primitive hunting ethics question

I've been tempted a few times when grouse and turkeys have crossed my path within 10 feet or so and I'm just sitting there with a big stick or rock in my hand. I've never gone after them, but have taken the opportunity, for example, to see just how close I could get to the critters before scaring them off. The real thought going through my mind is how I can shoot them with my camera.

Now in an emergency scenario, all bets would be off regarding the issues of legal game taking. At the same time, we've seen again and again that starvation is usually the least of your worries in most survival scenarios this is apart from the long term SHTF scenario which likely won't actually happen.
 
While starvation might appear to be low on the list in a survival setting...which it is....Loss of energy in a demanding environment that requires physical activity is not at least I think so. i think while a person can live without food it is neither pleasurable or healthy..Personally I have a pretty high metabolism and I start getting grumpy after 4 hours, without food .. after 8 I start feeling the energy loss..
 
RescueRiley said:
Interesting stuff guys..
Doc, Very well put. I'm in agreement on the season bag limit issue
Biker mike.... I was thinking Throwing, Atlatl, Sling, etc
Click to expand...

Are those illegal where you live?
I never thought something like that would be made illegal.
We have rules on trapping and snaring, but knives, sticks, arrows, spears (thrown by atlatl or hand), etc aren't a problem, provided the game is in season or is an animal with no season.

To answer the question, with the implements you're talking about, I wouldn't break the law to practice. I'd just get/make some targets of the proper proportions and practice on them. Trapping and snaring would of course be very limited.
 
In a survival situation, in some areas of the country, I would not put it past the authorities to charge you with taking game illegally, by snare, handline, speedhook, etc. I mean, sometimes when you defend yourself, you get charged as if self-defense were illegal and survival, to me, is simple self-defense. Instead of a predatory human being, you're dealing with hypothermia or some other threat. Oftentimes overzealous prosecution like that would be thrown out. First of all, if you get found snaring squirrels or rabbits or snagging a trout by DNR, well, you just got found! Congratulations! 8-)

Practicing the skills is another thing entirely. I just can't muster an objection to it as long as you're doing it responsibly. I also think, at times, we forget that we are animals and even some of the most cruel kills we can force on the animal kingdom pales in comparison with the way animals hunt and kill each other. The fact that we want to be better animals is what separates us. Sometimes necessity or a sneeze at the wrong moment can force us to do things we would not normally do in the "clean kill" category.
 
I love how situational ethics rule the day when it comes to one's pet issue.

Well, count me in.
 
well, personally i consider hunting to be like free speech - it's an inalienable right. but not all free speech is morally acceptable - you shouldn't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. and not all hunting is morally acceptable - but primitive hunting, IMO, that respects seasons, bag limits and is done to procure food (essentially performed in a manner that avoids over-exploiting a resource) is morally acceptable even if it isn't legal. exercising an inalienable right is never unethical so long as you do so in a manner that respects others' inalienable rights

and there's nothing wrong with hunting guinea pigs :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pigs#As_food
 
If it is a Survival situation why would laws matter...if it is life or death you must take in account for murphy's law only... and if Game is not wasted I do not see a problem in it !
 
Great topic and thread.

Like a few others here I do not equate legality with morality or ethics.

Hypothetically, if the quarry is plenty sustainable and put to use, I would have little qualm with the caveat of not getting caught.

That said there would still be a lingering uneasiness, I think, just because I have always tried to live up to the term "sportsman" which is always a term used in the state game regulations.... :)
 
there are many cases where laws have been revised due to legal proceedings- some legislature or decision maker makes something illegal or legal with provisions, and some individual or group with a different take on things breaks the law and defends it in court. Sometimes it works.

If you make an effort to have a license, follow appropriate seasons and other laws about the taking of game in hunting, then your modification of choice of weapons - while it may be illegal- isn't necessarily unethical, immoral, or undefensible in court.

You do have to think, though. It's one thing to use a blowgun or slingshot to hunt rabbit, another to flaunt the caliber restrictions and use a .22mag to hunt deer. Some laws, like the knife hunting ban for pig in CA, have a reason and are thought out- you may disagree with them, but they are put in place with some knowledge. Some state assembly that's never heard of a slingshot arrow may lump it in with a ban due to poor language, but the same assembly might be banning the knife hunting - whether right or wrong- with knowledge of what it IS.
 
Cpl Punishment said:
Are those illegal where you live?
I never thought something like that would be made illegal.
We have rules on trapping and snaring, but knives, sticks, arrows, spears (thrown by atlatl or hand), etc aren't a problem, provided the game is in season or is an animal with no season.

To answer the question, with the implements you're talking about, I wouldn't break the law to practice. I'd just get/make some targets of the proper proportions and practice on them. Trapping and snaring would of course be very limited.
Click to expand...

From my understanding, Alabama is the only state that allows deer hunting with a spear. A few years ago here in Missouri, a guy sent a photo of the deer he killed with his spear to a local newspaper. It was during archery season. The guy ended up getting ticked for harvesting the animal in an illegal manor.
 
I don't hunt but had a conversation recently with an experianced hunter along these lines. His main concerns using primative methods would be that it is cruel to the animal if you don't make a clean kill but we were talking of using say bundle bows to take down a deer !
I'd say if you are packing a slingshot and a quail crosses your path, hell go for it !!!

