Right, the point I was getting at is there may be a disconnect between ethical and legal, and just because an action is legal, doesn't mean it is ethical and in rare circumstances vice versa Sent from my SM-G930V using Bowhunting.com Forums mobile app
I agree, and I would not condemn anyone for taking the shot either. My luck would be I shoot it, it dies not far. Then a CO shows up or someone calls it in as poached and I am nabbed because I cannot prove the coyotes came before the arrow. I'm not going to give up my priveleges, in the end it is just a deer.
The thread is about where we draw the line on ethics, not the law. The law is its own line entirely, and that is universally understood. Sent from a piece of paper, tied to a rock.
I guess what I'm asking is do you just read the rule book and stick to it, or are there things that may be legal that just aren't right?[/QUOTE] Okay, to answer your question, again, I just follow the rules. Those are generally the best ethics.
I disagree. An illegal kill is an illegal kill. I think you are not differentiating ethics and legality of different situations. While they do correspond in some situations, the same can't be said for every circumstance. Ethics is something entirely to its own. It's about who we are as hunters, and what we stand for. I'm not supporting the illegal taking of an animal by any means. That's a great situation to contemplate, as it's very two sided. Sent from a piece of paper, tied to a rock.
Your original question asked if we just follow the book or don't do extra things even if they are legal. So, to answer, I just follow the book. On a side note, I honestly feel like the original post was more about your feelings on baiting even if legal. So let me ask this, do you use and calls or and scents, or any rattling antlers or anything of the sort, to help your chances of killing a mature buck? If so, then I don't see a difference in baiting a deer. Baiting, where legal, is simply enhancing the odds of killing a target deer.
Using the methods you listed above have no possibility of harming the deer, except of course the possibility of you shooting the deer. Baiting, however, does have a chance to harm the deer regardless of the shot. Bait stations allow for easier disease transfer from animal to animal. Baiting also allows for an abrupt and unnatural food dependence, and when done incorrectly, can kill deer. The reason I think food plots are different is because the food source in a plot establishes and disappears slowly, giving animals time to adapt, does not concentrate areas of disease transfer to a 5'x5' patch, and still relies on the deer's natural ability to find and browse growing food sources. While baiting may be legal in your state, it would be unethical to place 500 lbs of corn on your property, that has had no corn in the area, in February. Doing so would cause tremendous discomfort to the herd and most likely death in a bad winter. So just because an action may be legal, it is up to us and hunters and conservationists, to determine in each of our own situations, if the act is ethical. Have any of you seen Lee and Tiffany's Crush Cam? Live 24hr video over their corn station? In my opinion, Lee and Tiffany decided to do this and went about it correctly. They make sure there is always corn available since they know the deer may have become dependent on that food source, and they also periodically supply hay for forage for dietary health of their herd. However, if one animal on their farm was happen to get CWD or another transferable disease, how long do you think it would take for their whole herd to be infected? Im guessing that would decimate their herd on that farm very fast, where as without the feeder that one animal may not even infect 10% of the herd. Now, obviously Lee and Tiffany know the chances of CWD or other diseases are low in their area and decided to take the risk and I don't hold that against them, but with everything there is a right way and a wrong way. If you are going to bait, you either need to do it year round, or gradually build up and gradually decrease the amount of corn you feed as to keep the deer healthy and stress free. That is why I think there is a difference between baiting and food plots. Food plots provide their own gradual increase and decrease allowing for deer to adjust, taking the human error out of the equation.
I understand all of this, and I don't bait, even in states where it is legal. Ethics is personal morals and policies. I wont condemn anyone on their ethics if they are within the law.
As eluded to earlier in the thread, bowhunting deer is illegal in England because it’s considered a poachers weapon and at the same time silencers are allowed to keep the hunting from disturbing the locals. This second point is one to keep in mind. Here in the states, hunting with a suppressor would have a benefit of reducing noise and potential complaints from non-hunters/anti-hunters. For the most part I hold my opinion on how other folks hunt. Some are out there for sport, some for meat. The states have put in the laws in place to regulate it so beyond that, I let them go about it as they see fit.
In regards to the silencer/suppressor issue. The state of Wyoming legalized supressors due to the grizzly bear problems. When hunters were shooting and killing game it turned into a dinner bell for the bears. The bears became conditioned to the sound of a rifle. Equaling food for them. The legalization of the suppressors was for the hunters safety. Some one correct me if I'm wrong. From everything I've read the grizzly bear population is out of control in Wyoming and Montana. In my opinion the legalization of suppressors for the safety of hunters is just. Other than this I don't see a good reason to legalize them, but that's my opinion.
