What ARE ethics?

We've all spent some time the last couple of days talking about 'ethics', but has anyone defined them? What are they? Let's discount the 'paid for' version supplied by Webster or any of the other purveyors of nicely bound definitions and ask ourselves, just what are they?

Do we define ethics solely as our concept of the proper way to do things? As shorthair stated in a post, why should I find it unethical to hunt over a bait pile and yet spend hundreds of dollars to develop a food plot intended to increase my chances of 'filling my tags'? Is it because there may be a greater good the foodplot serves by providing quality nutrition year-round not only to deer but to other game/non-game species? Or is there truly any difference in our ultimate goals? Is it 'ethical' to hunt over this foodplot?

Carrying that a step further, why is it 'ethical' for me to hunt rabbits with a beagle, or quail with my Brit and not hunt deer with a dog? Discount, for a moment, that my particular State forbids hunting or even retrieving a deer with dogs, what is the difference? Is it simply because as we grew into the role of 'hunter' one thing was (is) an acceptable practice in our community and the other isn't? Or is it because the State in which we live dictates that one practice is acceptable and the other isn't? If tomorrow the State dictates I can no longer hunt rabbits or quail with my dogs, does it then become 'unethical' to do so even though it's perfectly legal today?

In another State, it's allowable to hunt turkeys with center-fire cartridges. In my State it's not. If I choose to break the law here, and use a rifle to take a turkey, is that 'unethical', or simply illegal? If it's unethical here, wouldn't it be equally unethical for me to travel to the State that allows it and hunt with a rifle? (I would like to think that ethics know no geographical boundary.)

So, the question posed is, 'What are ethics?' More specifically, what are HUNTING ethics?

Can we clearly define 'hunting ethics' or are we pretty much going to have to swim in the debris filled creek of 'I can't define it but I know it when I see it'?

I'll define it for you. Ethics are moral values.

Yes, 'hunting ethics' will vary according to your own moral compass, as will all of your values.

Going down the road, it is quite ethical not to cripple / merely wound game. It is not 'hunting ethical' to poison a water supply to get your game.

But, you knew what the answer was before you asked the question, didn't you?

Randy Wakeman

There are a lot of people who honestly do not consider ethical concerns important either because it interferes with what is convenient or they are simply clueless as to the importance of ethical values. I think a man is a total package and not bits and pieces. If he always tries to be ethical in his dealings with his co-workers for example, he will almost certainly try to be ethical in taking game, or dealing with his neighbors, or billing his customers, etc. Ethical concerns either are part of you or they are not. This does not mean all people reach the same ethical conclusions, it simply means ethical men try to distinguish between good and bad because they think it matters. The founding fathers who gave us the Bill of Rights where men deeply concerned with ethics i.e., determining what is right and wrong and protecting a system of government based on their conclusions. I am sure Jefferson could not have penned half of what he wrote if it were not true for him.

In the quest to harvest game the matter of ethics is important. A majority of hunters have a deep respect and understanding of the life that is given by the game. And with every songle animal rights group staring over our shoulders and yelling in our ears, we have to be very careful as to what we do and how we do it. Our moral values play a big part in this situation. However, as was stated before, all of our morals are different. Therefore it is impossible to think that I am going to hunt the same way as every one else. I know that there are some forms of hunting, such as driving, that I will not be involved in but I will not stop on the side of the road when I see drivers and yell at them. Instead, I will wave and drive on. Just because they choose to pursue the game in a different manner than I do doesn't mean that they are wrong or unethical, just that they might not have as much patience in the stand or time to spend scouting, etc. As hunters we are being attacked from every angle. It saddens me to see those same attacks being made by hunters against other hunters. If game is taken in a clean manner with as humane a kill as possible, within the guidelines of the state in which you are hunting, does it truly matter how the game was brought to that spot? If you see someone who is obviously breaking a law or being cruel, give them a hard time, but until that point in time, be supportive of your fellow hunters. We are few in number and need each other. Once we start to lose our singularity of purpose, our rights as hunters will probably disappear.

Happy hunting to all, and happy holidays as well.

