The Ethical Woodsman

[Raisedby wolves]

Caught the fish here.

AND I have personally witnessed a set of kids about 8 yrs old whose father got a ticket because they were crabbing and caught a fish in a crabtrap. They were playing with it on the bank of the river and Dad didn't have a fishing liscense.

BUT

That doesn't make illegal taking of fish and game ethical.

 

[Gaurdian_A1]

The law is the law. Strait up. You break it, you pay for it. Simple simple! What we do with the law in our own time is up to us, how we obey rules in our own time is up to us.

Whatever the law may be, however ridiculous or justified. the law is the law. We all know it and base our decisions according to our own beliefs based on what each of us think is BS or justified.

Either way, we all know the rules.

What else is there to say?

Its that easy.

 

[Ramm9]

Caught the fish here.

AND I have personally witnessed a set of kids about 8 yrs old whose father got a ticket because they were crabbing and caught a fish in a crabtrap. They were playing with it on the bank of the river and Dad didn't have a fishing liscense.

BUT

That doesn't make illegal taking of fish and game ethical.

Interesting but makes sense I guess, the gear must be dad's and no license so he get's tagged...what if dad wasn't around? My guess is it is like a situation where the kid is fishing, hands dad the pole while going up to the cooler and the warden nails dad for fishing without a license.

I was thinking more along the lines of four guys in a boat, all with licenses, tossing their catch into a keeper pail.

 

[midnight flyer]

AND I have personally witnessed a set of kids about 8 yrs old whose father got a ticket because they were crabbing and caught a fish in a crabtrap. They were playing with it on the bank of the river and Dad didn't have a fishing liscense.

BUT

That doesn't make illegal taking of fish and game ethical.

OK... now that's getting a little close to the line. Enough to make a judgment call. If you aren't required to have a fishing license to crab, and you accidentally catch a fish, I would hope the warden would see fit to use some field judgment. But if you are required to have a license to take anything from the water, then you are toast. The trap should be pulled up, and the fish released. (I am assuming he was alive; as a kid, when I crabbed the Texas coast, even in a trap the crabs would eat ANYTHING that got in there with them.)

I think these threads get far off track because there are some that have the "deal with it" and "live with it" when it comes to their actions. As in real life, these guys are a joy to be around. It is easy to get your hackles raised when directly challenged.

There was a great remark that was made a couple of pages back that I was thinking about today, and it was one that considered the location of the folks that were posting. I think there is something to that remark. While I am thinking that many of us here would be much more in agreement if we were all chatting over a beer, being told to accept an opinion in a scolding and condescending way makes it seem like we are very far apart. Then it becomes a personal challenge to accept another's views without any consideration of your own opinion. I actually don't think many would actually be here if they didn't have some concern or appreciation for nature.

I am not so sure we are all so far apart on this subject.

Down here in S. Texas, everything grows slow, and recovers even more slowly. If the landscape is scarred in some way and we have 3 - 4 years of drought after that, it doesn't even start to repair itself. Ponds dry up, the springs that feed them dry up, the rivers and lakes go to horrible low levels, and all growth stops. Add in 100+ degree days (last year we had 61 of them) and nature just about goes dormant.

With that in mind, from my earliest scout days we were taught LNT+, and responsible environmental resource management. I was taught "leave it as you would like to find it" by my old scoutmaster in the mid 60s. That hasn't ever left me.

I don't see anything wrong with harvesting downed or rotting wood; don't care for the sneering at others while doing it, though. We don't have the dense undergrowth or huge sapling populations that others have to chop down trees to test our knives. The just don't exist here, so we think that cutting down a tree for an overnight stay or to "practice" some skill or another is heresy. We don't have the resources.

However, when visiting a friend in TN a few years ago, we went on a hike at a state park, and just off the trail the brush/saplings/thorny vines etc., were so thick you couldn't see more than about 25'. Cutting something out of there wouldn't have been noticed at all. They may have been glad you did it.

On the other hand, there were no laws or park rules against it, either. The only rules they had there were the generic "no fires except in fire rings, no wood except deadfall, no loose dogs, no glass containers, and pack out everything you brought in". Nothing wrong with that.

Here things are more stringent due to the drought conditions. No open fires most of the time ( I DO miss those), no trailblazing, and other fire related rules.

Our game wardens are strict. Fines are heavy, tolerance low, and they can even confiscate your guns, fishing equipment, etc. I am in favor of that. This forced lawful compliance has helped put us in the fine position here in TX (at least for now) of not having to close or neglect our state parks. We hunters and fishers pick up about half the tab of park maintenance with our licenses, and it is generally acknowledged that you are doing your responsible part by purchasing your license. No one complains about that. We have a very active Parks department, so we get some bang for our buck.

