primitive hunting ethics question

Seems just like a common sense type deal here.

If everything was 'normal' sure I'd follow the laws/rules, be kinda stupid not to in my opinion. I don't want the fines and/or jail time, or even the hassale from the authorities.

Now in a true 'survival' type situation I'd do whatever it took to survive. The Law would be to survive. If the authorities found me I'd be glad to let them haul me into the pokey, there you'll get the necessities for survival I figure.
 
Only in the most goofy areas of this country would you possibly get fined or charged with a crime for doing something in a survival situation. Of course, there are those that passionately believe that if you even get lost and they have to resort to calling in SAR for you, you should be charged for the bill, which can range from the tens of thousands to millions of dollars. I think that's what tax dollars are for.

The original intent of the thread was basically on practicing the skills and that's where it becomes a sticky situation.

Personally? Especially on your own property or private property of another person and you have their permission? You should be able to practice the skills as long as you are not depleting the game in the area. I'm sure many will disagree with that notion but everyone has an opinion. My Wife works with a woman who absolutely detests hunting and despises hunters. As long as the supermarket has meat in it, she fervently believes no one should hunt. She also believes that chickens, beef and pigs are ugly and can be executed and butchered for food but bunnies, squirrels and deer are real-life Walt Disney characters that are cute and cudly and should therefore be protected by even more laws, rules and regulations. She is in her mid-40s and one has to wonder why we continue to prop up the type of artificial environment that continues to produce this type of fairytale mindset with some people. I'm not kidding, she really thinks this way and this is a grown woman who has survived the everyday bumps and roadblocks of life and she had made it to middle age with this sort of mindset.

So, eventually, due to propaganda and a host of other mechanisms, she will be the majority and will "situational ethics" then be something to condemn when they ban all of this? Just some food for thought...
 
Personally, I try as much as possibly to live my life according to what I believe is morally right, and I try not to allow the fear of being punished dissuade me from doing what I believe is morally right.

I believe in conservation, so I would tend to advocate on behalf of limits and seasons.

I also believe in survival, so I would tend to oppose prohibition orders on things like primitive hunting methods.

Finally, I believe that if you do what you believe to be right, knowing that it is against the law, and get caught, you have a moral obligation not to whine and cry about it! Although fighting it in court on the grounds that it should not be illegal does not constitute whining and crying IMO.
 
Again, we have two different things colliding here. The practice of it beforehand and the utilization of that which is practiced or not practiced. I think the vast majority of people in this sub-forum (not society) would agree that it is not only moral but ethical to basically break the law in a survival situation. Especially in those instances where you are not hurting anything.

It is the practice of such methods which have been banned to give the animals a fighting chance that becomes a large gray area for some people. Some laws are designed to cut the animals a break, others are designed to somehow protect the animals from inferior calibers and weapon systems, etc. For example, taking deer with a .22 LR. or the absolute myth that a wristrocket type of slingshot won't cleanly kill small game, etc.

There are some really bizarre ways of thinking when it comes to laws about hunting. For example, some states prohibit a crossbow unless you have a disability permit from some injury that would prevent you from using a more conventional bow like a compound or a recurve yet you see the prejudice in the people pushing for such a law or those that pass it because mechanical releases for compound bows are legal in the same areas, etc.

Big topic!
 
THe original post was not meant to depict a survival scenario or a training scenario..obviously when the chips are down you do what you have to... and if your training you need to perfect your skill before taking it live.... you wouldn't take a recurve bow out of the box for the first time and hunt a white tail or at least you shouldn't as it is inhumane you still lack the accuracy as a novice to do this effectively...The honing of these skills takes time...The original scenario was meant to depict some old woodsy dude (a licensed hunter) who can dot an i with a throwing stick... who leaves his .22 at home while walking the back 40 and tries to bag a few squirrels (under the bag limit #, in season) for dinner..,,that's the type of thing I'm talking about... I don't think that there are many folks on here that would contest killing whatever you had to in an actual survival situation...I also don't think there are many that would contest the negative moral implications of killing merely to practice...
 
Last edited:
In that case, I'd not do it if I was the old, woodsy-type.
Laws are different in different states, but for the non-rare squirrel species and most other small game, I can hunt them year 'round. A .22 handgun and some catridges are something I don't see as burdensome to carry and would use that method in preference to throwing sticks or some other "primitive" method.

Interestingly, I consider using a bow a primitive method, and is legal.
 
Staying within seasons I would do, because I do believe that they are in place to protect the animals in question, from being hunted into extinction.

If the weapon or method used is effective and the animals dispatched humanely, either by the weapon/method, or by myself once I have the critter in hand, I will use them and practice as much as I can, prior to needing them for real. If we don't practice, the odds of being successful, are not on the side of the hunter.
 
I would, however, argue that practice can be done on properly sized and profile targets, not necessitating live animals (and possible legal troubles if caught).
 
I personally feel that one shouldn't hunt animals for sport, unless you consume the meat, furthermore I oppose to illegal hunting non tags etc.. too many species have gone the way of dinosaur because of over hunting. If everyone took the view of hunting as they pleased, many species would be endangered in the U.S. or would have gone extinct. I've seen this happen in Asian countries and poaching in Africa.
 
Hannibal I hear what your saying..but it doesn't really apply here, as in this conversation we already stated that the hypothetical scenario would consist of a licensed hunter.. that is going after legal game for food. within the legal season, and is taking only the legal bag limit..(not poaching) the only area subject to question is the implement and the ethical choice between what ones skill level is and the letter of the law...obviously I believe we are all in agreement that poaching or hunting of game animals out of season without proper tags, while exceeding bag limits is not advisable.
 
I say...Whack'em, pack'em and stack'em!

If it is a game species, go for it!

I would never intentionally make an animal suffer, but if we only allow the fastest means of dispatch, we better outlaw bowhunting immediately.

Traditional methods such as deadfall, sling, bow, snare and throwing stick are well on the ethical side in my book.

Ya know how many squirrels and rabbits I have eaten that I killed with a .177 cal air rifle when I was a kid? That and a wrist rocket filled the pot many times. No liscense, no nothing. Nobody seemed to have any moral dilemma with it.

While I do not necessarily condone it, I can even remember more than 1 deer hanging in my uncles barn taken with a .22 LR.

As long as there is no possibility of harming an endangered species, bon appetite.
 
Good to see you here PrimitiveMan. :) I see no morality problem in what you are suggesting. I'd probably take the .22 along with me, I don't think the fish and game folks would perform an autopsy. Private property I wouldn't even bother with that.
 
Hey FS!

As you can see, I have gathered no moss.

Yeah, my basic rule is, if you kill it, you owe it to the animal that someone eats it.
 
RescueRiley said:
Hannibal I hear what your saying..but it doesn't really apply here, as in this conversation we already stated that the hypothetical scenario would consist of a licensed hunter.. that is going after legal game for food. within the legal season, and is taking only the legal bag limit..(not poaching) the only area subject to question is the implement and the ethical choice between what ones skill level is and the letter of the law...obviously I believe we are all in agreement that poaching or hunting of game animals out of season without proper tags, while exceeding bag limits is not advisable.
Click to expand...


ok ok ok if thats the case I would do it in a heart beat, as long as shall we say you are not trying to go after game with a sling shot and make it lame and track it down for days and days to dispatch it. If you plan to do the crossbow thing and you are not disable than i have no problems with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top