Will Fox

When a Man is in a tree stand, and his thought, motive and ethics are pure, then that Man is twenty feet closer to God.

Randy, I think you are wrong. Ethics are the luxuries for those that can afford them. No one dares call the American Indian 'unethical', yet one of their common practices was to poison water with soaproot for the express purpose of obtaining food. African natives routinely cripple animals for later harvest because they have no storage facilities.

When you know where your next meal is coming from, you can afford ethics. Hunting ethics is truly one of the few relative arguments.

possible, within the guidelines of the state in which you are hunting, does it truly matter how the game was brought to that spot?

This is a great way to put it. As long as the hunter can produce a clean kill, preferably with one round, they are acting ethically. If they can't guarantee a clean shot, based on their own skill and experience, they don't take the shot.

Assuming you truly, honestly KNOW what you can and can't do, this is no great feat to achieve. And it doesn't matter what style of hunting you subscribe to. The hunter who knows what they are about will be able to live up to this and act ethically.

The problem is most hunters don't know................

John ************************************** Play the best new shooting game for hunters! The Hunter's Shooting Association http://www.HunterShooter.com

Apologies if this is just a rehash of what someone else said a lot better, but here goes with my two bits! ....

Ethics are relative, but our culture confuses what that means.

Today 'relative' is a catch-phrase for 'you can't judge it,' or 'whatever makes you happy,' but I think this is a big mistake.

The relation between behaviors can often be easily judged even when the behaviors per se might not be.

Ethics aren't about facts but about relations. The goal of relations is a proper view of reality. Reality is defined as the world of relations, not of things (which are themselves relation constructs).

Relative ethics can be shown to work or not work at giving a clear view of reality. It's partly like that old idea about there are many roads but the good ones lead to the one final place.

One easy test is to look for contradiction and self-confessed

If you can do something without having to look over your shooulder to see if someone was watching you. That is ethical. Dan Hockly

Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at:

A good definition might be 'doing the right thing'. Of course, the 'right thing' varies under different circumstances. See below.

This is a situation where ehtics gets tangled up with legalities. IMHO, nothing unethical about hunting over bait where it is allowed, but may not be everyone's personal choice. Just like hunting mountain lions with dogs. Increases your chances significantly, but I don't have dogs. If the worst Y2K scenarios come true (they won't) and civilization as we know it falls apart, hunting over bait might mean the difference between eating and going hungry. Would it then be ethical to hunt over bait to feed the family even where the law (or what is left of it) says no? In my mind, yes.

If your state allows it and you choose to do it, hunt deer with dogs. But again, that won't be everyone's choice. Just like I don't hunt rabbits with dogs. Your question ignores the reasons hunting seasons were originally established - the game was being decimated. The seasons were implemented to protect the game. Your question also ignores the fact that there are MANY times more rabbits and quail than deer and that their respective life expectancies are much different. Take dove, for example. Only 30% survive one year to the next. Thank God they have several broods per year, or we wouldn't have a season on them. You might as well ask if it is ethical to take more than one deer in a state that only allows one. That, in my mind would be unethical except for extreme circumstances, while in another state it would be perfectly ethical.

Unethical because it is illegal in your state. Ethical and legal in a state that allows it. The differences between states might have a lot to do with turkey populations, or the density of people, or both, or more. Just like some states prohibit centerfire rifles for deer.

HUNTING ethics to me, assuming no extreme circumstances, involve (more or less in order of inportance) : 1. Respecting the game animal by ensuring a clean kill and by promptly and properly processing the edible portions. 2. Respecting the rights and safety of other hunters. And non-hunters. (But screw the anti-hunter's ideas.) 3. Respecting the laws.

Ethics are what you do when no one is around, if you are alone and use judgment and actions that you could do with strangers and your peers around and hold your head high you are probably acting ethical.

Ethics is a two-part subject.

The first is fairness to the animal, not to cause more pain than is necessary to bring it to bag, and certainly not to wound and lose it due to lack of concern or skill.

The second is fairness to other humans, not to waste an animal or to take so many that others can not succeed in the same way.

There is probably more to this; who wants to add to the list?