i don't understand why he shot this particular animal

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by Bull Shooter

To Waxy and others that contributed to this thread – I would like to apologize for my actions. I succumbed to the temptation and for that I am embarrassed. I guess the thread exposed how very different we all are as hunters and how we employ different means to advance our passion. For me, this thread has never been about “I’m right and you are wrong”.

Mooseburger, I think I owe you an apology as well. After reading my previous posts, I want to ensure you that I was in no way “miffed” at you personally. It was my belief (correct or incorrect) that your original post might have been “tamed” with additional information. Regards, Mike

No need to apologize to me.

Hopefully we all come away with a little better understanding of the issue.

Waxy

[rugatika]

I don't speak french.

Originally Posted by rugatika

Have you seen the one where the guy dresses up in camo and hides in the bush. He uses a rifle (YES an actual rifle) to kill a deer from over a hundred yards away. Simply disgusting. How is this fair chase? Sounds more like an ambush to me. The only fair way to hunt is with a pair of running shoes and your bare hands. The deer should be alerted that you desire to kill it before engaging. People (and I use the term loosely) that kill with mechanical devices are not hunting.

Hardly the same thing, this is at NIGHT with lights and from the box of a moving vehicle. These would be considered poeachers in Alberta, but since it is ok to do this in Maine everything is fine? I am sorry but my views on the ethics of hunting do not change depending on which part of the world i am in.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I don't speak french.

It's Latin actually -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Essentially it's a form of argument by which you take a person's point and create an analogy based on it that is cleary absurd in order to prove the person's original point is also absurd. It can be a logically correct form of argument, but most of the time, it's logically incorrect because the analogy breaks down.

It's a common way of avoiding or not addressing a point, while at the same time, attempting to make the original person look foolish.

Waxy

[rugatika]

If it's legal and safe, I really don't have a problem with it. Some folks hunt deer with hounds, some folks bait, some folks hunt deer with a 22 centerfire. I'm not comfortable doing all of these, but I'm not going to put another man down for following the law.

My point being that there are a wide variety of opinions on what is ethical or not. Some based on fact, some based on our culture, and so on. There currently are people that think that hunting is OK, but just not with rifles.

I believe they spotlight kangaroos or wombats or jackals or something in Australia. Does this make them evil too?

.

The whole "if it's legal then you're good to go" thing doesn't really make much sense to me when certain people say it. Where you OK with the IMHA? Because it was legal.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by rugatika

If it's legal and safe, I really don't have a problem with it. Some folks hunt deer with hounds, some folks bait, some folks hunt deer with a 22 centerfire. I'm not comfortable doing all of these, but I'm not going to put another man down for following the law.

My point being that there are a wide variety of opinions on what is ethical or not. Some based on fact, some based on our culture, and so on. There currently are people that think that hunting is OK, but just not with rifles.

Does having an opinion necessarily mean that opinion should be respected?

Do you agree that we need to draw lines somewhere?

Obviously there will never be 100% agreement, but where there's a general concensus, I think there's sufficient reason to impose these regulations based on safety, and yes, the ethics of them.

I'm quite certain that jack lighting animals would not pass either test here in AB, so why give it an unquestioned free pass elsewhere?

I believe they spotlight kangaroos or wombats or jackals or something in Australia. Does this make them evil too?

To the best of my knowledge, I don't think this is hunting so much as outright population control, it's not done with "sport" in mind.

I don't think that's true in this particular instance, but perhaps that is the case. If it's the last resort, done safely, and the only effective means of predator control, then I don't have a problem with it. Just don't call it "hunting".

Waxy

[Walleyes]

And are we sure that the people shooting these coyotes consider it hunting .. Probably more predator control than anything.. And if thats what it takes for them to control the population who are we to argue.. Don't judge people on what you see on youtube get the whole story.. They may be hunting but I'm sure that the state has aloud this to take place because other forms of control have failed...

I have heard that they do a similar thing in Australia to control the Kangaroo population.. I don't think its considered hunting there either..

[rugatika]

"It's a common way of avoiding or not addressing a point, while at the same time, attempting to make the original person look foolish."

Apparently my attempt at making my point was a little bit of a stretch for some.

I was arguing the absurd to point out that one man's poison is another man's medicine. Ethics are not necessarily a universal doctrine. For some, the hunting of coyotes is a means of predator control and may not necessarily be about the sport of the hunt. Some of us hunt simply for meat, some hunt for the challenge, some hunt to connect with nature, some hunt for all the above, some hunt to protect livestock etc etc.