Additionally, when you go to a state park, there is an entrance fee of ($5 ?) a carload. You can get an overnight pass, a weekend pass, or as I do a yearly pass. No one complains about the $5 either, and even though it is rumored to go up a couple of bucks, no one really cares. Some of our parks are just that nice.

Things just seem pretty relaxed around here. Everyone knows the rules, pretty much everyone obeys, and everyone gets along.

All of that being said, in my mind the responsible and ethical folks on the trail just need to do two things:

- remember that your real measure of integrity is how you act when you know no one is looking

- like my old scoutmaster said in '65, leave the place like you would want to find it.

Robert

 

[Codger_64]

How about ethics as a higher standard than the law requires.

Yes. Absolutely. To my way of thinking, ethics is something we impose on ourselves, and for me, that quite often goes beyond what the law requires.

I had mentioned that we are overpopulated with deer here. Limits are very liberal. In fact, we don't even have to take a deer to check stations anymore. We can tag them online.

Even with the more strict limits on deer back when I was a member of that large club, and checking was done on a tally sheet at our clubhouse, I wasn't tempted to cheat. It wasn't so much about the wardens, the law, the club rules or the health of the herd. It was about how I felt about myself.

 

[tradja]

We've started packing out TP on occasion. My wife is much more strict about it than I am. I still prefer to burn used TP in the cathole, but in many places in the arid West, this is explicitly banned much of the year.

Tarp camping leaves a lesser footprint. Also, our style of weekend- and thru-hiking has us on the trail for most of the day so we're not tromping around camp starting use trails.

Since I've gotten into knives the past few years I do build more fires. I very seldom did before. If I don't use an existing ring, I build the fire WAY off the beaten path and restore the area afterward.

I had to laugh at roak-k's comment on stinky thru-hikers and will take it to heart. However, even with a sponge bath (some of us still call it a "dundo shower"), thru-hiker gear itself stinks more than enough to make up for a clean body.

What irks me is when people feel justified breaking some reasonable rule simply because they were unprepared. For example:
-- building a fire during a ban because you forgot your stove or don't know how to run it. (seen both)
-- camping in area closed to camping because you ran out of daylight to make it out of the closure zone (poor fitness, late start, long breaks, etc)
-- camping in closed area because you don't know how to camp away from water or don't have enough capacity to carry water to camp.
-- not burying poo because you have no shovel (use a stick or your heel!)
-- leaving trash all around: you can bring multiple 30-packs of Natty Ice, but you can't bring a bag for the cans?
-- no permit where required: "dude, last minute trip". I know not everyone will agree with this one, and I used to do it all the time when the wilderness boundary was 1 mile from my front door but the permit office was 60 miles away and only open when I was working.
-- AT-specific: Rainy night. Shelter is 105% full. You've got a spot in the shelter, you're all set up and bedding down. Randoms show and have no tent.
-- Random dog craps on trail in front of you. You look at owner. Owner shrugs sheepishly and says "Oh, I forgot to bring a bag!" Too bad for you that your dog crapped on the trail, then. You got pockets?
-- Party size limited to X. You run into party of X+5. Yeah, I understand that you're not going to leave 5 people at the trailhead, but that was piss poor planning on somebody's part.
-- reservation crashers. Your reserved site/hut. Randoms show up. OK, I've been on both sides of this in the past too, but I've stopped.
-- reservations squatters. You show up. Random is all spread out, claims to have reservation. Except that it is not a reservable area. Usually this is just a misunderstanding.
-- mostly thru-hikers: enter a closed area because that's where the AT/PCT/CDT/JMT/etc "goes". Sure, I understand that you've got miles to make, next winter to beat, specific maps, and no car available, but c'mon, figure it out. The first (and last) time I did this, I ended up looking down the barrel of an M16A1 with the safety off and a finger inside the trigger guard, receiving a screamed lecture about martial law.
-- thru-hikers: any variant of implicit or explicit "the rules don't apply to me". I'm a Triple Crowner and haven't had to play the thru-hiker card more than a very few times....

The other ethical lapses that get me are:
-- FOIL IN THE FIREPIT
-- hikers/equestrians/MTB/sleds/snowshoes on a trail that is explicitly closed to that use
-- unleashed muddy jumpy dogs
-- damaging water sources in arid areas (dog crap, stock manure, stock trampling, ramen, toothpaste, "biodegradable" soap, wrappers, etc)

 

[August West]

It wasn't so much about the wardens, the law, the club rules or the health of the herd. It was about how I felt about myself.