And if a guinea pig crossed my path I'd probably stamp on it in shock !!!!!!
 
I have a pet Guinea Pig .
I will not allow him to read this thread about killing his little friends... :D
 
from an Ethics perspective, I have to go with the yes crowd. As long as what you are doing is not harmful to the population and what is being taken is being used.

As far as legality, it seems that a lot of places state what is legal, as opposed to what is not, because that is easier. I'd just make sure that my method was resembling the goal of the DNR rules. If snaring is legal for population control, then as long as the snares aren't beyond what they want, thats ok, so maybe figure 4s instead of speedhooks if spring traps are not allowed. Or if its hunting only to reduce the overall take, then sticks, rocks, and spears are good. Basically I'd do my best to have the same hunting philosophy as the DNR.
 
akennedy73 said:
well, personally i consider hunting to be like free speech - it's an inalienable right.
Click to expand...

Nope it is not a right. Whether you consider it a right, doesn't make it one. Hasn't been for a long time and conflicts with land ownership and resource accessibility issues. Even taking animals on your own land is open to debate if the range of the population in question is not confined to your land. Action - at - a distance. You affect the whole population on your patch if you make your patch a net sink. This is why hunting and fishing are licensed activities even when it comes to animals that happen to be on private lands. I'm trying to be respectful of the OP to not get preachy here, but common resources are useless unless managed such that access to those resources follows some kind of rules. While individuals may disagree with how quotas are set, why do they think that their own assessment of the situation should trump democratic policy. Like all citizens they can voice their displeasure, organize protests and endeavor to make changes to policy in a legal fashion.

I agree fully with Don's advice. If you choose to break the law, for practice or survival, be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. You are making a conscious choice in this activity. If you are in a survival situation and get slapped with a $1000 fine for fishing without a license, then so be it. Thank gosh there was a CO out there, whose salary is supplemented by your being fined, to save you lost behind. Besides, I'm not so sure that CO's are all that hostile and there isn't much reason to presume they are hotheads. Look at all the beating the black bear to death stories with buck 119's and clubs that surface. I don't know of any cases where the person was actually charged for unauthorized killing of an animal in order to save their own skin.

Edit - sorry I did get preachy there.....Personally, I would try to find an appropriate simulation for practice rather than consciously break laws that exist. Sometimes though, you can simply ask the CO or DNR and maybe the activity in question is actually sanctionable under some circumstances as stated by Doc in his example with the hare.
 
I say go for it.

I use to take my half Husky walking / hunting all the time. She was a killing machine. I knew some poor animal was probably going to bite the dust when she got into hunting mode. I encouraged it. Man she was a smart hunter. I didnt need a gun . That was primitive hunting . Dont know if it was legal or not.
 
Not to stir the pot, but Ethics Change.

Doesn't it come down to whose Ethics you will follow or will you follow your own.

What are Ethics anymore? Really

In the time of Richard the Lionheart a minor noble of Nottinghamshire, one Robin of Loxley, was outlawed for poaching deer. Now at that time the deer in a a royal forest belonged to the king, and killing one of the king's deer was therefore treason, and punishable by death.
Click to expand...

Crying Over Dead Trees

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEaHyzbqTA&feature=related

And who makes these Ethics for you and your children to live by?
Only you can give up your power of choice of what Ethics to live by.
 
RescueRiley said:
...you've honed your bushcraft skills as well to the point that you could confidently hunt SMALL game with low tech implements...
Click to expand...

This is the key phrase IMO. I do not think you should practice those skills while actively hunting game, small or otherwise. Practice should take place with pictures of bunnies, stuffed bunnies, you get the idea. Once you have mastered those skills to point of humanely taking them afield I don't think that is a big problem. Game laws are (or should be) designed primarily to promote humane harvest and prevent overkill. If you operate within that framework I think you're alright. Be advised though, the local conservation officer will not be amused. ;)
 
Politics are an ugly, disturbing thing. I don't want this thread to be cast into the political forum, I think it has a place here. All of that having been said, Shecky mentioned, somewhat sarcastically, "situational ethics."

If you refuse to accept the possibility that a situation can change your ethics you're either lying to yourself or to the rest of us, or both. Of course situations can change ethics. During Hurricane Katrina, the situation changed ethics for the good and for the bad. There was illegitimate, i.e., criminal looting and then there was survival. Did the Secret Service (I know it was a Federal Law Enforcement Agency, I can't remember everything, I think it was the Secret Service) with their budget and foresight into critical situations have to steal laptop computers from one store? Why, I think not. 8-)

I tried to find mention of it, could not find it. Did find this and this is bad enough:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/19/eveningnews/main1817121.shtml

$7,000.00 for iPods and various other things. They got bored, after all. :D

NOPD were looting when they didn't have to. If they had to get something to survive, I'm all right with that, especially since it was going to be ruined and the insurance was going to cover it. You don't need to steal or steal the money for an iPod during a disaster, for example.

So, we're going to sit here and pissbag about harvesting an animal if we are lost and need food?

Anyone that wants to, you can go ahead, it seems like one of the most absolutely meaningless debates I can think of avoiding.
 
Edit: Removed after re-reading the OP....I didn't say anything offensive, but was misrepresenting my impression of the OP and came to a false response as a result...kgd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top