially generations after me will suffer for my bad behavior.
Be it anything around us in nature, we have some realtionship to it and if we nursih that relationship good things will come. If we dont care about that relationship, bad things will come.
(And if we look in history, this is so true and easily to prove looking back)
I want to nurish my relationship to my surroundings partly with hunting. My family likes to eat meat, so I hunt, because of wild meat is more healty and sometimes stock animals conditions are not so good...
I owe to animals I hunt, that I try to kill them cleanly, for the respect of the food they prowide to me and my family.
I owe the respect to nature in all forms, because of I live in times, where I can make my own rules, without creedy and bloodthirst attitude.
And here too: as a bowhunter, towards the big nonhunting growds, I owe to the bowhunting community too, that my ethics are solid and I can discuss about those ethics with anyone I meet on the trail...
Take care !
T Salagi reminds me of something my Dad used to tell me. He grew up in Kentucky in the mid-30's-40's. His dad would give him 1-3 shotgun shells and send him to the woods to kill food. Dad wouldn't even think about taking a shot that wasn't nearly guaranteed to result in a kill. If he could kill more than one with a single shot he would do it (not deer or turkey because there weren't any). Dad wasn't a bowhunter -- but he sure was interested in my bowhunting. The first several years I bowhunted he would call family far and wide to tell them "Roy got another deer with that bow!" He thought the first couple I killed were "tame".
One of the posters above reminded us that not all wounded animals are the "fault" of the hunter. While I certainly agree with that statement, I also know if one really dissects the decision/shot that produced the wound, the hunter might have been able to do something to prevent it. This is one reason I won't take a long shot on live game that I might feel very comfortable on a target. The greater the distance the better the chance that a random movement by the animal can change the intended result. If I took a shot like this and the animal "moved", I would blame myself for the result. This is just one example (too long shots) but the longer the shot the more "luck" involved even if you are an Olympic archer that never misses. Running shots are another one I just can't bring myself to take, no matter how close. I've seen videos of this being done by some folks who are terrific bowhunters, great spokepersons for bowhunting, and although I've never met em, are considered fine folks. They must practice these types of shots in order for them to be nearly guaranteed. I admit I am far too conservative a shot, and now my son is even more conservative. I only take a shot that I consider a "gimmee". I always hope the iffy shot will get better -- right now or tomorrow. Of course many times they don't but I don't regret the decision.
Another thing I've noted in these replies is the impacts of our religious upbringing upon our beliefs. I tend to think, especially in hunting circles our beliefs are similar but of course they are not. I wish we could all be right about this, but I'm taught and firmly believe we are not. While I shouldn't need and don't need proof, He gave it to me in a dream in the spring of 1997.
I don't mean to be preachy here but I'm a bit saddened (not for our quarry) by some of what I've read. I hope post #339 isn't my last. I know this forum isn't the place for these kinds of opinions but I am compelled to provide this witness. If I didn't do it the cock would begin crowing.
QuoteI only take a shot that I consider a "gimmee".
Same here, but in over 30 years of hunting, I have had a few of "gimme's" go bad. It's part of hunting. If you haven't had it happen to you yet, give it time.
I've yet to have a 3D target jump the string, and I have yet to shoot at a real animal that was stuck to the ground with re-rod.
Turkeys Fear Me said:
"I'd have to disagree with you on that one. That may be true for buffalo but over all, there are many more game animals today than there were at that time. We, as managers (hunters) can be thanked for that. That and the reduction of old growth forests that provide little or no value to game animals and the conversion of this land to crops and natural new growth."
I have to respectfully disagree with you there. Certain species went entirely extinct here after 1492. The Passenger Pigeon is one. The Carolina Parakeet is another. The elk here in Northern Arizona are not native. The native elk were wiped out here around 1900. This was due to recklass hunting. Now, as far as deer, that's debatable whether or not there are more now than prior to 1492. We don't have game count assessments from then. :) But we do know several pre-1492 civilizations subsisted on game, since they did not practice animal husbandry. So, I would tend to think there was more game then. But there is more game now than there was in 1880, yes.
But one thing I can tell you is that clearing old growth forests is a disaster, regardless if it creates more deer or not. Old growth forests are part of the natural order we hunters are supposed to accept and love. There are species in old growth forests that may disappear entirely by clearcutting these forests. Like the Pacific Yew people like for their bows, for one. Like Port Orford Cedar for arrows, for another. I'd rather have old growth forests than a couple extra deer, thanks.
Cropland does not increase game, it usually reduces it. Especially in most of the monoculture agriculture practiced over most of the U.S. I've seen cropland where not a sparrow was to be seen on it. I've seen cotton fields that not even an insect lives on. Now, yes, in some corn fields you've got a lot of deer out there. But you won't see that in an onion field in Camarillo, California or a cotton field in Pemiscot County, Missouri. Remember, it was the desire to free up the Plains for agriculture here that required wiping out the buffalo in the first place (among other reasons.) Loss of habitat is one of the biggest causes of animal species decline and/or extinction.