Originally Posted by Walleyes

And are we sure that the people shooting these coyotes consider it hunting .. Probably more predator control than anything.. And if thats what it takes for them to control the population who are we to argue.. Don't judge people on what you see on youtube get the whole story.. They may be hunting but I'm sure that the state has aloud this to take place because other forms of control have failed...

I have heard that they do a similar thing in Australia to control the Kangaroo population.. I don't think its considered hunting there either..

It was on WildTV so i would assume they would consider it hunting. Also 209 said there is a licsence for it. But thank you for not reading before you post it's always a pleasure.

Originally Posted by Waxy

Does having an opinion necessarily mean that opinion should be respected?

Do you agree that we need to draw lines somewhere?

Obviously there will never be 100% agreement, but where there's a general concensus, I think there's sufficient reason to impose these regulations based on safety, and yes, the ethics of them.

I'm quite certain that jack lighting animals would not pass either test here in AB, so why give it an unquestioned free pass elsewhere?



To the best of my knowledge, I don't think this is hunting so much as outright population control, it's not done with "sport" in mind.

I don't think that's true in this particular instance, but perhaps that is the case. If it's the last resort, done safely, and the only effective means of predator control, then I don't have a problem with it. Just don't call it "hunting".

Waxy

And what about things that are legal in Alberta and not in other areas. Would you like their will and ethics and judgement imposed upon us....what about catch and release angling....baiting bears......hunting with hounds.....spring bear hunting....hunting with centrefire rifles.....the use of scopes. These things are all illegal in other jurisdictions.

I'm sure you can pick and chose between that list based on your personal ethics but that's not what I'm talking about here. If you are so willing to impose what's right in Alberta or in you own personal mind on the rest o0f the world, you better be prepared to have other's will imposed upon you. Can anyone see the folly of this reasoning? This is the slipperiest slope there is.

Why would you want to condemn hunters in another part of the world for jacklighting for coyotes or kangaroos. You haven't got a clue surrounding the management reasons behind it and yes, it is legal...just as catch and release fishing is here. Sometimes you need to think beyond your backyard and that you are not the ethics police for the world because there are likely people in othe parts of the world just as willing to impose their will upon you. Would you like to be called an unethical angler because you release a fish? And before someone throws the reductio ad absurdum phrase out here don't. These are not abstract concepts. Spring bear hunting is illegal in Ontario......are spring bear hunters in Alberta unethical poachers Catch and release fishing is illegal in Germany....are catch and release anglers in Alberta slobs? These are not absurd or abstract concepts. Think about it. Who decides what's right and wrong...u?

[CNP]

Man this made me laugh hard and loud..........

And before someone throws the reductio ad absurdum phrase out here don't.

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

And what about things that are legal in Alberta and not in other areas. Would you like their will and ethics and judgement imposed upon us....what about catch and release angling....baiting bears......hunting with hounds.....spring bear hunting....hunting with centrefire rifles.....the use of scopes. These things are all illegal in other jurisdictions.

I'm willing to address each of them individually on their merits, and in conjuction with everyone that's a stake holder in the issue, in order to come up with a concensus that best serves everyone involved, including the wildlife.

I'm sure you can pick and chose between that list based on your personal ethics but that's not what I'm talking about here. If you are so willing to impose what's right in Alberta or in you own personal mind on the rest o0f the world, you better be prepared to have other's will imposed upon you. Can anyone see the folly of this reasoning? This is the slipperiest slope there is.

I can see the folly in the strawman you've created.

My statement was simple, and I stand by it, there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere, the world is not, and cannot be, a free for all. I realize that, and I'm one of the most staunchly independent and anti-authority people that I know of.

I didn't state that I want to impose my will on anyone, far from it. I stated that if there is a concensus amongst those involved that an action is questionable in terms of its ethics or safety, that it should be addressed.

Please respond to what I actually say sheephunter, not what you want to argue against.

Why would you want to condemn hunters in another part of the world for jacklighting for coyotes or kangaroos. You haven't got a clue surrounding the management reasons behind it and yes, it is legal...just as catch and release fishing is here.

Again, did you read my responses at all? I'll quote it for you -

Originally Posted by Waxy

If it's the last resort, done safely, and the only effective means of predator control, then I don't have a problem with it. Just don't call it "hunting".

