Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 95

Thread: What John Q. Public thinks of hunters.....

  1. #31
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Another so called hunter slamming hunters?? Wonders never cease.

    Quote Originally Posted by Badenoch View Post
    Until which time hunters start making an effort to improve their public image then it's only a matter of time. The douchebags who parade their African trophies just to elicit a reaction make it tougher for the rest of us. Either you face that fact or can keep your head in the sand.
    "This is about unenforceable registration of weapons that violates the rights of people to own firearms."—Premier Ralph Klein (Alberta)Calgary Herald, 1998 October 9 (November 1, 1942 – March 29, 2013)

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #32
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badenoch View Post
    Easier than hunting a buffalo right?

    Not sure what you mean but the last Buffalo I shot, was on a three day trek by snow shoe in February.
    Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.

  4. #33
    Getting the hang of it

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greatwhite View Post
    Another so called hunter slamming hunters?? Wonders never cease.
    The real "wonder" is the so-called hunters who blindly defend the unethical, the illegal and the stupid that damage the image of hunting around the world.

  5. #34
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badenoch View Post
    The real "wonder" is the so-called hunters who blindly defend the unethical, the illegal and the stupid that damage the image of hunting around the world.
    Ethics are personal, if it is illegal it is poaching and not hunting.

    Showing off your African trophy is no different than a picture with a whitetail buck, heck, you are aware that many people shoot does and yearlings eh, the also take pictures of them and are proud of their hunt and their animal.

  6. #35
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    When we speak of medical ethics, legal ethics, professional ethics, ethics are not personal.

    Unfortunately it seems the strong sense of hunting ethics that once existed has collapsed to the point at which the only unethical act is to suggest something is unethical.

    Bad news: if hunters win't discuss ethical questions, others will discuss them for us.

    Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
    "The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
    -- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)

  7. #36
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by welsh View Post
    When we speak of medical ethics, legal ethics, professional ethics, ethics are not personal.

    Unfortunately it seems the strong sense of hunting ethics that once existed has collapsed to the point at which the only unethical act is to suggest something is unethical.

    Bad news: if hunters win't discuss ethical questions, others will discuss them for us.

    Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
    noun
    plural noun: ethics; noun: ethics

    1.
    moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity.

    Ethics are personal, there are codes of ethics that groups have agreed on, like those that occur when you become a professional engineer, a nurse, a doctor, etc, but that does not change the definition of ethics.

    There are no code of ethics that defines hunting, we have laws that have been built around ethics, hence why we have hunting regulations, these are built up by a large enough group wanting to put their ethics into law.

    I laugh at your "sense of hunting ethics", I call total BS on this, the amount or crap and borderline/totally illegal practices that have been joked about by older generations is ridiculous.

    We have higher populations of game now than ever in Ontario, in Africa the places that allow controlled hunting have increased their animal numbers, it is better for them to have animals to hunt than not, yet the hunting ethics are all screwed up, ha ha ha ha ha.

  8. #37
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    Ethics are personal, there are codes of ethics that groups have agreed on, like those that occur when you become a professional engineer, a nurse, a doctor, etc, but that does not change the definition of ethics.
    Then I suggest you rely on the definition of ethics.

    No definition I have found suggests ethics is primarily personal and individual. Quite the opposite: definitions of ethics tend to stress the idea that ethics are widely accepted or universally shared.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fox View Post
    I laugh at your "sense of hunting ethics", I call total BS on this, the amount or crap and borderline/totally illegal practices that have been joked about by older generations is ridiculous.
    That various people have done unethical things in the past does not suggest that an ethical understanding was absent.

    There is a rich body of work on hunting ethics. We see for example notions of what is "sporting," the Rooseveltian ideal of fair chase, etc. This has been around for decades, if not centuries -- as has been disagreement re what ought to be seen as ethical.

    On the other hand, the notion that ethics are personal and individual is new. This claim argues, in essence, that ethics do not exist: if ethics are individual, then no individual act can be open to ethical criticism, and ethics becomes a nullity.

    Unsurprisingly, this idea is advanced by people arguing against ethical criticism: instead of making a case that an act is ethical, they deny that ethics exist.

    Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
    "The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
    -- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)

  9. #38
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Badenoch View Post
    The real "wonder" is the so-called hunters who blindly defend the unethical, the illegal and the stupid that damage the image of hunting around the world.
    Welcome to the list Of CONFIRMED ANTI's among the Forum members.


    Got three questions for you.
    Hunter shoots an old Elephant that can barely walk in the middle of a crop field were it's been for two or three days. When the hunter approaches the animal can not run away. The hunter walks around till he is in front of the elephant and slowly and carefully places a perfectly aimed round in the animal's brain.
    So now I ask you for your three answers and your reasons for each answer.
    Unethical?
    Illegal?
    Stupid?
    Last edited by Snowwalker; June 13th, 2019 at 11:03 AM.
    Take the warning labels off. Darwin will solve the problem.

  10. #39
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    How about you start, by making the case that this is actually hunting, rather than pest control or veterinary euthanasia?

    Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
    "The language of dogs and birds teaches you your own language."
    -- Jim Harrison (1937 - 2016)

  11. #40
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by welsh View Post
    In fact, surveys show over 80% of the general public support hunting for food.
    'Hunting for Food' in context of surveys means sustenance hunting by the Indigenous. The rest of us are considered "Sport' hunters by the general public, it's not a necessity and support by the general population drops off substantially.

    Quote Originally Posted by welsh View Post
    When we speak of medical ethics, legal ethics, professional ethics, ethics are not personal.
    Everyone of those you mentioned have special 'Ethics' committees that review reported behavior of their members for breaches in ethics because many of the rules/laws, as written, aren't sufficient in defining how different people interpret them...no different than with hunters.

    Popular Lawyer Joke on Ethics:

    After drafting a will for an elderly client, the lawyer announced a fee of $100.
    The client gave the lawyer a $100 bill.
    After the client left, the lawyer saw that the client had in fact paid $200, as two of the client's $100 bills had stuck together.

    Looking at the $100 overpayment, an ethical question arose in the lawyer's mind: "Do I tell my partner?"
    Arte et marte (By Skill and by Fighting)...The RCEME motto

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •