Ethics of hunting ... should I learn to hunt deer?

I hear you Pack Rat.:p

Krull,

Do you hunt on your own land, all the places I hunt you would get some very strange looks, if not a free trip in the backseat of a cruiser for hacking animals with a sword. I like to kill too that is part of the reason I hunt, but there is also a little thing in the back of my mind that feels sorry for the animal, if I ever lose that I think I will start putting crossword puzzles together. Ethics are a funny thing and everyones tend to be a bit different, if you were testing a new blade on a hog that was being butchered to me is perfectly fine, hacking at a wounded deer is not fine to me. But that is the thing about ethics what is not OK for me is perfectly fine for other people. Chris
 
Pack Rat said:
Krull, I gather you mean that you might finish off a wounded Deer after it has been taken by rifle or Bow. If this is the case, be very careful if it is a Buck with good horns and still has some life left. Even a doe will fight to the finish and those hoves and horns will do serious damage. We never get close to a downed deer till we have tossed a few rocks at it. Be aware that a Game Warden is really gonna quizz you about a sword. If he even thinks you are trying to take a deer with it, you are in trouble. Lots of rules on legal means and methods.

On the other hand,, hunting with a knife is a whole nother concept...:eek: :)
Click to expand...

I'm hopeful they'll see the rifle in my hands!,but I know deer are rather dangerous so I may need to look into a small shield.

I have 65 acers I live on so wardens don't enter the pic too often,in general when I can't carry a pistol I'll have a khuk;sword and small knife on my belt...when I've got my .45 cal Glock 21 the khuk goes but I've still got the sword and small knife with me.

@runningboar

See above;no I'm not testing....I've always been "funny" and not fit too well with others,I've just come to accept I like to kill and the more up close and personal the better;bloodlust ain't so bad you'know it's been bred out of us so we can have "ethics" but it's lost on us that such will destroy the western nations...and God help us if we manage to make all the world "civilized"

We fail to realize that we need out-and-out killers.
 
See above;no I'm not testing....I've always been "funny" and not fit too well with others,>>>> Krull

Gee, this makes you ordinary around here.


munk
 
The debate goes on and on. I don't hunt, but have no quarrel with those who do. Anyone who has ever visited a slaughterhouse will never accuse a hunter of cruelty. They have also never seen a herd of diseased deer, starving because the population is too great for the habitat. I have. Animals were created for the use of humans. We might as well accept that fact, and get on with our lives. I see more mistreatment of people than animals lately.
 
I have seen the need for killers first hand, and I kill very well, but I don't seem to enjoy it quite as much as you do.

As far as civilizing the world, the human race is impossible to civilize regardless of laws in place.

I think when you enjoy hacking animals with a sword it is a bit odd, but there are lots of folks that think shooting quail with a shotgun is a bit odd, that is why ethics are your own. Chris
 
I don't mind people who hunt to eat, but hunting for trophies isn't right in my opinion. Killing shouldn't be a sport, it should be a means of survival.
 
Capt. Carl said:
I don't mind people who hunt to eat, but hunting for trophies isn't right in my opinion. Killing shouldn't be a sport, it should be a means of survival.
Click to expand...

What about controlling the herd? If we only hunted for survival we would be over ran in a few short years. Hunting for sport and/or trophies is what 99.9999% of all people do. I have killed game very, very few times in my life because I was hungry, there is a store on every corner I can always buy food. No, we hunt because we enjoy it and that is justification enough.

Now I believe that you have an obligation to kill the game as quickly and cleanly as possible and try not to cause undue suffering and I also believe, unless it is a pest species like a starling or rat, you should use what you kill. Those are my ethics, if you talk to 10 people you are liable to get 10 answers on the same subject.

Laws and ethics are not the same thing, there is no law where I live saying it is illegal to shoot dove off a fence line if they are in season, but I think it is blasphemy. There is no law against jug fishing for catfish, but I would not dream of jugfishing, and think it is a lazy, redneck way to catch fish.

See what I am saying, everyone has their on thoughts, ideas, and ethics which doesn't mean I am wrong or the jug fishermen, just different. Chris
 
What I was trying to convey was you should eat what you kill. Not just cut off it's head and put it on the wall. Although I am not familiar with hunting. Do most people who hunt for sport like that eat the animal?
 
Yes, unless they are hunting something that one does not normally eat, or hunting abroad where restrictions and time may apply.


munk
 
As far as using a pistol, then a khukri to kill deer....Do the deer a favor and confine yourself to close in, broadside lung shots (double lungers). Handguns do not deliver quite the shock you might imagine. As for using a khuk to render meat, why do you think they call them "venison chops", or lamb chops, or pork chops??? :D
 
Actually, if you hunt, rather than 'shoot', one can get within a hundred yards and use a large bore handgun to best effect upon large, thin skinned game, including Elk.

One of the most devasting put downs I ever brought to a deer was with a 41 mag handload at 35 yardsing a Redhawk with a 7.5" barrel.

