|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
Freedom
Posted by Michael Strahan on Feb 10 2006
Chignik,
I agree with some of what you said, however if we limit our definition of what's appropriate to whatever happens to be legal, we're getting the cart before the horse. Our laws are frequently a result of ethical perspectives we share in common; not the other way around. We voluntarily limit ourselves to protect the resource in various ways, AND to follow certain ethical norms which the hunting community has deemed acceptable. For example, the complete salvage of game meat. We have laws requiring this today that go WAY BEYOND the laws that were in place 40 years ago. These laws make no sense at all from a strictly biological standpoint, but we have those laws simply because our culture believes it is wasteful to shoot an animal strictly for the cape and antlers, while leaving the meat for the ecosystem to dispose of. That's an excellent example of a law that exists strictly as a result of ethical considerations. It should go without saying that the ethics behind this existed before the law did. It therefore follows that there are OTHER ethical considerations that have not yet made it into law (and may never do so). On that basis, I believe in a healthy, robust discussion of hunting ethics and find myself a frequent wanderer in that field. Yes, it IS about judging one situation in comparison to another. This is both healthy and necessary as we move forward with the refinement of our laws, and the continued creation of a hunting culture that will be relevant for future generations. These discussions will always be with us, and we shouldn't shy away from them.
-Mike
Previous: "hunting" according to chignik Feb 10 2006
Next: Round and round martentrapper Feb 09 2006
 Message Thread:
|