It is legal to shoot at a running deer.... but not ethical to take such a low percentage shot. It is not legal to shoot a deer you personally can not tag... thus it is unethical because it is illegal. Yes nature can be cruel: so the injured doe will just have to wait on nature. Happens all the time. Yes it should bother you. One morning I came on an accident where a car hit a spike buck. County Deputy was on the scene and the buck was flopping around in the ditch and since it could not get through the fence was trying to go back across the road. Deputy said he could not shoot it without permission and some paper work. I hate to see anything suffer like that. The Lady was some beside herself because of the poor deer and crying. I told the Deputy if he went up and manage traffic control the deer would pass away. He thanked me and went to his patrol car with the Lady. I pulled my CC and popped the spike between the horns. They had someone come recover the deer. It was illegal, thus unethical but seemed like the right thing to do and may have prevented another accident. In-line scoped muzzleloader, 80% letoff cammed bows, hot doe scents, scent block clothes ... where our goal is to bushwack some unsuspecting deer. I need to go sharpen my spear.
I like this topic too. Laws vary from state to state about what is legal and illegal; humans make the grey. The comments below are simply my thoughts or opinion, no more and no less. 1. "Bait" - To me "bait" is something not natural to the environment placed or planted to attract an animal. Whether it's a pile of corn, minerals, food plot, gut pile or whatever. This does not mean it's always illegal and state laws define what is or isn't legal. 2. "Shooting light" - I've yet to see a specific time, i.e. 5pm, put in any hunting regulations defining what "dark" is. Some hunters will try to bend this in their favor. Granted this is usually only a time frame of about 10 minutes, they'll stretch it for all it's worth; especially if there is a big buck in front of them. Your own judgement and reasonableness will decide this for you. 3. Suppressors and equipment - this is usually pretty specific and there's not as much wiggle room within the law for this. Bottom line is ethics can differ from person to person regarding how they were raised hunting. Some people won't bat an eye at bending or breaking some laws and others won't even consider it an option. Most of the time you are in the woods by yourself and your character will decide what you do and what you don't. You have to live with your decisions and ultimately; some people can live with more than others.
I dont know if I would say out of control populations, but they are high and the gunshot is a problem in certain areas. My brother and father went out with a guide in WY and they had to shut their operation down one ridge over because the bears were so bad. Ironically, I know a guy working on a patent for this very issue
Good example here of how something is unethical even though it is legal. Another area under this umbrella is shot distance and that is something that gets over looked quite often. "Well my limit is 40 but that is a huge buck and 44 is practically the same thing I'll just hold a little higher". I think it is something that Justin eluded to in a different thread, our society encourages getting the buck at all costs and we as hunters need to remember our limits when in the field. This last fall I had an opportunity to launch an arrow at a 5x5 bull elk, would have been my first ever, but I chose not to because it was a 40yd shot with a very small pine branch cover the heart. Could I have killed that animal? Of course; with 70lb 30" draw and a 515 gr arrow that pine twig may have had no affect on my trajectory or energy. But, it could have sent my arrow into a high gut shot instead of a double lung and I passed him up. I thought about that situation every day for weeks and it took a long time to get over it. Sometimes being an ethical hunter is really hard, and we just have to accept that.
I think discussing what is ethical vs. unethical should also take into consideration a hunters ability and skill. I see lots of posts on various social media platforms of people criticizing a person saying they were "unethical" in taking a particular shot without considering what a persons skill level is with the weapon being used. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would take a 60 yard bow shot and not think much about it however, I wouldn't because I'm not comfortable with it and my ability dictates my decision. I wouldn't call someone unethical for doing so. Along the same lines, my dad would take a 200 yard running shot at a buck because he has shot trap for years and his skill for doing so is most likely way above the average person. For him, it was a much higher percentage shot than the average person. People have mixed reactions when they feel someone is questioning their "ethics" or "character" and will most likely respond to what they feel is an attack regarding them. Be considerate when commenting on what you may think is ethical / unethical vs. legal / illegal. Legality is normally much more clearly defined and arguable.
Speaking of ethics, who saw the Chris Bracket video where he shoots at a slob at 60 yards and sticks it through the loins? In the video he defends himself by stating that he already shot a deer at 110 yards this year. I don't care how good of a shot you are or think you are, that is stupid. He just might be a bigger d-bag than Spook. Well, maybe a tie.
Oh no...Bracket is the definition of, top notch, a d-bag of the century. Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
