Another Take

[Mawgie]

Is amplified hearing both unethical and unsportsmanlike?

I'll weigh in again. First, amplified hearing is not illegal, at least where I hunt. Second, I flatly will not accept any argument that would preclude the hearing impaired or those with normal hearing to use amplified muffs to accomplish two objectives: 1) protect natural hearing; 2) amplify natural hearing so the wearer can hear at the rough equivalent of normal when utilizing the hearing instrument.

Now, from here, it gets slightly sticky.  Is hearing amplification that provides a hunter with MORE THAN STANDARD HUMAN HEARING ACUITY ethical or sportsmanlike?

For me, no, so long as it is legal.  My muzzleloader is of an inline design and wears a Leupold Vari-X III.  In other words it is hardly primitive.  My "slug" gun is a TC Encore with a 20 gauge rifled barrel and another Leupold scope.  With the right ammunition and me doing my part, it will shoot near MOA at 100 yards.  I use a treestand, scent control, a grunt call, and the like.  Some would dismiss these weapon and gear choices as less than completely sporting.

Having said that, I believe I am both ethical and a sportsman.  Hunting has been handed down in my family (both sides) for generations.  I strictly adhere to the letter of the game laws, belong to the NRA and Ducks Unlimited, and have no qualms about sticking my nose into the business of people who are breaking game laws.  I take full responsibility for and am personally comfortable with my choices, and am very much UNCOMFORTABLE with anyone judging any legal choices I might make.  So long as I am legal, the means and methods I use to hunt should not be subject to the judgment of others.  In opther words, the law makesme free to exercise my rights, so I will do so.

It's fine to debate this issue and air our differences, but let's not get lost in warring dictionary definitions and personal viewpoints.  Our 2d Amendment rights and hunting in general remain under attack.

Regards to all - Mawgie

[rickyp]

for me
If it is legal to use then there is nothing wrong with using them. I never have problems with someone doing what they want to as long as it is legal and does not inter fer with me

[jhalcott]

you can use deer decoys to fool deer ,range finders to help in shooting critters,scopes to make hits easier,etc. ,etc. One more gadget to help get the deer is no problem. I have been known to keep a sand bag on stand to help on the long shots!  jh

[Ranger413]

Mawgie,

I agree with you whole heartedly.  If it is legal to use the most technoligically advanced tools to harvest game cleanly then why not.  This is not to say that you have to use any or all of those gagets, but they are available to those who want to give 'em a try.

Personally, I haven't got the cash yet, or really felt the need to buy any type of hearing enhancement device.  In the future, maybe the next couple of years, I plan to get the amplified muffs for range use.  I doubt I ever will take them into the woods.  However, this past season was the first time that I've fired my .44 magnum w/o hearing protection and the ringing only lasted about 30 seconds.  In my profession we get tested routinely for hearing and eyesight loss.  While I don't wear shooting glasses while hunting I am considering using plugs if I have the chance to put 'em in before the shot.  With my .44 mag kill this year I had plenty of time before hand.  In this instance a device like the Walker Game Ear may have been ideal - would enhance woods noises and cut out the BLAM of the shot to save my ears.

Man and technology go hand in hand.  If you don't like it fine.  Stick with your green branch and string.  I'm happy with my scoped in-line firing Triple 7 and a saboted XTP bullet for now.

Ranger413

[DzrtRat]

I really should stay out of this because I know what happens when "ethics" are discussed.

IMO, "sportsmanlike", "legal", and "ethical" have different meanings.

Let me start by saying that legal is easy to define, and if a person stays within the bounds of the law then I have no problem with what they do in most cases.

However, here are a couple of scenarios to consider:

It's cow elk season and there's a large herd of elk at least 600 yards from any cover.  There's no law in my state that says you can't shoot that far at elk with a .243, but is it ethical to do so just because the law hasn't said you can't??

