Personal ethics, laws and hating on other hunters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

There are some "legal" practices that deserve condemnation.

---

This is fair. I recall shortly before the ban on the spring bear hunt, John Kerr (who was OOD's Managing Editor since time immemorial) wrote an editorial reminding readers that if we as hunters do not have ethical debates, others will have them for us.

But this tendency to jump on people who post pics (especially of fish), or accuse others of being slob hunters, etc., is really not helpful.

There's room for respectful debate on things like buckshot for deer.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This is fair. I recall shortly before the ban on the spring bear hunt, John Kerr (who was OOD's Managing Editor since time immemorial) wrote an editorial reminding readers that if we as hunters do not have ethical debates, others will have them for us.

But this tendency to jump on people who post pics (especially of fish), or accuse others of being slob hunters, etc., is really not helpful.

There's room for respectful debate on things like buckshot for deer.

---

We agree that we need to have the discussions among ourselves and do so respectfully.

But that isn't what the OP wants. He doesn't even want the debate. He is demanding we defend any and all hunting practices providing they are legal and stay of discussions on subjects that we believe are unethical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

We are a fraternity of hunters, we are a very minimal spec of the population in North America and we should be standing up for all legal methods of hunting and all legal practices.

---

No one should be expected to "stand up for" what they regard as unethical practices nor should anyone attempt to suppress their opinions by declaring they are part of some so-called "fraternity."

This all sounds wonderful Fox, but when it comes to who these so-called abusive posters are, I think maybe you should be looking a little closer to home, or in the mirror for that matter.

Practice what you're preaching here a little more and maybe you'll be a little more respected in turn.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

If something is legal , and you do not like it, work to change the rules, but do not complain when others follow them. They have done nothing wrong.:thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

We agree that we need to have the discussions among ourselves and do so respectfully.

But that isn't what the OP wants. He doesn't even want the debate. He is demanding we defend any and all hunting practices providing they are legal and stay of discussions on subjects that we believe are unethical.


No one should be expected to "stand up for" what they regard as unethical practices nor should anyone attempt to suppress their opinions by declaring they are part of some so-called "fraternity."

---

I agree Badenoch and support your opinion. A recent woodcock thread debated whether or not it was legal to train a pointing breed during the nesting period(ethical). Some did not agree and described what they did instead during the nesting period. Based on my personal ethics I would not, even though the current law doesn't prohibit it. The conversation was civil and could have easily continued with more debate but it didn't..Sometimes we need to just walk away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

If something is legal , and you do not like it, work to change the rules, but do not complain when others follow them. They have done nothing wrong.:thumbup:

---

In the hunting regulations there are things that are legal but would be reasonably be considered wrong and things that are illegal that would otherwise be perfectly acceptable. The OP wants us to "stand up" for anything that is legal whether it is wrong or not.

It is also perfectly acceptable to vigourously condemn bad behavior even if allowed under the law.

If it something legal to do, then I would say that it is only your opinion, that it is wrong. What gives you the right to, ' vigorously condemn' someone following the law, based solely on your opinion? Not saying you have to defend said laws but to condemn others for following them, seems presumptuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badenoch

There are some "legal" practices that deserve condemnation. The law might be an (expletive deleted) but it doesn't mean I have to be one too because of some "fraternity."

---

Can you provide examples of legal practices which deserve condemnation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yellow dog

I agree Badenoch and support your opinion. A recent woodcock thread debated whether or not it was legal to train a pointing breed during the nesting period(ethical). Some did not agree and described what they did instead during the nesting period. Based on my personal ethics I would not, even though the current law doesn't prohibit it. The conversation was civil and could have easily continued with more debate but it didn't..Sometimes we need to just walk away.

---

yellow dog,

I thought that the Migratory Birds Regulation does prohibit disturbing the nests of migratory birds under General Prohibitions Section 6 Part a. Not that I am trying to reopen the debate or be uncivil but I think the law is fairly clear unless you are authorized by permit.

Dyth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishermccann

If it something legal to do, then I would say that it is only your opinion, that it is wrong. What gives you the right to, ' vigorously condemn' someone following the law, based solely on your opinion? Not saying you have to defend said laws but to condemn others for following them, seems presumptuous.

---

Like old duck blinds in a marsh?