I have got a clue thank you, so please don't speak to me as though I'm an ignorant child you're attempting to berate.

Sometimes you need to think beyond your backyard and that you are not the ethics police for the world because there are likely people in othe parts of the world just as willing to impose their will upon you.

Why is every topic here a personal one for you that seems to inevitably result in you attacking an individual, rather than the issue?

Where does this "ethics police" nonsense even come from?

Would you like to be called an unethical angler because you release a fish? And before someone throws the reductio ad absurdum phrase out here don't. These are not abstract concepts. Spring bear hunting is illegal in Ontario......are spring bear hunters in Alberta unethical poachers Catch and release fishing is illegal in Germany....are catch and release anglers in Alberta slobs? These are not absurd or abstract concepts. Think about it. Who decides what's right and wrong...u?

We all do as a collective - ie there is a concensus formed. That doesn't mean we're right, it just means that is what the majority agrees upon given our circumstances.

A concensus can decide that hunting humans is OK too and make it legal in their jurisdiction. Does that make it right? Would I be wrong for opposing such a thing because it doesn't fit my ethics? (Hyperbole here, not reductio ad absurdum. )

Waxy

[Walleyes]

oops sorry not to sure were I got youtube from,, read to many posts this morning I guess.. But the fact remains that I'm sure these hunts are done as predator control methods and not meant to portray ethical hunting methods..

Just some good old boys out havin some legal fun.. Sounds like a blast to me...

I'm willing to address each of them individually on their merits, and in conjuction with everyone that's a stake holder in the issue, in order to come up with a concensus that best serves everyone involved, including the wildlife.

And what gives YOU that right? That could be the scariest statement I've heard made on this board. When did you become the ethics police for the world?

[Waxy]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

And what gives YOU that right? That could be the scariest statement I've heard made on this board. When did you become the ethics police for the world?

Get off it sheephunter. You're either intentionally being assinine or unable to read for comprehension. Take your pick.

I'm truly finished in responding to you at this point. I should have taken my own advice and left this post alone when my gut told me too.

Waxy

can see the folly in the strawman you've created.

My statement was simple, and I stand by it, there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere, the world is not, and cannot be, a free for all. I realize that, and I'm one of the most staunchly independent and anti-authority people that I know of.

I didn't state that I want to impose my will on anyone, far from it. I stated that if there is a concensus amongst those involved that an action is questionable in terms of its ethics or safety, that it should be addressed.

Please respond to what I actually say sheephunter, not what you want to argue against.

And what is the strawman here waxy. I simply pointed out that this was a two way street. If you are so willing to interject your thoughts and judgement into the game laws of the rest of the world, you better be prepared for it here. I'm sticking to facts and they are not misleading or out of context, there is no strawman and no reductio ad absurdum.

[rugatika]

I don't think that's true in this particular instance, but perhaps that is the case. If it's the last resort, done safely, and the only effective means of predator control, then I don't have a problem with it. Just don't call it "hunting".

By definition, hunting strictly speaking, excludes the killing - though similar techniques may be used - of individual protected animals, such as bears which have become dangerous to humans, as well as the killing of non-game animals, domestic animals, or vermin as a means of pest control. Hunting can be a necessary[1] component of modern wildlife management, for example to help maintain a population of healthy animals within an environment's ecological carrying capacity when natural checks such as predators are absent.[2] In the United States, wildlife managers are frequently part of hunting regulatory and licensing bodies, where they help to set rules on the number, manner and conditions in which game may be selected for harvesting

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting

Originally Posted by Waxy

Get off it sheephunter. You're either intentionally being assinine or unable to read for comprehension. Take your pick.

I'm truly finished in responding to you at this point. I should have taken my own advice and left this post alone when my gut told me too.

Waxy

Waxy, no need to make this personal. You seemed to want a debate and I'm giving you one. I can't see anywhere that I've called you names or made slurrs....why are you going there? I'm sticking to facts and the fact is the world is a very diverse place and you cannot impose your ethics upon it without having others ethics imposed upon you.

Answer me two questions then. Why is jacklighting for coyotes or kangaroos wrong....with the provision it is done in a safe manner and with management goals in mind?

How is catch and release angling in Alberta right when it's proven to stress fish and cause mortaility and it's being done for no other reason than the personal gratification of the angler. (As argued by the Germans)

Why is every topic here a personal one for you that seems to inevitably result in you attacking an individual, rather than the issue?

