|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
Tip
Posted by Michael Strahan on Dec 21 2005
Thanks to AkHunter45 and Bushrat for finding the source! You guys are either members or very well-read (probably both). This is the ethics statement of the Boone and Crockett Club.
As to the ambiguity of some parts of it, they probably left it that way intentionally. My natural tendancy is to draw certain conclusions from this. I might be incorrect, but here's what I see in this. Your conclusions might be different.
1. High-fence and "canned" hunts are unethical because they don't meet the definition of "free-ranging, wild" animals.
2. Any conduct that brings dishonor to an animal is considered unethical. I would interpret this to include such things as posing dead animals in postures meant to do anything besides to bring honor to an animal. Example: I had a brown bear hunter that wanted to photo his dead bear with a cigarette hanging out of its mouth (I walked away shaking my head).
3. The terms "Ethical", "Sportsmanlike" and "Lawful" are somehow different, yet interrelated. I believe the B&C definition allows for the possibility of something being "Lawful" and either "Unethical" or "Unsporting" at the same time. For example, shooting a hundred ducks in an afternoon would certainly be challenging "sport", but would, by most definitions, be considered unethical in the United States. Even if it were legal. Yet if you shot a hundred whitewing doves in Mexico one afternoon (where it is both legal and culturally acceptable), would this be considered unethical? Interesting question. Now, if you posed those doves in such a way as to spell out the name of the lodge with their bodies (as I have seen done for advertising purposes), I believe that crosses some ethical lines (see point #2 above). Do you have to eat all those doves for the killing to be considered ethical? Perhaps this hinges on the idea that NOT eating them brings dishonor to the animal. Or are you "off the hook" if you give them to someone else who eats them? In such a case are you now proxy hunting for food or are you simply a sport hunter with an itchy trigger finger and a desire to salve your conscience? Strong words perhaps, but a worthy question I think.
3. It is considered unethical to use a borrowed rifle with which you are not familiar, and then wound game with that rifle because you made a poor shot (see the section that refers to maintaining your skills and the one talking about making quick, clean kills). This one strikes closer to home perhaps, and opens up a Pandora's Box of other related questions not so easy to answer.
4. It may be considered unethical (even though legal) to sport-hunt caribou in a location traditionally hunted by local native folks in pursuit of food (see the section referring to respecting the customs of the locale where the hunting is taking place). If you camp right in a traditional migration corridor and divert the migration away from local hunters (unintentional or not) are there ethical implications to this? Perhaps.
Another thing I noticed was that there appears to be a difference between "meat" hunting and "sport" hunting, by implication, and that standards apply to one that don't apply to the other. For example, it is legal in Alaska to shoot caribou through the ear canal with a .22 caliber firearm while they are swimming across the Noatak River; a practice that has historical and cultural relevance in the local culture, however such practices would be certainly against the standards of Fair Chase set forth by the Boone and Crockett Club. To me this doesn't represent a contradiction at all, because in my mind meat hunting and sport hunting are two completely different things. Perhaps one of the reasons we've argued so much here about these things is because we're operating with two different sets of standards (or in some cases, parts of both).
Anyway, I think probably where we start to get sideways with this stuff is when we actually try to apply the definitions of Fair Chase in the field. I mean, they sure read well, don't they? The words roll off the tongue like the wisdom of Solomon. Which is why I selected the definition I chose; hardly anyone I know would disagree with Boone and Crockett's stellar reputation in the area of Fair Chase, or their definition of it. The real challenge is implementing these standards in the field, exemplifying them to our fellow sportsmen, and holding them forth to the community in such a way as to win allies; not to make enemies.
If we can agree to these standards, then perhaps we can be more tolerant when someone holds another of our ranks accountable to them. I hope so.
(I should have written this in a Word document first; trying to proofread it in this little window isn't the greatest. I hope you can interpret my ramblings. If not, it's probably my fault.
Best Regards,
-Mike
Previous: Great post Bigmnt Dec 22 2005
Next: great topic walk-in Dec 20 2005
 Message Thread:
|
