The Nuge

[Doc]

Trying real hard not to get too far off-topic on this, let me try to explain exactly what I feel is the difference between an opinion and ethics.

The definition of an opinion is: "a belief or judgement which falls short of absolute conviction". I also believe further that opinions are transient and negotiable and subject to change through discussion. Ethics on the other hand is a moral code that is permanently engrained from a lifetime of social experience, and is something pretty fundamental that guides us in the way that we conduct our lives. A person's ethics do not "fall short of absolute conviction". So we really can't use the terms interchangeably ..... well we can, but it is not correct. It's kind of like the principles of fair chase. Those aren't opinions but fall into a category of an ethical code of hunting. And that also is exactly what I think needs to remain in hunters minds. So if Nugent was trying to say that hunting should exist without any ethical considerations, that is specifically what I would find wrong with his message.

By the way I taped the program from 10:00 this morning. It was Deer and Deer Hunting alright, but they apparently have moved on to another episode. Too bad because I really was interested in what this guy had to say about ethics in hunting. It's one of my pet subjects primarily because I am constantly hearing this theme that it is ethics in hunting that is causing all the dischord in the hunting community. That's not a real popular view with me. To me it is the ethical base that hunting is built on and the fact that just about every tiny aspect of how hunting is conducted is constantly scrutinized and discussed with ethics in mind that strengthens the activity.

Doc

[Culvercreek hunt club]

As long as we are discussing Doc...I just pulled up Websters and go this.

a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter  b : approval, esteem    2  a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge  b : a generally held view.    Now I  generally agree with you description of ethics but I dont agree with the "permanently engrained " part. I beleive ethics can change and it is usually over a longer period of time. To stay on hunting topics.....what our Grandfathers felt was ethical we may not. There may even be cases that as we grow and mature what we viewed as ethical hunting may vary or change (1a). On a larger picture....what the hunting community or the gereral public view as ethical can vary as well and this group view would be a generally held view (2b). I think the black bear and cougar hunting with dogs would fall into this category. Public view changed got stronger and with the aid of the activist groups was legally change in different states. There was a shift as to what was acceptable...legal and ethical. In states where it is still permitted it is still unethical to the folks that oppose it but not illegal...that is a much stronger belief that the minimum standards set forth by the law. Laws being the minimum ethical standard accepted by the general population (again 2b).      A few years back a couple buddies invited me on a baited black bear hunt in Ontario Canada. I went and really didn't have an opinion about it. I enjoyed myself...took a bear....and based on teh experience formed an opinion I would not go back or take part in that type of hunting again. Ethically I didn't have a problem with it before I went. If I had a dreadful experience and it was so bad I made a moral decission it was just plain wrong...I may have had an ethical shift to oppose that style hunting. I still have the opinion it is not for me (1b) but also and more deeply entrenched beleif the is is not morally correct to do.    In my view ethihcs are opinions. more solidly based in values, morals and personal conviction, but opinions the same.    And you news that the show wasn't on kinda ticks me off....first thing I did last night when I got home was set the dvr. maybe it is in on-demand.

[nyslowhand]

One thing they mention on the show was not to argue or discuss ethics.

They are personal beliefs and arguing them is a losing battle.

Good way to make enemies or lose friends!

Ever take a Philosophy class - along those same lines.

Accept that others may have differnt beliefs and live by yours.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Perfectly said NY

[Doc]

One thing they mention on the show was not to argue or discuss ethics.

They are personal beliefs and arguing them is a losing battle.

Good way to make enemies or lose friends!

Ever take a Philosophy class - along those same lines.

Accept that others may have differnt beliefs and live by yours.

Yes, it's kind of like the advise not to ever argue politics or religion ...... lol. I don't completely agree with applying that to hunting ethics because I always hold out the hope that reasonable people can discuss anything reasonably, but I'll admit that I have seen evidence that such discussions can be difficult  .

However, I must say that I have a whole lot more respect for someone who is not afraid to speak up regarding his convictions than those that are afraid of how those convictions will be received. I always look at an individual's ethical comments as simply one data point that when considered together with all the others, arrives at a near perfect solution. If they keep those ethical views to themselves, they benefit no one and are nearly worthless. Culvercreek hunt club noted that ethics can occasionally be changed over time (even those that are thoroughly entrenched in one's being), and I think that is possibly true. However, they will never change, evolve, or spread if no one is willing to discuss them.

The fact is that each generation has a duty to pass on whatever ethical concerns and ideals to the generations following them. How does that ever happen if everyone is afraid to discuss such thoughts? I really don't want a future of hunters whose actions are only ruled by laws. I don't want them to have to rely on the opinions of some legislators to tell them right from wrong. Yes, I want them to abide by the laws, but I also want them to recognize when the laws have failed a situation. We all know that the legal system falls far short of covering all situations, and we also are aware that many times the legal system arrives at incorrect solutions. Arming future hunters with the ability to rely on an internal system of ethical judgement on right and wrong is a much more reassuring way to secure and safeguard the principles of hunting. But that ethical system does not evolve in a vacuum.

And speaking of the legal system, I think it's fair to say that most laws are derived from ethical concerns. How does that system ever improve,  or evolve if no one is willing to discuss the ethical concerns that new or improved laws might be based on. We can all think of many examples, but let me offer just one that gets to this point. A few years back, there was an outfit that was going to offer "hunting by computer". The idea being that you would log in, pay your money, choose your animal, and when he walked in front of the rifle armed camera, you would shoot and blow the animal flat. That perversion of hunting rankled the collective ethics of the entire hunting community and new laws in several states were authored and passed to prevent that kind of thing. What if everyone had said, "We can't discuss that"?

And finally, you are right when you say that we have to "Accept that others may have different beliefs" but that does not mean that we have to mute our own. Yes, in the end, if you are not all that persuasive, you will have to accept that they still have different beliefs and then you will have to live with that. But at least you will have had your say and had the courage to put your convictions on record. And who knows how many others you may have swayed in the process.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Doc... very well said. I would also like to add that is is our responsibility to speak out with our views. Too often the only ones that voice view are the ones that have fairly radical positions. Many time the loudest are seen as the view of the majority and if we don't speak up and let our position be know the TRUE view of the group may never be known.