Ethics in Hunting...

[Singleshotsam]

There was a lot of talk about "ethics" and using AR15's to hunt w/ on the "AR 15, what's your opinion" thread.  One person stated that we shouldn't use AR15's because it cast an "evil" image on hunting and was unethical. 

Here's a thought...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkEJZDJUHfo


This guy didn't care what the dead deer was shot with.  Only that it's a dead deer...

[yooper77]

I don't care about what platform a bullet comes from as long as its legal.

I don't care for certain cartridges for the taking of big game, but that's a personal thing

The guy on the video is nothing more than a tool.  He truly is ignorant on the subject of hunting.

yooper77

[dukkillr]

I hate the idea of "It's ethical if it's legal" because it puts your ethics in the hands of legislators.  It also leads to the strange conclusion that something can be ethical in one state and unethical in another.  To me, ethics transcends state boundaries and applies more broadly across one's own take on a sport or activity.

I do have concerns about hunting's image (and I consider my own image as a hunter), not because of those who are against hunting but because of those on the fence.  Those fence sitters can be engaged by our noble past and rustic image, (who isn't excited by a picture of a guy on ridgeline glassing for elk with his bow in the grass beside him?).  Or they could be turned into antis when they are repulsed by someone elk hunting with a 50 BMG or blazing away with a 30 round AR.  Polls regularly show that the majority of Americans are non-hunters who are moderately ambivalent about hunting. 

These discussions usually confuse 2nd amendment rights with hunting privileges.  Intelligent people realise that hunting is a privilege that exists basically at the whim of the non-hunting majority.  Behave accordingly and I suspect you'll always be "ethical".

[teddy12b]

Regarding that video, there were some other ones of that guy on there too.  I'm guessing he doesn't have a lot of friends.

[buffermop]

I seen that face on the post office wall.

[Swampman]

A video will not change the fact that using paramilitary weapons to kill game animals isn't ethical.

Claymores, IEDs, 25mm Chain Guns, RPGs, and M-16/AR-15s aren't good for our hunting heritage.

[Hooker]

Who decides what is ethical?

Pat

[Swampman]

An even bigger question, is why someone would need to decide?  Why can't we just police ourselves?

[nomosendero]

A video will not change the fact that using paramilitary weapons to kill game animals isn't ethical.

Claymores, IEDs, 25mm Chain Guns, RPGs, and M-16/AR-15s aren't good for our hunting heritage.

Comparing an AR, Browning BAR or bolt gun with bombs is hyperstupid.

[Swampman]

Nobody said anything about a bolt gun.  It's the spray and pray weapons of war that are at issue here.

[nomosendero]

I hate the idea of "It's ethical if it's legal" because it puts your ethics in the hands of legislators.  It also leads to the strange conclusion that something can be ethical in one state and unethical in another.  To me, ethics transcends state boundaries and applies more broadly across one's own take on a sport or activity.

I do have concerns about hunting's image (and I consider my own image as a hunter), not because of those who are against hunting but because of those on the fence.  Those fence sitters can be engaged by our noble past and rustic image, (who isn't excited by a picture of a guy on ridgeline glassing for elk with his bow in the grass beside him?).  Or they could be turned into antis when they are repulsed by someone elk hunting with a 50 BMG or blazing away with a 30 round AR.  Polls regularly show that the majority of Americans are non-hunters who are moderately ambivalent about hunting. 

These discussions usually confuse 2nd amendment rights with hunting privileges.  Intelligent people realise that hunting is a privilege that exists basically at the whim of the non-hunting majority.  Behave accordingly and I suspect you'll always be "ethical".

"behave accordingly and I suspect you'll always be "ethical". " Well, yea & pretty much defines ethics. It has to do with behavior & not which type of weapon they carry.