I understand completely but sometimes those very ethics and higher standards can, and do, harm the herd. Such as a lot of peoples aversion to shooting anything but bucks. Our buck to doe ratio is about 1 to 8 even with the state allowing 12 anterless and 1 antlered deer. People still, because of misguided eithics, won't shoot the does, which would help the herd in the long run. Where I am from, if 4 deer come within range, 3 does and one little young basket racked 6 point, most people will shoot the little buck, absolutely insane, any of the deer are legal. Chris

 

[Toucan Oasis]

Wow. I've only seen signs of activity in the woods a hand full of times in almost 5 years. That's usually machete work to clear a spot for a fire or tent. I couldn't imagine using a tent here but the gear for locals is severely limited.
I have run into hikers but they usually are day hikers as few people want to spend the night in the jungle.

 

[Codger_64]

I understand completely but sometimes those very ethics and higher standards can, and do, harm the herd. Such as a lot of peoples aversion to shooting anything but bucks. Our buck to doe ratio is about 1 to 8 even with the state allowing 12 anterless and 1 antlered deer. People still, because of misguided eithics, won't shoot the does, which would help the herd in the long run. Where I am from, if 4 deer come within range, 3 does and one little young basket racked 6 point, most people will shoot the little buck, absolutely insane, any of the deer are legal. Chris

Yes, I had a huge blowup in the hunting club I mentioned because I purposely took a yearling (completely lawful and not against club rules). Many of the members were older gents and had a mindset (personal ethics) that were developed during the bad old days of low deer populations when it was darn near a mortal sin to kill a doe, much less a "fawn" (yearling).

We had been pulling the jawbone of every deer harvested for two years to determine the age structure of our herd.

The older members didn't agree with me (and the G&FC biologist) that we needed to leave our heavily pressured bucks alone for a few years, and put our efforts into reducing the non-antlered deer population. In other words, it was time for QDM instead of increasing the herd size.

In this case, ethics born of archaic laws were getting in the way of sound game management. I won my case (I was actually given an expulsion hearing) and became club President, but this conflict lost me some good friends and took a lot of the joy out of my hunting.

 

[Diomedes Industries]

Isn't it funny Codger that often in these cases, even if you win... you loose.

I remember reading that many of the first nation tribes would take weaker animals out of the herd to get the meat they needed but also to help the herd. They base this on nature.

TF

 

[Codger_64]

IMHO, even the dumbest farmer knows not to kill his best breeding bulls every year.

But yeah, it was a lesson I haven't forgotten. Be selective when and how you defend yourself. Friends don't need explanations and enemies won't believe you anyway. If it had not been for my honesty with our check and report system, my taking of "poor widdle Bambi" would have never been an issue. Another important lesson was that I don't have the kill instinct to be top dog in the politics of a large club. I was embarrased to be a hero to some and saddened to be Satan incarnate to others. As I said, it took a lot of joy from a lifelong activity.

Oh, and just to resart the firestorm, a large part of the social life of the club was built around the eons old local Southern tradition of using deer hounds to push deer out of swamps and thickets past posted hunters. (Codger ducks and runs for cover).........

 

[mdauben]

-- Party size limited to X. You run into party of X+5. Yeah, I understand that you're not going to leave 5 people at the trailhead, but that was piss poor planning on somebody's part.

Reminds me of the last time I was doing a week on the AT a few years ago. I put in a good day on the trail, and arrived at a totally empty shelter. It looked like rain that night, so I set up in the shelter and started cooking dinner. Later, a huge group of young boys (20-30) shows up as part of a "guided hike" lead by one (1) adult. They had no stoves, no tents, and crappy equipment.

Now, there are few if any shelters along the AT that will hold 30+ people comfortably, and that certainly was not one of them. As many of them as could crowed in, and the rest slept under the picnic table or out in the rain. Any sensible veteran of the trail would have known that was an impractially large group, certainly so if you are planning on using the shelter system. If their "guide" was taking money for this trip he should be ashamed of himself, but either way it was a classic case of the blind leading the blind.

After listening to the group bitch and moan most of the night, I got up at the crack of dawn while they were mostly all still asleep and started double-timing down the trail so I would not have to share my day with them.

 

[CaptInsano]

I don't have a problem with conservation in general, but sometimes I have some trouble with the way it is applied. If the authorities want to run a park so strictly that it effectively becomes an outdoor museum, I'd rather just not go for most purposes.

 

[Rick Marchand]

Discussions concerning the Law have their place in ethical behavior... but they do not define ethics IMO. There are many moral descisions we make on the trail that do not involve the law.... I don't want this thread to get hung up on that.