Where does this "ethics police" nonsense even come from?

It's personal because I'm passionate about the heritage of hunting but I certainly never attacked you....unless presenting a number of facts counter to your position is attacking. Guess you didn't spend much time in the dark dank debating room.......

Now who is offering up a strawman?

A concensus can decide that hunting humans is OK too and make it legal in their jurisdiction. Does that make it right? Would I be wrong for opposing such a thing because it doesn't fit my ethics? (Hyperbole here, not reductio ad absurdum. )

Sorry but that was definitely a reductio ad absurdum.

Sheep, so would it be safe for me to assume that you agree with natives being allowed to use lights for hunting in BC?

[209x50]

Originally Posted by Waxy

I'm willing to address each of them individually on their merits, and in conjuction with everyone that's a stake holder in the issue, in order to come up with a concensus that best serves everyone involved, including the wildlife.

Jez waxy I'd maybe wait for an invite before I stuck my nose in where it didn't belong. I mean no offence but these countries might not have heard of you or they might not agree with your ethics. I'd wait for the invite...

My statement was simple, and I stand by it, there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere, the world is not, and cannot be, a free for all. I realize that, and I'm one of the most staunchly independent and anti-authority people that I know of.

So it seems as long you are the authority.

I didn't state that I want to impose my will on anyone, far from it. I stated that if there is a concensus amongst those involved that an action is questionable in terms of its ethics or safety, that it should be addressed.

Earth to waxy, earth to waxy, it seems these unruly people went ahead and formed their own consensus on how they would deal with their game. With out you! I know I'm just as shocked as you!

reductio ad absurdum. Waxy

You got that from Harry Potter didn't ya?

Sheep, so would it be safe for me to assume that you agree with natives being allowed to use lights for hunting in BC?

This was never about what I personally agree or don't agree with and that's the point.....I'm just not to go about putting down others in other parts of the world for doing things that fall within their game laws.

The native issue is a strawdog though, just as the Metis issue is as those are rights being afforded under the constitution and not game laws. Subsistence hunting has nothing to with fair chase or sport hunting. It's a totally seperate issue and really has no place in this debate. Certainly the rights afforded aboriginal people in this country could be debated in a seperate thread but definitely it's not a fit in a discussion about sport hunting.

So to answer your question, no, please don't assume that. And don't assume that I'm okay with anything personally as I have many thoughts on many hunting practices that could be contrary to accepted laws but I'm not about to go on a public forum and bash a hunter in another part of the world or at home for that matter based solely on my personal thoughts. I understand that the world is a big place and ethics and local customs differ around it. Just because I disagree with it just means I don't partake...not that I condemn.

Originally Posted by 209x50

Jez waxy I'd maybe wait for an invite before I stuck my nose in where it didn't belong. I mean no offence but these countries might not have heard of you or they might not agree with your ethics. I'd wait for the invite...



So it seems as long you are the authority.


Earth to waxy, earth to waxy, it seems these unruly people went ahead and formed their own consensus on how they would deal with their game. With out you! I know I'm just as shocked as you!


You got that from Harry Potter didn't ya?

I wish your TV show was as entertaining as your multi-quote posts.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

This was never about what I personally agree or don't agree with and that's the point.....I'm just not to go about putting down others in other parts of the world for doing things that fall within their game laws.

The native issue is a strawdog though, just as the Metis issue is as those are rights being afforded under the constitution and not game laws. Subsistence hunting has nothing to with fair chase or sport hunting. It's a totally seperate issue and really has no place in this debate. Certainly the rights afforded aboriginal people in this country could be debated in a seperate thread but definitely it's not a fit in a discussion about sport hunting.

I understand if you can't ansewer that, it's tough question.

I answered to the best of ability 340...I don't have all the facts surrounding that issue and I'm sure it's a very complex one. While some people are willing to go off half-cocked with an opinion...I like to be fully loaded. It's far more complex that how it fits my ethics as a sport hunter. There are several constitutional issues here. It was like when I finally spoke my piece on the Metis issue....I got all the facts first, never made and comments about those personally involved and worked within the system to make changes.

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I answered to the best of ability 340...I don't have all the facts surrounding that issue and I'm sure it's a very complex one. While some people are willing to go off half-cocked with an opinion...I like to be fully loaded.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/...t.html?ref=rss

All i was asking was wether or not you support the aboriginal night hunting.