The Ethical Woodsman

It's a good discussion just don't get too hung up on the specific examples but concentrate on the "ethical" idea behind them and how we justify to ourselves actions that may be less than ethical.

It's about drawing the line I think. August offered an example that brought up a good point of discussion and Dex was using the example to point out that often our rationalization (excuse) for crossing the line is no different than the rational used by someone in a far more serious action.

Where do we draw the line and feel an action is "unethical" whether legal or not. Runs with wolves asked a good question about the fishing catch. Both people have licenses and only one actually is catching, do you take the limit for the two licenses, same goes for ducks, but how do we feel about deer camp and using your tag on another hunters deer?

I think the point Dexter was asking us to take a look at is when we justify an action to ourselves the same justification should hold water for other actions that are on a grander scale. Question is, where do we draw the line between a "white lie" kind of action and a obviously harmful, premeditated "boldface" lie?
 
Last edited:
What's lawful and what's ethical aren't always the same, but in Codger's case and in August's case, if both wives had licences, the law wouldn't mind a bit if twice the kills were made -- that's the logic of licencing.

In both cases, if this practice of husband / wife licences led to dangerous decreases in game populations, next year's licences for everyone would have to be adjusted. Were the state to do its job in fish and game management, it would be part of an ethical system, with all parties in the right.

I would ask Codger, how did the cost of meat you bought compare to the cost of an extra hunting licence? And I would ask August, if others find your stream and overfish as you do, and the fish population plummets, what then?
 
To try to answer, Esav, although not impossible, it would be highly improbable for the stream to be overfished in that way, simply because of it's remoteness. Also because of that, it is very infrequently patrolled be Fish and Game, not that that makes catching over your limit right. I know of people fishing the same stream with bait and bringing 40 or 50 fish out for the freezer, remember it is an artificial only stream with a limit of 4 fish. More of my double standards but that absolutely infuriates me, if they caught what they could eat while they were there, by legal methods, no bait, I would not have a problem, over their limit or not. In my weird mind as soon as you bring those fish out to a cooler in your truck, or catch them with a redworm, your wrong. Which is not all that hard to understand, it is what my grandfather pounded into my head from the time I started going with him. Which is where a lot of our ethics come from, your environment and upbringing.

As mtwarden pointed out my scenario is a very slippery slope, I honor everyones opinion and hopefully there will be some good insights from the discussion. Chris
 
Last edited:
August West said:
On the contrary I agree with everything you wrote, it is the honest, absolute truth. If I ever get caught I will pay what the court says I must. If you would like to now call me a hypocrite feel free to do that also.

I tried to explain the way that I believe the best way I know how, as I said, is there really any difference between what I view as right and what I view as wrong, probably not. Will I change my views, again probably not. Chris

Edit: After thinking for just a minute. I agree breaking the law is breaking the law. But really, is catching 2 fish over my limit for a shore lunch really the same as stealing a car? I don't think so, is it the same as taking fatwood from a park, yes it is, exactly, which is what I was trying to explain. What is the difference, in my mind? If bushman would have taken that wood for his on use I would have had no problem with it. The pic of the funeral pyre stacked and burning is really what upset me. Chris
Click to expand...

ok FINALLY we get to the heart of the matter. Why are you so upset with HOW i use my fatwood? Its none of your business.

and i honestly need to get this off my chest. I was not going to participate anymore but this needs to be said, as i am godamn sick and tired of the crap being slung my way lately:

are you familiar with the park i removed the fatwood from? NO you are not

do you know WHERE in said park i removed the fatwood from? NO you dont

are you aware the park is under LOAN to the region from the Musqeaum First Nations Band, good friends of mine? NO your not aware

are you aware of my current status as a Sovereign individual? NO you are not aware.

are you aware that the stump i harvested said fatwood from was in an area under Development Permit to be bulldozed and developed? NO your not aware


Are you aware of just how many logs , stumps and wood debris are removed by the parks staff every year and piled for use by anyone with a chainsaw to salvage? NO you are not aware

are you aware that in TOTAL this year, i have harvested less than half a stumps worth of fatwood? No you are not aware. Nor are you aware that there is a little over 3 billion trees in this province, and over 200 years of logging stumps rotting away.

are you aware of just how fast stuff grows here? NO you are not aware.

now in all fairness, I should have explained this in my photo thread, BUT WHY SHOULD I?