Mdauben's above post is a great example...

I think it was ethically/morally/logically irrresponsible for a guide to take a group that size on the AT as unprepared as it appeared.

I made a post in another thread about FAK's. My personal kit is extremely minimal but is more than adequate for my needs. If I was trekking with capable woodsman, I would expect them to have personal FAK's as well. If I took a group out, they are under MY care, and I would most certainly bring a kit to serve the needs of the group. I would make it a point to access the groups existing medical requirements and incorporate them into my FAK.... regardless of the individual's personal preparations. To me, that is the responsible/ethical way to go about it.

I don't take it to the next level, though. I wouldn't NORMALLY bring a large FAK on the trail expecting to be prepared for everyone else's needs... that is up to them. That being said, I do have highly stocked kits in both of my vehicles. The bulk is not an inconveniece in this situation. That is where I have to battle with my personal ethics. To come up on a random hiker having an allergic reaction to a bee sting is a definate possibility. My group FAK has an epipen... by choice, my personal does not... that hiker may die because I catered to my convenience. Its a decision I have to live with.

Rick

 

[Bushman5]

There was a great remark that was made a couple of pages back that I was thinking about today, and it was one that considered the location of the folks that were posting. I think there is something to that remark. While I am thinking that many of us here would be much more in agreement if we were all chatting over a beer, being told to accept an opinion in a scolding and condescending way makes it seem like we are very far apart. Then it becomes a personal challenge to accept another's views without any consideration of your own opinion. I actually don't think many would actually be here if they didn't have some concern or appreciation for nature.

I am not so sure we are all so far apart on this subject.

Down here in S. Texas, everything grows slow, and recovers even more slowly. If the landscape is scarred in some way and we have 3 - 4 years of drought after that, it doesn't even start to repair itself. Ponds dry up, the springs that feed them dry up, the rivers and lakes go to horrible low levels, and all growth stops. Add in 100+ degree days (last year we had 61 of them) and nature just about goes dormant.

great post!

here in BC stuff grows very quickly. High winds fell hundreds of thousands of trees a year. Logging produces massive (1000 hectare+ clear cuts) of stumps and downs trees and debris. And yet despite that nature springs back tenfold.

location location location.

on a side note, I apologize for the aggressive tone in my posts that resulted in thread lockdown. (and no ESAV, i was not drinking that night until much later after lockdown ). Again, location + circumstances come into play...one really needs to be present and aware of all the factors before slagging a person. I'm guilty of this too in several posts here

 

[Ramm9]

we needed to leave our heavily pressured bucks alone for a few years, and put our efforts into reducing the non-antlered deer population.

Wisconsin combated resistance by instituting a plan called "earn-a-buck" to force hunters to thin the herd. A hunter was required to take a doe first and at registration received a "buck tag" valid for the current or following year.

 

[Rick Marchand]

I am reminded of a situation where wolves had been taking livestock from a farming community in the mountains. In their wisdom, the authorities decided to disban the pack by removing the alpha male and 2-3 of the high ranking pack members. Well with none of the leaders to keep the pecking order, it was open season for mating and the pack was divide 2-3 times over. Within the next few years the towns folk had an even bigger wolf problem and the numbers had to be thinned yet again. I don't remember what the show was... some documentary type thing.

I would consider that unethical conservation management.

 

[CaptInsano]

I am reminded of a situation where wolves had been taking livestock from a farming community in the mountains. In their wisdom, the authorities decided to disban the pack by removing the alpha male and 2-3 of the high ranking pack members. Well with none of the leaders to keep the pecking order, it was open season for mating and the pack was divide 2-3 times over. Within the next few years the towns folk had an even bigger wolf problem and the numbers had to be thinned yet again. I don't remember what the show was... some documentary type thing.

I would consider that unethical conservation management.

That's not unethical, its just incompetent.

 

[Ramm9]

That's not unethical, its just incompetent.

I agree, they tried to come up with a novel solution and it backfired. If the solution was tried previously and the likely result was going to be the same but they did it anyhow I think that would be unethical.

 

[Rick Marchand]

To me, they did not do the research prior to excetuting their solution. The info/studies are out there... they have known for a long time how the heirarchy works within wolf packs.

Just as smacking your kid may seem okay to some (the old... "I was raised that way, and it didn't leave me scarred for life" arguement) Ethics are relative to the individual. I believe that even though they felt they were doing the right thing... that by not doing the proper research they set up the future generations of those packs for slaughter.

Unethical, as I define it. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree.


Rick