The Ethical Woodsman

Here is a suggestion: when you disagree with someone about an ethical issue, instead of attacking his or her idea, calmly explain the rationale for your disenting opinion. That way, everyone gets to freely express what they believe, but no one feels attacked. Using this approach, we can have an adult conversation, and learn even from those who have different points of view than we do. I have been a woodsman most of my life, and I am continually impressed with how little I know, how much more there is to learn about life under the sky, if I will just listen.
 
I'm getting the idea that saying "Oh yeah? Well you're a dumb old poo-poo head, so there!" isn't the best way to respond to another poster.

Please advise.:D
 
unless you really are a poop head...

Poop-Head.jpg
 
Magnussen said:
An issue was brought up in another thread about harvesting vegitation from a restricted area.

My views on this subject are both simple and complex (if that makes any sense). I believe that responsible harvesting and caretaking are more important than manmade laws. I would rather see a dedicated woodsman "illegally" harvesting some fatwood from a local park than my nieghbor "lawfully" removing trees from his property to put in a new swimming pool.
Click to expand...

In provincial parks, you can't burn dead wood. Even small branches to start your fire. I just wonder what's best for the forest. To light a fire with what I find, or use tons of paper, even gaz, because the wood they sell is too big.
 
cybrok said:
In provincial parks, you can't burn dead wood. Even small branches to start your fire. I just wonder what's best for the forest. To light a fire with what I find, or use tons of paper, even gaz, because the wood they sell is too big.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about wood that the park sells? At several of the parks around here, they won't allow you to collect dry wood, nor will they allow you to bring your own: you have to buy theirs. They don't care if you baton it down to a smaller size, though.
 
I said I was through with this thread but now that I have cooled down I think that I really need to explain some things about myself, the best way that I can is with a little story.

Me and my wife have a special place we like to go. It is a remote stream full of wild brook trout. We usually park at the trailhead and hike about 4 miles to a favorite camping spot. I bring my flyrod, seasoned cornmeal, fatback, some potatos, some chow chow, a nice piece of crusty bread and a small flask of single barrel tennesse whiskey along with normal trail food.

This stream is disignated a wild trout stream, meaning, you are limited to one hook artificials with a 4 fish limit, all fish have to be over 7" and only one can be over 10", that is not enough fish for 2 people. My wife does not fish and does not have a license, so I usually catch 6 fish which is 2 over my limit. I fry them in the rendered grease from the fatback, breaded with the cornmeal, with some hushpuppies, fried potatos with ramps if they are in season, some chow chow and the crusty bread. After this fantastic meal I usually have a few drinks out of my flask then me and my wife retire with a view of the fire and the creek gurgling in the background and pretend we're young again.

I just broke the law.

In my mind it is justified and within my moral boundries, I only took what was needed and if my wife fished was still within the limits of the law. Is this different from what has been described on here that got my hackles up, perhaps, perhaps not, but I see it as different. I hate to see anything wasted even if that waste is just in my perceptions. Chris
 
taking an over-limit of fish is justified how again?

mtwarden said:
don't want to dwell too much on fatwood, but I'd make a wild guess and say that "harvesting" fatwood would be unlawful in just a small handful of places. and in those few places I can't imagine anyone getting too overly concerned about someone taking a little bit for a fire kit- so IMO it's much to do about nothing

I do so see one potential problem w/ purposely ignoring laws, it's the old slippery slope- it often starts w/ "geez it's just a few minutes after shooting hours and the mallards are really coming in- hey what's a couple of minutes?" ----> "geez scattering a little corn around isn't going to hurt anything" ---->"geez the mallards are thick this year, an extra drake isn't going to make a big difference" ----> "seasons and bag limits are for all the other schmoes"

doesn't happen to everyone, but unfortunately happens a heck of lot more than you'd think :(
Click to expand...
 
mtwarden said:
taking an over-limit of fish is justified how again?
Click to expand...

It's not and that was my point, perceptions.

My ethics differ from everyone elses, those fish were consumed right there and not wasted, if my wife fished she would be allowed to catch 4 not 2. In your mind I caught 2 over so I am wrong no matter what, I can except that, and if you were the warden and caught me I would take the ticket and pay it without squable.

If I had caught those fish, took a picture then threw them away I would have a huge problem with it. Chris
 
mtwarden said:
get your wife fishing (my wife usually out fishes me) :)
Click to expand...

I have tried, and she does, a little, as long as I bait the hook and take the fish off the line. I am afraid an artificial bait only trout stream and certainly a fly rod is a lost cause.