What started as a great thread with lots of pics of the local flora turned into a EDIT storm of "hey lets bash Bushman5 for harvesting EDIT pieces of fatwood, even though we know NOTHING of the circumstances of his region or his status or where he might of harvested it, or the circumstances he might of harvested it?......."

and THEN, you have the audacity to post your "fishing over the limit" "and i'm ok with that" fishing post. SAY WHAT?

and then the cherry.......

August West said:
If bushman would have taken that wood for his own use I would have had no problem with it. The pic of the funeral pyre stacked and burning is really what upset me. Chris
Click to expand...


It is/was for my own use

I honestly do not know what else to say. I want to say more about the subject, but out of respect for the Mods and the family atmosphere of WS&S i simply cannot say anymore.

:mad:
 
Last edited:
So why didn't you say all that calmly and rationally when the matter first came up? Might have cleared up a lot of misunderstanding. Chris
 
Bushman5 burns down another thread.

How many rules can I propose?

1. Don't drink and post.
2. Read what you've written before you post. And edit.
3. Don't insult other posters, not in word or tone.
4. Don't preach your personal politics in W&SS.

I'm closing this thread. I may re-open it tomorrow after I decide how to assure its civility. I think I know how to do that, but I'm too mad about this right now and I don't like taking action in this state of mind.

If another mod would like to take that action, I sure won't interfere.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
...I would ask Codger, how did the cost of meat you bought compare to the cost of an extra hunting licence? ...
Click to expand...

Our annual Sportsman license is $139. If I hunt seriously most of the season, I can get my money's worth (besides the enjoyment). If I paid to have the deer processed and only got one deer, that would be another $100 or so... about the same as New York Strip steak at over $6 per pound. That doesn't count ammo ($40 a box of 20), gas, hunting gear and clothes. At that scale, store bought meat is a lot cheaper. This year I processed about eight deer myself. The license cost averaged down greatly.

Still, while it is legal and ethical for friends to gift their tagged deer to me, I feel it would be unethical to let them tag my deer for me.
 
We just need to chill on both sides.

Grabbing a chunk of fatwood isn't a felony, and jacking deer for profit is a very bad thing.

We, as a group are probably more ethical and law abiding by FAR than the average.

We need to keep that in perspective.

So while we may be critical of each others actions, what any individual here may do might be in question in your mind, but it is NOTHING compared to what many others of a different mindet are capable of.

Not such a slippery slope as many might think.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
What's lawful and what's ethical aren't always the same, but in Codger's case and in August's case, if both wives had licences, the law wouldn't mind a bit if twice the kills were made -- that's the logic of licencing.
Click to expand...

that's not true everywhere- there are some states that allow party hunting (with certain caveats- ie have to be in the field), but many (most?) states do not

not everyone hunts for meat, there are folks that hunt only for trophies- I for one wouldn't want someone with four family member's tags in his pocket to harvest four mature bucks/bulls

not much of a hunt when someone else kills your game IMO :(
 
No, it would be illegal here for me to kill a deer (or catch fish over my limit) and try to cover it with someone else's license.

My hunting/fishing ethics are, like most people's, the product of a lot of factors. My grandfather's teaching (during a time when deer were scarce and limits were strict), my own hunting experiences both alone and with a large hunting club (over 100 members, thousands of acres - three deer limit), and time spent as a hunter education instructor. My self imposed ethics include obeying game laws to the tee. It isn't about getting caught by the critter cops or damaging the resource, it is about respecting myself.
 
mtwarden said:
that's not true everywhere- there are some states that allow party hunting (with certain caveats- ie have to be in the field), but many (most?) states do not

not everyone hunts for meat, there are folks that hunt only for trophies- I for one wouldn't want someone with four family member's tags in his pocket to harvest four mature bucks/bulls

not much of a hunt when someone else kills your game IMO :(
Click to expand...

I believe Esav was referring to fishing limits not big game. I don't know of anyplace, although it may exist, that tries to pin down who actually "caught" the fish opposed to the limits in possession matching the licenses allowing the limits. Big games licenses that I'm aware of, unless they are a "party" permit demand that the hunter taking the animal use his/her tag on the animal.

How about ethics as a higher standard than the law requires. On fragile water most all of the members of a fishing club I know practice only catch and release of fish. Although the law allows them to keep a limit they choose to not take fish but release them to grow, spawn, and possibly be caught again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top