Ok, now it's late evening of the last day of bull elk season.  You have a shot at a nice bull and take it.  The bull takes off at the shot, but you find blood.  It gets dark before you can find the bull. so you go back the next morning (the day after elk season closed).  After following the trail a ways, the bull gets up and you can plainly see the blood on his side.  In my state it would be illegal to shoot the bull again and you could be cited for shooting it out of season if you did.  Is it ethical to let the bull wander off to die a slow death and let the meat waste because that's what the law says to do?

To me, ethics are personal guidelines that we follow that may or may not extend above or beyond the law.  What is ethical to me may not be ethical to you, and what is ethical to you may not be ethical to me.  Breaking the law is not considered to be ethical by most people, but there are also times when we make the best of two bad choices.  When we do that, we alone have to live with the consequences of that choice; be it legal repercussions, a feeling of guilt, or otherwise.

I hunt in my own ways and for my own reasons.  If I chose not to use hearing enhancers for moral reasons, that would in no way entitle me to judge another who uses them; nor would it entitle the one who uses them to judge me on my moral standards.  Some people hunt with archery gear, some with handguns, and some with rifles.  Each uses his tool of choice for his/her own reasons, each should be happy with their choice, and it's no one else's business most of the time.

Y'all take care!
~Rat

[daddywpb]

The legal question is easy - either it is or it isn't. The ethical question is one that we all have to answer for ourselves. For me, there are a few hunting situations that are legal, but I wouldn't participate in because I don't think it's "fair". That certainly doesn't mean that I would critcize others for doing it. We all have to live with our conscious.

[jamie]

DzrtRat,
I have to say you are way off in your comparison of shooting elk at 600 yrds with a 243 to whether or not amplified hearing devises should be used.  Amplified hearing does not help you kill more or less humanely, it just allows you to hear more.  A scoped rifle causes more people to attempt more "unethical"  shots than a hearing aid could ever possibly cause.  Improving your odds of taking game doesn't constitute poor ethics, using game for targets while placing your odds in technology in of in your abilities does.


I have had to search for a deer the day after season ended.  When I returned home that night from hunting I phone the nearest  DNR office told them what happened and explained what I was planning to do and the next morning a very willing DNR officer tracked the deer with me and watched as I applied the final shot.  No issues, no problems, just a DNR officer that was happy that someone took the time not to leave an animal to suffer.  He even stayed to help skin it.

[CJ]

They are illegal in PA where I hunt. However Walkers Game Ear is based in PA. Personally, if you use Binos to Enhance your vision I dont see hearing enhancement as a giant leap.

[volshooter]

Use anything as long as it is not illegal. Each of us has to make up our own ethicial rules.
Rick

[Old Griz]

Gosh. I feel left out. I didn't even know it was an issue before I read this.

I guess if it's unethical to use anything that gives us an advantage, we'd have to just jump out of the bushes naked and wrestle the dang buck to the ground.

Hmmm . . . maybe I should try that. The sight of me naked will either cause the buck to have a heart attack, or he'll be laughing so hard he couldn't run. Just think of all the money I've wasted all these years on guns and ammo!
:cb2:

[LarryL]

Well, just can't let this one get by without a comment...

Earlier in my life, I, as many of you, did more shooting than was wise without hearing protection.  As a result, I have some ringing in my ears.  I often find that when the woods are really quiet, I swear I hear something in the leaves behind me.  As I turn slowly, I find it is still behind me.  Then, I realize that it is just my ears playing tricks, and they have gotten me again.

Also, my eyes are not perfect.  So, I wear glasses.  

And, I'm finding it harder to see my sights, and the target, so I use an optical sight now.

I've also taken to carrying a small (pair?) of field binoculars.  Never could figure out why they call it a pair of binoculars.  Yeah, there are two eyepieces, but only one binocular.  Could call it a pair of monoculars hooked together I guess.  Anyway, I digress...

I guess the point I am trying to make, is that we all use varying levels of mechanical advantage to increase our hunting odds.  A bow hunter might consider the guy with his scoped 300 WSM is really unethical or at least unsportsmanlike.  On the other hand, the guy with the rifle might claim the bowhunter was unethical or unsportsmanlike because he does not make as quick a kill.

I think we are all losing sight of the bigger picture.  We are all hunters and sportsmen (sorry ladies... sportspeople?).  We share the common bond that we go out in the woods to enjoy ourselves and occaisionally harvest game to fill our freezers and our bellies.  We slog through the rain, freeze our butts off in the extreme cold of late fall and winter mornings, sweat our butts off in those hot day hikes up the mountains, endure the long days of fruitless hunts, and tremble at the excitement of that huge buck breathing steam in the first light of day.  We all have our own approaches to the sport, and our own ways of getting enjoyment from it.  If we are going to ask society and the anti-gun crowd to have tolerance of our views and beliefs, we damn sure better have tolerance of each other and our differing approaches to enjoy the sport of hunting!

I for one do not currently own a set of muffs.  I regularly carry earplugs with me, but know that I will probably never have time to put them in.  In fact, I'll probably forget all about them during all the excitement.  I'm sure I'll regret that when I touch off my .480 Ruger!  I would already own a set of muffs now, if I had the cash.  When I do, I will be adding it to my hunting gear.  It will protect my hearing from my handloads, and will return some of my lost hearing at the same time.  Maybe I'll hear even better.  If so, I say GREAT!  Maybe I'll finally be able to hear as good as my granddad could when he used to go hunting.  He could hear a deer breathing over the noise of my footsteps crunching in the leaves!!
 

[oso45-70]

Hi Larry, Athought came to me while i was reading your post, Since i have the ringing in the ears and have had for the last 45 years i carry a
couple 44-40 round nose loads to put in my ears before i shoot, You mite
try that or maybe a couple 38s with the round nose, It's quick and not to uncomfortable, works for me, I think we have all let some big ones off when we should  have some kind of ear protection on, I know this is a little off the beaten path but i just had to jump in, take care and stay safe,
               
                                        JOE

[Whopper Stopper]

"Use anything as long as it is not illegal. Each of us has to make up our own ethicial rules. "



Good luck! Pretty hard do do anything without someone sticking their nose in your business.

                  WS

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

It's fine to debate this issue and air our differences, but let's not get lost in warring dictionary definitions and personal viewpoints.

Actually it's the "personal viewpoints" that causes more confusion.  By using "dictionary definitions" it narrows the various personal views so that we can actually communicate instead of barking out arguments in our own little cell.

Ethics: 1. a. A study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made  by the individual in his relationship with others;  The philosophy of individual in his relationship with others; the philosophy of morals.  b. The moral sciences as a whole, including moral pholosophy and customary, civil and religious law.  2. The rules or standards governing the conduct of the members of a profession.  3. Any set of moral principles or values. 4. The moral quality of a course of action. - American Heritage Dictionary

These are the definitions of ethics from my American Heritage Dictionary.  If you have a completely different understanding of ethics as it applies to this discussion it would be courteous to make that clear from the start, otherwise you can assume others posting here will use something similar to the above definitions.

I underlined the word "moral" just to emphasize how often it appears.  Is there any doubt that "ethics" has a tie to what is "good" and what is "evil"?

Each of us has to make up our own ethicial rules. - Rick

Spoken like a true Liberal.  I don't know how one can conclude that we each make up our own ethical rules, given the common understanding of the term ethics.  This is called moral relativism.

IMO, "sportsmanlike", "legal", and "ethical" have different meanings. -DzrtRat

I would only disagree with the "IMO" part of DzrtRat's statement.  He writes the truth.  Look up the terms in the dictionary, they truly ARE different, and it's not just DzrtRat's opinion

So, Mawgie, since you initiated this thread, it would help us all if you clarify what you mean when you ask "is it ethical?"  Otherwise, you will continue to get the random answers that never really point anywhere because everyone is "making up their own" definitions of ethics, sportsmanship, and legal.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

I will go ahead and assume that Mawgie means ethical to be something similar to the dictionary definition.

Is it "ethical"...?

To start with I will clarify how I understand ethics as it relates to hunting.  

Hunting ethics deals with that code of conduct that differentiates between morally good conduct and morally evil conduct.  It is evil to be unecessarily cruel to animals.  And it is evil to break the laws of the state (so long as those laws do not break any higher laws).  

Those two moral judgements are probably the most frequently made judgements in the sport of hunting.

Obviously, if you run "amplified hearing" through these criteria it doesn't seem to be a moral evil, therefor amplified hearing is ethical.

A sportsman, according to my dictionary, is someone "who abides by the rules of a contest and accepts victory or defeat graciously."  

In order to be a sportsman, you need a "contest".

In general, technology erodes the "contest" in hunting.  However, there is still a huge amount of contest remaining after you put on a pair of amplified earmuffs.  Therefore, amplified ear muffs are still sportsmanlike.  They are just "less sportsmanlike" than going sans amplification.

It's really pretty simple if you think about it.

[crawfish]

November 3 - feast of Saint Hubert, patron saint of hunters.

It sure is and every year since 1998 I have sponsered a game dinner in his honor for all who wish to show up at my church. It statred with just me now there are 12-15 who do up their special game dish and puts it out for all to enjoy.

[T.C.]

:?   I in no way condone waterfowlers that use lead shot in the U.S. it is illegal,  some hunters who shoot ducks in this country condemn the illegal hunters who use lead, BUT, the thing that does bother me is that some of these people travel out of the country to hunt, where they are allowed to use lead, and even use it on hunting shows. i've watched them condemn it on national television and then turn around and let the viewers know that they are using lead in argentina. this is supposed to be a environmental issue, according to them. LEGAL, YES , ETHICAL, NO, SPORTSMANLIKE, NO, NOT EVEN IF ITS LEGAL. all of this may not have much to do with hearing aids, but it sure gives a view to ethics.  AVID SPORTSMAN,   T.C.

[Mawgie]

"In general, technology erodes the "contest" in hunting. However, there is still a huge amount of contest remaining after you put on a pair of amplified earmuffs. Therefore, amplified ear muffs are still sportsmanlike. They are just "less sportsmanlike" than going sans amplification. "

So says another poster.  I disagree.  This analysisi turns to mud as soon as you look at anything other than a spear or a knife for taking game.  A flintlock is less sportsmanlike than a spear. A centerfire rifle is less sportsmanlike than an inline muzzleloader, etc.  

I repeat.  I abide by the letter of the game law, and will not hesitate to turn against someone or people who do not.  I believe I am as much a "sportsman" toting a rifle, wearing amplified hearing, as I would be with a flintlock and no hearing amplification.  In the context of this
forum, I  define sportsman as a man, woman,  or young person who hunts, participates in the shooting sports, is committed to only legal pursuits, and is a good example for the rest of us.  (We'll never convince the rabid antis, but conducting ourselves as "class acts"  will go a long way to preserving the traditions, and for me, a way of life, that has been handed down by our forbearers.)  

I have respect for the others' opinions, but it is my view that if we are legal we should not be in any way subject to someone else judging whether we are sportsmanlike or not.  Like many of you, I grew up watching American Spoortsman at my Father's knee.  One day I was deemed old enough to carry my Father's Auto-5 in the field.  Unloaded. Under extreme supervision.  In my view, I was brought up as a sportsman.  My Father and uncles are/were very fine hunters, fishermen and sportsman and taught me what little I know.  While I am not trying to fill their shoes, I sure have a way to go to earn my place.  I'm enjoying the trip.

To each his own.  If it really bugs you, ATVs, amplified hearing, whatever, act on it and get it outlawed by the Legislature.  That is your right.  Just please don't subject me to your judgment.  I conduct myself in a legal manner, make an effort to be friendly and helpful to those I meet afield, and am plenty grown up enough to make my own responsible choices.