I have no disrespect for laws and understand why we need them. If I do make a willfull decision to slip a little bit, I do so with the understanding that I am doing it and fully willing to pay the consequences. Chris
 
I guess it is different with everyone. If I had wanted to, I could have justified taking four times my limit of deer for many years. Would it have been any different if my wife and two kids had bought licenses and hunted? Yes, to me it would have been. No game would have been wasted either way, but in my mind, being an ethical hunter (obeying licensing and limits laws) was more important than harvesting "enough" to satisfy my family's needs. I made up the difference with purchased meat, or oftem meat donated by others who didn't want it but enjoyed other aspects of the hunt.

I realize not everyone feels this way.
 
Codger_64 said:
I realize not everyone feels this way.
Click to expand...


For the most part I agree totally. I also think you would have been wrong to kill over your limit in deer. However those 2 fish I regularly catch over my limit I don't feel bad at all about. I realize there really is no difference but I still feel that way.

Ethics are strange that way. I guess if you do wrong, know your wrong, and are a little apologetic about it, I can stomach it a lot more than the attitude of, F you it's my right, the laws are wrong and you can't stop me. Chris
 
August West said:
I said I was through with this thread but now that I have cooled down I think that I really need to explain some things about myself, the best way that I can is with a little story.

Me and my wife have a special place we like to go. It is a remote stream full of wild brook trout. We usually park at the trailhead and hike about 4 miles to a favorite camping spot. I bring my flyrod, seasoned cornmeal, fatback, some potatos, some chow chow, a nice piece of crusty bread and a small flask of single barrel tennesse whiskey along with normal trail food.

This stream is disignated a wild trout stream, meaning, you are limited to one hook artificials with a 4 fish limit, all fish have to be over 7" and only one can be over 10", that is not enough fish for 2 people. My wife does not fish and does not have a license, so I usually catch 6 fish which is 2 over my limit. I fry them in the rendered grease from the fatback, breaded with the cornmeal, with some hushpuppies, fried potatos with ramps if they are in season, some chow chow and the crusty bread. After this fantastic meal I usually have a few drinks out of my flask then me and my wife retire with a view of the fire and the creek gurgling in the background and pretend we're young again.

I just broke the law.

In my mind it is justified and within my moral boundries, I only took what was needed and if my wife fished was still within the limits of the law. Is this different from what has been described on here that got my hackles up, perhaps, perhaps not, but I see it as different. I hate to see anything wasted even if that waste is just in my perceptions. Chris
Click to expand...



I was going to respond. After reading my response draft, i'm going to step away from this one.
 
Bushman5 said:
I was going to respond. After reading my response draft, i'm going to step away from this one.
Click to expand...

Feel free, I'm a big boy.

I still think your attitude is wrong, if you want to discuss it more feel free. If you would like to do it in private let me know and I will send you my email and or my skype account. I posted what I did on purpose, I never said I was mister goody two shoes and never did anything wrong but I don't openly brag about it and I do everything within my power to not be wasteful. Chris
 
I can tell you stories of my hunt being busted up by conservation officers more than once. Hassling us for 45 minutes each time and never issuing a citation because we were 100% legal and polite besides. Same 3 hunters, same 2 conservation officers, opening day at daybreak of duck season 2 years in a row, same spot. Does it give me a right to act unethically? No, but it certainly would make my attitude a bit less concerned with it.

So while it isn't a justification per se, if you take a few extra fish and eat them, it isn't going to bother me either. Let me tell you, if you were allowed 6 ducks, and you had 5 and a flock flew in and you fired a shot and happened to kill two, they would BURN YOUR A$$ in my area, so while I try to be as legal as possible, a minor transgression of the laws doesn't really keep me up at night.

I guess my point is, the more one is pushed with laws and technicalities, the more they tend to push back and feel justified when they do.

Stay legal wherever possible.
 
Ethics - What people should do.

Ethos - What people do.

Legality - the laws that govern what people do.

Often, these three don't overlap.

I think for me to answer these questions, I need to describe what I believe my nature is and define what I feel my place within nature in general is.

For instance, If I think I am a steward of nature - I would argue that I should do what I think is best for nature - thus I think defining my nature and my role, as I see it, is germane to this discussion.


I believe, currently, that I am not the steward of nature, nor do I feel that I am the master of nature (I do not think my ability to think 'rationally' nor my thumbs make me the master of anything). I feel that I am either a very fortunate collection of atoms if I have no spirituality, or if I do have some sort of spiritual nature that I am made of the same 'stuff' as everything around me.

This leads me to form and continue to form my ethical stance when it comes to the wilderness.

I don't need to hike. I don't need to go out and 'survive'. If the past 36 years are any indicator of my life, I will continue to be the luckiest bastard I know. Born an educable white male in the wealthiest freest nation known to man.

I choose to hike, I practice survival because I love the idea of pitting myself against the elements, and I choose to go to state parks.

With all of this said. When I am at state parks, I leave the campsite better than I found it. I respect my fellow humans, and I don't disturb nature any more than I have to to look at it. I have been known to borrow a walking stick, or gather a few pine cones to get a fire going - but mostly I don't mess with anything. I think that the legality behind these rules are meant to enforce a morality. I think the spirit of the law should be followed not the letter.

At the state parks in Texas if you have paid for entrance to the park - you can keep your limit. I rarely do, but I like to clean and eat one now and again to keep my skills up.

If I was killed and eaten by an animal while in the woods, I would not feel (where I aware of anything) that the animal acted unethically any more than I did when I ate animals. We are made of the same stuff and both were hungry.

When I am in the woods, I ask permission and do not go beyond that permission when I practice my skills. I love, however, leaving the place pretty much like I found it. There is something to me about making a place my home and then leaving and not being able to tell much had changed.

I will have a fire, but no more than I need (although I tend to make a fire too big) and I am grateful for even the dead wood I use. I would not use green wood unless I needed to - and I try to trim - not kill.

When I am on a trail I pack out what I pack in, unless there is a trash can. I try to bring a little more than I need to share, because I get a bang out of sharing and the people I share with are made of the same stuff I am.


Mostly I am just so happy to be out there - I do my best to remain that way and be agreeable.



TF
 
Great post TF, thanks..... totally wrong:thumbdn: but well written.:thumbup:


Rick:p
 
August West said:
I said I was through with this thread but now that I have cooled down I think that I really need to explain some things about myself, the best way that I can is with a little story.

Me and my wife have a special place we like to go. It is a remote stream full of wild brook trout. We usually park at the trailhead and hike about 4 miles to a favorite camping spot. I bring my flyrod, seasoned cornmeal, fatback, some potatos, some chow chow, a nice piece of crusty bread and a small flask of single barrel tennesse whiskey along with normal trail food.

This stream is disignated a wild trout stream, meaning, you are limited to one hook artificials with a 4 fish limit, all fish have to be over 7" and only one can be over 10", that is not enough fish for 2 people. My wife does not fish and does not have a license, so I usually catch 6 fish which is 2 over my limit. I fry them in the rendered grease from the fatback, breaded with the cornmeal, with some hushpuppies, fried potatos with ramps if they are in season, some chow chow and the crusty bread. After this fantastic meal I usually have a few drinks out of my flask then me and my wife retire with a view of the fire and the creek gurgling in the background and pretend we're young again.

I just broke the law.
Click to expand...
Yes you did.

Your post is a good example of the rationalization used buy criminals - both those who think they are and do not.
- I stole because I was poor and the other guy had more and wouldn't miss it.
- I stole but the insurance company would pays for it
- I stole but stores expect a certain amount of stealing
- I stole because stores rip people off with their high prices

August West said:
In my mind it is justified and within my moral boundries, I only took what was needed
Click to expand...
Needed - were you starving in a survival situation - no. This is something you have done before and planned.

The correct word is 'wanted'.

August West said:
and if my wife fished was still within the limits of the law.
Click to expand...
If your wife had a fishing license; that would be correct, but she does not.
Again, your statement is an example of a rationalization to justify your actions. ("I would have been with in the legal limit if my friend who has a fishing license was here and he caught the other fish.")

August West said:
Is this different from what has been described on here that got my hackles up, perhaps, perhaps not, but I see it as different. I hate to see anything wasted even if that waste is just in my perceptions. Chris
Click to expand...

The reason for the law is to conserve and manage the resource for all and not 'waste'.

You set up a false dichotomy - take more fish than the law allows and then saying you didn't want to waste what you should not have taken. ("Yes, your honor, I stole the car and drove it to the movies with my girlfriend and her children because I didn't want to see the gasoline go to waste.")

The difficult aspect for people with such thoughts as you express is that if you were a victim of the criminal's rationalization you would be outraged. But when you use the rationalization to victimize it it OK.

I don't expect you to agree with anything I wrote, but others might see themselves in you. This might give them pause.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top