Any of ya'll that think using an AR for hunting is wrong need to take it up with our oldest gunmaker, Remington.

http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/Model_R-25.asp

Here is what Remington says about their new R-25 in Big Game Calibers, "Remington is excited to announce the Model R-25, a modular repeating rifle designed for Big Game Hunters."  They go on to say they introduced the rifle "with the hunter in mind". Maybe those who feel an AR is "unethical" should tell Remington & their marketing people how they are in error.  Zumbo the Dumbo tried it & it hurt us. It hurt us because right after he made his stupid remarks the anti's grabbed the info & ran with it & this set us back a little. They pointed to Dumbo & said, see, you don't need those to hunt.  
Rem instead correctly realizes that we can educate the hunter & the hunter can correctly educate others just as Dumbo incorrectly influenced others. Rem is right & I thank them for sticking to their guns, no pun intended.  If people don't think that teaching people that guns aren't inherently bad, auto or not is the correct way to go then they are ignorant of the process. And it is a process, the anti's understand that & the use of incrementalism. If we don't take advantage of the process, the anti's will & do. The AR becomes unneeded for anyone, then the Bolt Gun becomes a sniper rifle. Handguns, nay those are used in crimes. Hence, this is where the education comes in that guns are not inherently evil, otherwise they ALL become evil.

And yea, Swampman that is why I mentioned the bolt gun, I understand incrementalism & I guess you don't.

[Hooker]

Nobody said anything about a bolt gun.  It's the spray and pray weapons of war that are at issue here.

Spray and pray is a shooting style not a class of weapons.
The Brown Bess musket,700 Remington, Winchester model 70, Bow and arrow, hatchet, and the Bagpipes are all weapons of war. Ethics have nothing to do with the tool. They have everything to do with the user of the tool.

Pat

[45-70.gov]

if  i  gut  shoot  a  deer  with  my  50 bmg

will  i  still  have  to  feild  dress  it??



and  is  that  unethical  or  just  lazy?

[Hooker]

  LOL

Efficient

Pat

[no guns here]

The Brown Bess as originally employed was one of the original "spray and pray" weapons.  Notoriously inacurrate, it was employed in massed formations and frequently fired by pointing in the general direction of the enemy lines and then looking away while pulling firing.  Granted, the "spray" was accomplished by mass firing of individual weapons instead of from one weapon, however, I think there was a lot of praying going on...

I fail to see the ethical difference between one well aimed shot from a single-shot or bolt action varmint rifle and one well aimed shot from an AR.  The difference is definitely not "ethical", the difference is in perception.  I don't perceive it at "unethical" however, Swampy does.  The ethics are the same.  One shot, one kill.  I'm pretty sure that we all can agree that "one shot, one kill" is our goal as hunters.  We may be perceived differently according to the tool we use to do that job.  For centuries, the cross-bow was "unethical".  It has gained ground over the past 20 years and is now accepted in most areas.  Some still perceive it as "unethical" however there is no difference in shooting one arrow at a deer or one bolt at a deer.  Still one shot, one kill is the goal.  Face it if you want to turn the argument around, one could argue that a bolt action rifle is unethical compared to an AR since you don't have a second, third or fourth shot quite so readily available.

What we have to be concerned with is the perception we give to non-hunters and the public at large.  I think (whether rightly or wrongly) that black rifles are still perceived as a "tactical" weapon or a military weapon by the unknowing public at large.  I believe that this perception is beginning to change but it will take a long time for them to become as universally accepted as is Swampy's beloved M700. 

I have an AR and will continue to hunt with it if and when appropriate.  I am a little more conscious of how and where it is seen by others when I'm out. 


ngh

[teddy12b]

Still one shot, one kill is the goal. 

I couldn't agree more with that. 

I think people need to make the difference known about what game they are hunting.  For the most part I think we're talking about deer, but there are varmint hunters out there too.  I don't believe in the gun control bans, beacuse I think people should be able to legally own whatever they would like to, but I do think states have the right to limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 4 or 5.  Texas, from what I understand, doesn't have any of these restrictions and you can hunt with a 30 rounder.  To me it seems kind of silly to just because at most you'll a second or third shot at a deer.  I wouldn't want the extra weight, but that's just me.