Just a couple more things. I'm not saying that Native Americans always were more "ethical" hunters or that they were always better stewards of the land or however one wishes to say that. We know from archaeologists that the Anasazi probably were not very good stewards of the land. And, they paid the price for that: Their culture disappeared and probably a large percentage of their population died out. It seems the Anasazi had built this huge trading/commerce empire and then proceeded to outstrip the natural resources in their area to keep it running. Things that make you go hmmmm. They didn't get too alarmed until a huge drought hit and crops failed. It was all downhill from there. I understand there was once a Ponderosa forest up in the Four Corners area that the Anasazi had totally stripped bare to get wood for fuel.
In pre-1492 times, if you stripped your land of resources (including game), you died. It was as simple as that. In places that grew corn, beans, and squash, you could get by without game for some time. But let there be a drought and then your entire civilization collapses. These lessons were learned in real-time and with no emergency plans of action.
Much of the disaster that befell US wildlife populations before the 20th century was driven by economics and government policy. Government policy to starve and destroy native American culture had much to do with the near extirpation of the American bison. Those were the days of market shooting (I wouldn't call their methods or ethics hunting as we know it today) when a person was motivated to kill all he could because there was a market for it. We knew too little about the biology of wild animals or their habitat needs. The passenger pigeon for example was a species that could not thrive in solitude or even flocks of hundreds. When hunters like Teddy Roosevelt (to just name the most famous) decided recreation and heritage was more important than making money they demanded (almost too late) that game laws and enforcement of same be implemented. Scientific management, paid for by hunters and fishermen is a huge success story on this continent - it is called the "North American Model". It is generally accepted that original deer herds probably numbered in the range of 12-25 deer per mile of mixed mesophytic forest (eastern hardwoods). These days most eastern deer herds are at levels greater than 40/mile. Mostly because old growth has been replaced with mixed age stands of timber, brush, and fields. In the east we lost our native elk herds, woodland bison, timber wolf and eastern cougar. By the way the wolf and cougar (and nearly the black bear) were eliminated because city folks feared them. Some hunters also felt these predators were too much competition. If you live in the west you may have a different perspective because habitat (especially places like AZ) is very limiting and is such that over-hunting is possible -- thus very strict rationing of harvest opportunity. It is true the AZ elk herd was reinstated by the translocation of 270 animals. I was the director of Ky's restored elk herd which received elk from 7 western states (1,549) and now totals between 10,000-12,000 animals -- thanks to hunters paying the bills. As someone who just concluded a career in wildlife management I can attest, that as far as most wildlife species goes, especially game animals and nongame closely associated in their habitats, these are definitely better days than the past 100.
As hunters we should be extremely proud of our record these past 11 decades. Europe for example didn't learn our lesson so quickly.
Good stuff Bowwild and I totally agree, and thank you for your years spent improving what we all enjoy.
Good post, Bowwild. This reminds me. Whenever I hear people saying hunting should be banned, I say, "So, you're ready to pay a 14% excise tax on all camping gear, hiking gear, and mountain bikes?" Why, no, why should we have to pay a tax to enjoy the wilderness? Well, for one thing, because hunters have been paying through a 14% excise tax for years for the wildlife you enjoy seeing while you're out camping-hiking-mountain biking. So, if you ban hunting, someone has to pick up the slack. That'll be you guys, right?
Silence is golden, LOL!!!
I find the answer to this question in "Primal Dreams"... it all boils down to a love for Nature and respect for the animals we kill and eat. Just that simple for me...
Some interesting stuff here fellas...but I think what Biggie was talking about was us presenting ourselves in a positive light, in general, ...not because we have to justify what we do but because we will not necessarily be the ones who get to decide if we can keep doing it. That's unfortunate but it't the way of the world in which we live. It's the special interest groups who are the best financed and who scream the loudest that get to have undue and disproportionate influence on virtually all things that are passed down as laws in this country. If they can sway the disinterested...those folks who really have no opinion on hunting one way on the other, then we could be in trouble.
As far as our ethics are concerned and how we treat the animals we hunt, I am trying to kill that animal, whatever it is...but I absolutely try to make that kill as humane as possible. I prefer it that way, not because I think I'm being cruel otherwise, but because I think taking the life of any animal is meaningful. It's just the way I feel about it, that's all.
I think most hunters are very thoughtful, responsible, and self-reliant people. In fact, these are among the attributes I think hunting hones in a person making this a great thing for young people to get involved in. We are imperfect human beings. It is tough for us not to be conflicted about some aspects of the hunt, the kill, and some of the lessons we have to learn from our mistakes. However, what makes hunters such great caretakers of the natural world is that we spend so much of our waking moments supporting and taking part in conservation. A favorite quote I heard many years ago, "Hunters prefer to be a part of nature rather than apart from it." We participate rather than simply spectate.
Bowwild said:
"A favorite quote I heard many years ago, "Hunters prefer to be a part of nature rather than apart from it." We participate rather than simply spectate."
:clapper:
This thread has provided some very good reading.
I feel proud to be in such good company.
Famous words from a native chief. "all things are connected, whatever befalls the earth, befalls her children" (something like that)
The start of this thread asked "Why we do it"
I think it is for the connection...to everything.
Some of us simply MUST be a part of "it".
A toddler, when he/she first lays eyes on a butterfly, smiles...and then the chase is on.
They simply MUST! :campfire: