Hunts you consider unethical and why?

[DrAlphabet]

I agree that a humane kill should be a goal of the typical modern hunter. However, a humane kill is NOT synonymous with an ethical kill. This thread is about the ethics of hunting and harvesting, so I am only addressing the ethical-ness of long range shooting. I am not addressing the presence or absence of a humane harvest. There is no right or wrong inherent in long range shooting. You can derive an infinite number of situations where a long range shot is ethical, just as you can for concluding a long range shot is unethical. My point is only that the ethics of shot distance, again, rest solely in the circumstances of the hunt and the hunter.

The concept of fair chase as defined by Boone and Crockett has a grey area, specifically, "Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment." There is a lot of personal opinion each individual hunter conducts a hunt by in that statement. I see fair chase concepts used by elitists hunters to bash the methods other hunters employee in the traditional, legal, and ethical harvest of animals. I also see hunting opposition groups use the tenants of fair chase to impose the idea that if a harvest is inhumane, an animal suffers, and thus the hunter and his harvest methods are unethical. Death is human, but rarely humane. I don't even know how to define a humane harvest. Is the quickness of death the only metric that matters when deciding if a harvest is humane? Years ago I saw a car hit a deer fawn. I pulled over onto the shoulder to see if it was hurt. Its spine was broken, as were both its back legs. I could have left it there to suffer, but instead I quickly dispatched it. Was that humane? I don't know. It felt right, but the humane-ness of it can be debated. I've personally had bad shot placement on a close range shot due to the deer moving as I pulled the trigger. It took me 24 hours to locate the deer and finish it off. Is that harvest inhumane? Does an animal suffering constitute an unethical harvest?

My son once shot a deer three times. The first two shots were not lethal, not even close. But the third shot was a heart shot that put the deer down instantly. All said, from the time of the initial shot, the deer expired in less than 30 seconds. Does it matter if those shots were taken at close range or long range? How about archery hunters? I have seen elk shot at 20 yards in the lung and liver take over an hour to die. Is that archery harvest less ethical than my son's harvest since the animal "suffered" longer? Would your answer change if I said my son had shot his deer at 800 yards? If so, why?

My point is only that shot distance is not a metric for determining an ethical shot. Ethical-ness is determined by following the law and the underlying intent and purpose of the hunt. A humane kill, whatever that means, is a worthy goal for each hunter to strive for, but its not synonymous with hunting ethics. You could start another thread on "what is a humane harvest?" and you would get hundreds of different opinions. I'm just address the ethics of shot distance, and I see no basis for characterizing or defining shot distance as right or wrong based solely on the distance of the shot.

I'd argue striving for a humane kill is synonymous with ethical hunting. The alternative is either striving for an inhumane kill or simply not caring, both of which I'd call unethical. However, I'd also call factory farming unethical and those kills are quick and painless. I guess my only point was that if you're shooting at 800+ yards, the concept of "fair chase" starts to deteriorate. It just seems like target practice at that point.

 

[HighCountryCommando]

I'd argue striving for a humane kill is synonymous with ethical hunting. The alternative is either striving for an inhumane kill or simply not caring, both of which I'd call unethical. However, I'd also call factory farming unethical and those kills are quick and painless. I guess my only point was that if you're shooting at 800+ yards, the concept of "fair chase" starts to deteriorate. It just seems like target practice at that point.

I agree with you, striving for a humane kill is typically synonymous with ethical hunting. But not every humane kill is ethical. These two facts make it clear that you cannot judge an ethical harvest by how humane it is. You can't judge ethics of a hunter by how humane or how much suffering an animal might experience (inhumane) while being harvested. That is my point. I think this fact can stand on its own two feet.

Cattle are factory farmed and harvested, is that unethical? By the way I've never high fence hunted and never will, not my bag. But come on, deer raised and harvested under the same conditions as cattle is somehow unethical? I just don't see it. It may not be sporting, and I can agree with you on that point, if that is your point. But unethical...then you might as well stop eating meat altogether.

I think your mixing your "sportsman" peanut butter into your "ethical" chocolate. Fair chase is a sportsman's creed and (for me at least) a completely different set of values than ethical hunting. Fair chase is based on how much an advantage the hunter has over their prey. Which, in my opinion, is not a question of ethics but of personal taste and society tolerance. Your advantage over the game you pursue is not a question of morality or right or wrong, its just an advantage. How much of an advantage is too much for an individual hunter? How much hunter advantage is society willing to tolerate? The answer to those two questions addresses the "sporting" aspect of hunting, but not the ethical-ness of harvesting a game animal.

Fair chase is one of those ideals that "sportsman" (those that hunt primarily for sport) use to force their elitist ideals upon the common hunter. Boone and Crockett sportsman are always equating fair chase and ethical hunting, I don't. The two ideals can be mutually exclusive. The modern firearm long ago erased any real sense of a level playing field between hunter and hunted. In the right hands there is nothing fair about using a .243 for deer, from a deer's perspective. The chase does not have to be fair to ethically harvest a game animal. Disabled hunters are allowed to shoot from vehicles. Is that unethical hunting since it breaks the rules of fair chase?