I wouldn't feel undergunned with a 5 round mag deer hunting, but if I was hog hunting, varmint hunting, prarie dog hunting, or anything else of that nature I wouldn't feel bad about using a 30 round mag.  I can't imagine needing 30 rounds, but I may need/want more than 5.

In Indiana you can use an AR-15 in 458socom to deer hunt and that's basically a loophole in the new laws.  That's the only way I know you can hunt deer in Indiana legally with an AR.  In Indiana when it comes to varmints & predators it's pretty much just like Texas, where all the rules & regs arn't there.

If given the chance, hunters need to help educate the public about guns and the laws.  I didn't hear gun control come up last night in the debate, so I suspect it's going to be out of sight, out of mind for a couple more years anyway.

[45-70.gov]

i  wonder  if  the  indians  look  down  on compound  bows

is  it  ethical and   humane  to  hunt without a quick fallow up  shot

not  that  i  ever  needed  one

[Graybeard]

Who decides what is ethical?

Pat

You do for you, I do for me, each of us do for our own selves and for NO ONE ELSE but us. Ethics are an individual matter not something written in stone it's up to each and everyone of us to decide if to us our actions are or are not ethical and so long as we think they are what others think is not important.

Now over and above that we must look at what is legal. If we are within the rules of law and in our opinion our actions are ethical then that really is the ONLY thing that matters and it's not anyone else's business.

Now there is yet another thing tho that must be considered with hunting. Hunting is a priviledge not a right and it can be taken from us. To that end we do need to consider how our individual actions are viewed by the general public. I'm not really talking here about anti hunters but instead of non hunters who are not anti or not against us hunting. Those folks are the ones we must not piss off if we wish to continue to be allowed to hunt.

Roughly ten percent of the population at most hunt and another roughly ten percent are strongly against hunting or any use of animals period. The vast majority really are kinda ambivilent in the matter they don't hunt but aren't strongly against it either. So long as we can keep those folks on our side thinking it's OK to hunt we'll likely be able to hold onto our hunting heritage but lose those folks and it's all over.

Rightly or wrongly the antis and the media have successfully demonized black rifles as assualt rifles and they have turned the masses of the general population against them. I think that's grossly wrong but it's a fact of life never the less. I'm firmly on the side of ownership of any and all sorts of weapons both handguns and long guns anyone wants to own and use for any legitimate purpose and yes defending our freedom against a government gone amuck is a legitimate use.

But to continue to openly push for their use in hunting is just turning the general public against hunting. I have no problem with their proper use as a hunting tool but do feel it drives nails in the coffin of hunting in this country to make a big deal of it rather than just quietly going about doing what you do. Have it cased going and coming from the hunt and keep it out of any photos you make public and who's to know what you used? No one really as hunting is a very private matter one on one between you and the game in most cases. Pushing it in the face of the public who generally support hunting but who can be swayed against it is not a smart move in my opinion.

[Singleshotsam]

Thus is why I do not post any kill pics on the internet.  Regardless of what I made the kill with.  As Greybeard stated, most people do not care if we hunt or not, but that being said, I would hate for them to Google something and pull up a picture of me standing next to a couple dead coyotes I've blown in half, or a deer w/ blood coming out of its nose and mouth and a gaping wound on its side...  I feel that doing that and acting improperly when bringing the game back into town cause more negative stigma than the tools we hunt with.

[Questor]

I find it interesting that a lot of people who are gun enthusiasts dislike the AR type rifles because they have fallen for the "evil assault rifle" propaganda. This is wrong. An AR is a fine gun, and is as much a recreational, hunting, target, and self defense gun as anything else available. Wake up and see the reality.

I don't believe any one of us would consider the 1911 a particularly sinister thing, in fact it's a status symbol among shooters. The 1911 has the same origins and original purpose as the AR.

[Singleshotsam]

As has the mauser, or the Kraig, or the Winchester Lever Action...

[Graybeard]

I agree Rudy but to my eyes they are butt ugly and I don't bring ugly guns home with me. I think all who want them should get them. I just don't want one.