Understanding tools - that's what it is about. Just like in knives.


munk
 
Kevin the grey said:
My buddy is on a road-kill pick-up list in New York . There is nothing like waking up after a hard night and still bleery eyed opening the fridge for some water .
Nope nothing like it at all if there is the mangled body of a still dripping deer hanging in it . I wondered about the ethics of the situation . L:O:L
Click to expand...

a roadkill list? heh.

around here, if you hit a deer, and don't take it, the first guy on the scene typically is going to offer to split it with you (lion's share for him since he'll clean it and deliver)... or just take it outright... the trooper or the tow truck guy... they always have someone in mind. i don't think the "list" would work :)

down around PA, people just spray paint the bodies orange as a hazard, and leave them be.

i ran into a woman (bang!) last week that said she lived "in the woods" for a few many months as an experiment. had an unheated cabin, that's about it. she'd go out for a ride on the ATV/snowmobile and look for fresh roadkill. anything a few hours old (or longer in winter) was game. never had to hunt. would occasionally go into town and rustle in the supermarket dumpsters - TONS of produce basically just a "little too old" for most people. suited her just fine. this is a woman that walks around everyday with a large leuukko on a dangler off her belt, looks healthier than anyone i've seen and could probably out wrestle a bear yet was still dainty :> rawr.

bladite
 
munk said:
Actually, if you hunt, rather than 'shoot', one can get within a hundred yards and use a large bore handgun to best effect upon large, thin skinned game, including Elk.

One of the most devasting put downs I ever brought to a deer was with a 41 mag handload at 35 yardsing a Redhawk with a 7.5" barrel.

Understanding tools - that's what it is about. Just like in knives.


munk
Click to expand...

A .223 with a 62gr. Nosler at 75yds and under is amazing-if put in the right place.
 
The lion lies down with the lamb – inside;
the little lamb never knew that he died.
One quick snap and his neck was broken;
for a lion to dine on, a lamb’s just a token.

Nature cruel? Nature’s quick!
Human killing makes me sick …
Round up the cattle and stuff them in cars,
pen them behind your fences and bars,

hang them by their heels
and don’t listen to their squeals,
and slide the knife across their throats with a flick!

I never heard a carrot complain when I had it for lunch.
Crunch!
 
OK, OK ...

Apple stew and broccoli sausage,
and hamburger lite from soy.
Do you think I could get real food to eat,
if I'm a good little boy?

Human teeth have sharp, strong edges,
human guts will digest anything;
anything made of meat is doomed
if humans taste its rib or its wing!
 
Esav, one of George Carlin's always cracks me up:

"And I think people have a lot of nerve locking up a tiger and charging four dollars to let a few thousand worthless humans shuffle past him every day. What a shi*ty thing to do. Humans must easily be the meanest species on Earth. Probably the only reason there are any tigers left is because they don't taste good."


Mike
 
Ad Astra said:
Esav, one of George Carlin's always cracks me up:

<snip>Probably the only reason there are any tigers left is because they don't taste good."


Mike
Click to expand...

Just ask a Steller's Sea Cow (now extinct). Steller's Sea Lion is a whole different story - they're the ones that want to eat you.
 
Krull said:
...I've just come to accept I like to kill and the more up close and personal the better...We fail to realize that we need out-and-out killers.
Click to expand...
We may be parting company here. Yes, we're predators. Yes, our place in the food-chain includes killing - and I think it's critical that we examine that - not shy away from it, but take responsibility.

But my responsibility as a self-conscious predator is to respect my prey - to cause the least harm in what is admittedly a killing situation. Otherwise, why not simply go out to inflict pain? But again and again here, hunters have emphasized marksmanship - make the killing shot, not one which simply wounds. Track down any wounded prey, and finish them off humanely.

Maybe that's also your practice and your feeling - but if so, it's not clear in your post. Personally, I'd be worried if I chose a style of hunting because it maximally calls up blood-lust - that the blood lust is a big piece of what I'd be looking for. I'd think very hard about choosing as up-close-and-personal a style as possible, so as to increase the impact of the killing. Frankly, that's a warning sign, Krull.

While we do need "out-and-out killers," they need to be kept on a short leash. I want competent, highly skilled professionals out hunting Bin Laden; I want equally competent, highly skilled professionals hunting down the Jeffrey Dahmers and other sociopaths threatening us here.

But I don't want those professionals to enjoy or give in to their blood lust to the point that they become Bin Laden, or Jeffrey Dahmer. There is a real line to walk, however thin.
 
Everyone I know wants to cause the least suffering to the animal as possible.
There are many methods of take which can produce a humane kill in the right hands at the right time.


>>>>>>>>

Tom, When I decided to hunt, it was after looking at everything the wilderness and deserts had given me. It seemed foolish not to complete the cycle- understand where I came from.
How odd it would be to spend all that investment of time without the single fundemental truth of the hunt- what every creature there except me was doing.

munk
 
Absolutely, Munk.

I write back and forth to a farmer in Maine, who raises sheep. Kills them with a quick knife to the throat ... he and I each think that's swift and humane. I remember a novel about an orthodox Jewish family, where the butcher father killed chickens in a Kosher way, despite selling to a Gentile clientele.

The author commented that the Kosher killing was really appreciated by nobody except the butcher himself, and, in an odd way, the chicken.

I simply had some alarm bells ring reading Krull's post. Krull, if I misread your intention, pls. accept my apology. If I didn't misread your intention ... my concern stands ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top