Author Topic: Ear protection (Read 2267 times)

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2004, 09:00:46 AM »

I think we are confusing ethics with sportsmanship.

Ethics has to do with natural law, sin, and basically pissing off God. Will someone tell me why God would care about the amount of technology we use while hunting?

That's different from giving the quarry a sporting chance.

The only thing UNethical about using all the technological gizmos would be to misrepresent yourself and lie about what you used and how you got it. Gosh I hope I don't need to explain to this crew why lying would be unethical.

Hunting with a rifle vs. hunting with a bow. Both ethical? Certainly.

But I believe we could reach a consensus that everything else the same, hunting with a bow gives the quarry a more sporting chance.

There used to be a time when a man was held in high esteem because he tipped the odds in favor of the quarry when reasonable. Teddy Roosevelt refused to shoot a bear cub that was dragged in front of him on a leash. He did this because it was UNsporting.

Shooting that leashed bear would have been no less ethical than slaughtering a cow. See the difference?

In our pursuit of building a reputation for sportsmanship, some hunters began taking reckless chances. 200 yard running shots at a deer with a .44-40?

Now that would certainly be something to brag about in the taverns. However, we began to realize that this sort of thing is unethical as we began to witness the amount of crippled animals.

So, ethics became the mantra of the hunter. But now ethics is becoming distorted as it is used to justify the use of every technological advantage possible. The problem is when ethics is used to justify technology, it presumes that lower technology is somehow unethical. That sticks in the craw of guys like me who use a flintlock and roundballs.

Now, this issue about amplified hearing. This sounds to me like it is a sportsmanship issue, NOT an ethical issue. There is no way that amplified hearing is going to lead to an increased incidence of crippled animals. Or upset God in any other way.

I can see how using amplified hearing would be less sporting than not using it. But as long as we are all humble about it I don't think there will be a problem.

Not to mention that there aren't many choices to be made hear (pun intended). To preserve my hearing my choices are: use standard earplugs, use amplified hearing aids, or quit hunting.

I'm not going to quit hunting.

I'm a fairly good hunter, but I'm not so good as to be able to hunt with my eyes closed, hands tied, NOR my ears plugged.

So if a technology exists that will only block out excessively loud noises but will allow the necessary "crunch-crunch" noises to pass - I'll jump on it. The amplified hearing aids are the closest thing. Unfortunately they amplify the quieter noises. If they made a hunter's ear that blocked the gunshot, but just allowed regular sounds to remain as is - that would be my first choice (price differences not withstanding).

Always, ALWAYS be ethical.

Enjoy hunting.

And be as sporting as you can while keeping the above two commandments.

S.B. · « **Reply #31 on:** January 09, 2004, 09:44:17 AM »

To quote Websters: Ethics-----pricipal or standard of human conduct.
So, one man's standard may not be anothers. Or, one man's principals may not be anothers. To each his own.

kb5szo · « **Reply #32 on:** January 12, 2004, 03:31:57 PM »

I started using a pair of Walker Game ears II this last season ,I already need hearing aids but can't afford the $1000+ price each for prescription aids so the Game ears are wel lworth the money. I heard sounds I haven't heard in the woods in years and they block the muzzle blast eddy

Jim n Iowa · « **Reply #33 on:** January 13, 2004, 01:02:09 PM »

Willis5
I don't have any experience with hearing aids. Most of my fellow hunters are pushing up daisey's. The others my age are playing pitch and golf. I really can't recall a fellow shooter/ hunter that had a hearing aid. Good question.
Black Jaque
Nice work
Jim

willis5 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 14, 2004, 07:37:48 AM »

to be continued then.

These gray area/opinion topics sure are popular.

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #35 on:** January 16, 2004, 07:07:34 AM »

S.B.

I don't have a Webster's but my American Heritage Dictionary lists four (4) different definitions for ethics. Three of the four mention morals in the definition. The one that didn't was similar to the one you cited.

Surely Webster's dictionary doesn't have only one definition?

I hardly think that ethics is as relative as you portray it.

S.B. · « **Reply #36 on:** January 16, 2004, 08:16:32 AM »

The Webster's in my computer gave the one I quoted as the first one listed. Don't dought your word for a minute. I'm not an English major so I guess I'll except your views as long as mine are by you. Symantics aside, one man's poison is anothers tea.

Savage · « **Reply #37 on:** January 16, 2004, 08:27:28 AM »

Wow! And my wife doesn't think these forums are educational!! Could unsportsman like conduct be unethical? Or unethical conduct be unsportsman like? Me thinks so!
Savage

Black Jaque Janaviac · « **Reply #38 on:** January 16, 2004, 08:40:39 AM »

S.B.

Quote

Symantics aside, one man's poison is anothers tea.

For certain matters, I agree wholeheartedly. I do not take stock in moral relativism however.

I believe your statement applies perfectly to matters of ear protection and amplification.

However, if you want to tell me that it's O.K. for a hunter to intentionally take out a deer one knee-cap at a time - this is poison to us all.

I suspect we agree with each other, we are just having troubles tuning into each other's frequency.

Savage,

Yes, and Yes. They overlap in some matters, but are not the same in others.

My question for you: Is amplified hearing both unethical and unsportsmanlike?

S.B. · « **Reply #39 on:** January 16, 2004, 01:24:51 PM »

Black Jacque, I, in no way, meant that I disaggreed with you in the taking of game humanely. Quite the opposite. Sorry, if I was unable to get my thoughts accross.

Savage · « **Reply #40 on:** January 16, 2004, 02:14:55 PM »

Black Jacque,
I don't think it's either.
Savage

MWalker · « **Reply #41 on:** January 28, 2004, 06:32:11 AM »

I have hearing damage due to Military experience, and my fondness of handguns.

I bought a Peltor Tac 6 and used it for the first time this past deer season.
Wish I would have done this much sooner!

"Enhanced" ear protection for handgun hunting is a must!
I now use them with my 209 x 50 also.

It surprises me that "enhanced" hearing protection is regarded as unethical.
Those who are preaching hunting ethics should be aware of the safety issues that these devices have to offer.

Example:
During a hunt with some friends, I was on a stand while they were driving a very dense thicket that I had never hunted before.
Wearing the muffs I could hear them long before I saw them, which made me much more comfortable, knowing where they were.
Take them off and no mistake about it, I could not pinpoint their positions.
I am sure that many readers can relate to instances such as this, good hearing, or bad hearing.

While up my treestand with the enhanced hearing muffs, I can hear someone walking behind me long before they notice me in a tree.
Wearing hunter orange hats and vests is not something you want to rely on 100% for your safety, or others.

Unethical?
I shot a nice 8 point in heavy wind with my handgun, he ran out of sight up a small knoll about 40 yards and dropped, making enough noise that I could hear him fall.
Without the "enhanced" hearing I would not have heard him drop.

I soon learned that judicious volume control is needed, because too much volume is distracting. Chipmunks sounded like they were wearing snowshoes, so I set the volume to a reasonable level to make the enhancement more like a natural (ethical) hearing level.

The Tac 6 does not interfere with my Encore buttstock, and helps keep my ears warm.