[rex6666]

I think everyone has a right to own any gun they wish.
The AR's or Black rifles have been demonized in the media as being
only good for killing people, we know better but Mr. & Mrs. nonhunter
know what they see and hear, they may not hunt but don't care if you do
until they see that demon gun in the back window of you truck or in pictures with a dead animal. I believe like GB said keep them out of sight, don't
be talking about them at the grocery store. I really have no use for one,
thought i wanted one that could be converted easily to full auto in case
of another civil war. The more i think about it that is a young mans fight,
have decided i need a good varmint type rifle in 223 or 308 that i can set back
3-4-500 yards and do my fighting, too old to be chasing around.

[Singleshotsam]

1st of all - I would never, ever, put a $800.00 anything in the back glass of my truck...
2nd - I would never want a fully auto anything... may as well light a stack of money on fire...
3rd- I would rather be 300 yrds or better away from the fight as well... and I'm a young man

[45-70.gov]

in  one  and  a half  seconds  $5  runs  out  the barrel     20   9mm  per second

my  ar  is  my  long range  gun

[teddy12b]

1st of all - I would never, ever, put a $800.00 anything in the back glass of my truck...
2nd - I would never want a fully auto anything... may as well light a stack of money on fire...
3rd- I would rather be 300 yrds or better away from the fight as well... and I'm a young man

I agree that it'd be a bad idea to put that gun in a gun rack where everyone can see it.

Maybe a 22lr might be fun in full auto, but it'd get boring quickly because I'd rather place well aimed shot then spend all day loading mags.

I would also rather be 300 yrds or better away from the fight as well... and I'm also a young man. 


GB makes the best point in the whole topic.  Hunting is a privilege, not a right.  If you know people don't want to see something we need to keep it to ourselves.  Pretty much everyone has fond/happy feelings towards a lever action and that's what i like to hunt with the most.  I've had non-hunters & non-shooters as to hold my leverguns more than anything else because they want to feel like John Wayne for a minute.  These same people do get a little scared when they see an AR.  Let face it, an AR is a more complicated rifle to operate than a lever action and I think that's part of what makes people nervous to touch them.  They worried about doing something wrong with it.

[Singleshotsam]

To someone who has never held a gun, any gun is complicated.  I can't say that a levergun is "more simple" to operate than a semi...

[ironglow]

  First off, that guy in the vid is a knothead. He is such a PeTA type "animal lover", that he sheds tears over a harvested deer. If he is so pure. why was he running around out in the woods with a 4 wheeler ? How many snakes, snails & puppy dog tails may he have run over and killed doing that..to say nothing of all the flies and gnats sucked into the air filter. just another lame brained anti.
  I have no "military style" guns..nothing against them, I just had enough during my military years. In fairness, one must admit that among military type rifles the AR15 types are truly varmint worthy. The truth being that the zoomies such as the guy in the vid doesn't care what the deer was shot with..deer should starve over winter, rather than being shot !
  The background seems to show a college dorm scene; he's probably attending one of those liberal brain-mush factories, so go figure.
  Do military type weapons cause non-hunter hysteria?..probably; in people that are prone to hysteria but they are likely driven to apoplectic spasms by a .410 H&R shotgun...can't help them; unless you want to relinquish your rights.

[oldandslow]

I agree Rudy but to my eyes they are butt ugly and I don't bring ugly guns home with me. I think all who want them should get them. I just don't want one.

Amen. All military weapons except one fall into that catagory for me. The 1911 is the sole exception. Some can be turned into very nice guns when sporterized. I did a 1917 Enfield long, long ago. It was a lot of work but turned into a very nice looking and shooting rifle. Today it seems to be sacralige to do anything to one of them. The newer the military guns, the uglier they seem to me.

[SHOOTALL]

ethics - anything done the way i think it should be done !

unethical - anything you do that i don't like !

I offer these definitions so we can all be on the same page ! As ethical applies to "professional" behaviour . Webster's not my definition .

We all operate on a personal right vs. wrong ideal. Trying to apply this to an endever as wide spread as hunting is fool hardy .

If i trophy hunt RIGHT is a much narrower path vs. if I hunt to survive . Even laws are lacking at addressing the issues