Revel in your Freedom - Mawgie

[Mikey]

mawgie - thanks, that says it all.  Mikey.

[Mawgie]

Well, this nagged me all day at work, so here's another take.  One poster has presented the customary hypotheticals, e.g., long shot at an elk on the last day of the season.  Would you take it?  Animal wounded and runs onto posted land.  Would you pursue?  That sort of thing.

Again, in my view, this analysis is peeling the onion down to nothing and to no meaningful truth.  In my view, many forget how lucky we are to be able to hunt, own guns, carry guns, and load our own ammunition in this country.  In many countries, say, Canada, for a nearby example, gun ownership and use rights are brutally restricted.  If we don't keep out territory carved out, it's gone. Simple as that.

In the USA, we still have the 2d amendement, which forces the Legislatures to PRESUPPOSE sportsmanlike conduct in the drafting of game laws.  In other words, if the Legislatures didn't assume most people would abide by the game and firearm laws, we would not enjoy many of the freedoms we enjoy.  That would be the road to hunting and shooting sports perdition.

Which leads me to my point.  The sportsman is not perfect.  No one is.  A true sportsman must make judgment calls, and they won't all be correct, but should all demonstrate a track record of good judgment preceded by good training to guide him or her in difficult decisions afield.

The sportsman IS NOT:
1)the jerk that takes target practice on a sign;
2)the idiot that drinks on stand and leaves empties behind;
3)any loser that litters;
4)the other hunter you encounter who is happy to chat and "accidentally" points his or her gun at you while you chat;
5)the hunter who parks to block public access;
6)the thief who pulls your tack strips into your stand from trees on property you have unrestricted permission to hunt;
7) the thief who steals your treestand or breaks into your truck.

Honestly, I feel like Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men posting this, but we must, and I mean absolutely must unite.  Our Constitution guarantees individual freedoms, but we must police our own in the woods.  If we don't, we leave ourselves open to even more aggressive attacks from the antis.

The sportsman must act in full compliance with the law at all times.  That much we all seem to agree on.  I further submit that the true sportsman should be committed to getting the trainign followed by the experience to make good judgment calls afield, and will we all must take it upon ourselves to police our own and participate in the conservation of our hunting resources.

[Black Jaque Janaviac]

Mawgie,

This analysisi turns to mud as soon as you look at anything other than a spear or a knife for taking game. A flintlock is less sportsmanlike than a spear. A centerfire rifle is less sportsmanlike than an inline muzzleloader, etc.

Somehow I don't see the analysis turning to mud at all.  In fact your description fits my point quite nicely.  Perhaps it would make more sense to substitute the word "sporting" for "sportmanlike".  

  At the time I posted, I was going by the dictionary definition.  It involves some sort of "contest".  Do you not understand that hunting with a spear or knife would be a greater contest than using a .30-06?

By your definition someone who simply pays the fee to hunt in fenced enclosures (regardless of size) is just as much a sportsman as the rest.   They aren't doing anything illegal, they may very well be someone to look up to, etc. etc.  You seem to have an "either you are or you aren't" concept of sportsman.  I view it as a sliding scale, where one can change "much of a sportsman" they are.

I guess we misunderstand each other on the definition of sportsman.  But since this is your thread, and you have now defined it for the purpose of this thread - I agree.

[Mikey]

Fellas:  I want to thank you all for your insights, your posts and your responses but it seems that this thread is now getting to the point where it might start getting personal and I think it's time to bring it to a close.

It need not be said how proud I am to have read posts from all of you that really bring to light the degree of respect we have for each other and the high standards we hold ourselves to as we exercise our sporting rights.  I would like this thread to end on this note as all of you have set and maintained a higher standard of sportsmanship than I feel we could could find anywhere else.  

Thank you all.  Mikey.