mccormac98
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 0
Humvee and twin 50s. Them hogs is tough.
- Thread starter hunt hard
- Start date
Speckmisser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 12,900
- Reaction score
- 27
Hey Pigdream,
No offense here, and your 2 cents' is always welcome. The fact that you qualified your statements as your own opinion ("..to me..") suggests a non-judgemental stance. Which is cool...
I've just been noticing this trend toward raising the ethical bar higher and higher on the list lately. I've been as guilty as anyone, a fact that has triggered a bit of introspection. Your post just happened to be the one to tip the scale.
It's easy, on a platform like this, with a general sense of anonymity, to let the theoretical override the practical. We tend to think more in ideals, and reflect those ideals in our words despite what the reality on the ground may be. It's then easy to criticise those who don't measure up to our lofty standard, because this format is impersonal and you're not really looking an individual in the eye when you suggest that they are sorely lacking.
I've had the priviledge and honor of hunting with several of the folks from this list, and everyone of them has been a good, and ethical hunter. But none, including myself, has measured up as the paragon of hunting virtues that some of the attitudes here would imply. We all have feet of clay.
Ethics are good, and important. We need to remember that non-hunters see our sport only in the light that hunters shed on it, and some practices throw a pretty ugly glare. We really have nobody but our own numbers to police the sport and manage the image. So it's right that we be concerned, and that we strive to hold a high standard. I think it's even right that we occasionally say to someone, "Look. What you're doing, even while legal, is making us all look really bad. Are you sure it's worth the damage to our image?"
But... At some point, we need to retain our grasp on reality. We need to accept that some folks are going to say, "Yes. I enjoy this enough to accept the chance that someone finds it distasteful. It's my choice. It's not going to be the end of hunting as we know it. And it's legal."
Maybe it's because I've participated in almost all of the hunting activities that have come into question here. I've run hounds for hogs and deer. I've hunted over bait and feeders. I've done a bit of ambush hunting, as well as spot and stalk. Tried my hand at road hunting. I have shot "preserve" pheasants and quail. Some of these things I'll eagerly do again, and some I can live without. But having seen it through my own eyes, as well as the eyes of afficianados, it's easier to understand that all hunters have their different "needs". The level of experience that satisfies one may leave another totally empty.
We need to remember too, that social and cultural attitudes vary from place to place. The tripod stands and feeders are generally as acceptable in Texas as pack strings and cowboy hats in Montana. In parts of coastal North Carolina, the ambush hunter in his treestand is not only exercising his preference... but he's obeying the law, as centerfire rifles may ONLY be used from at least 8' off the ground.
None of us is perfect. For that matter, I doubt that any of us share the same ideal of perfection. And that's just it. Whose definition is the right one, and who is to be arbiter of hunting perfection? We are not all purists, nor should we be. For most hunters, that's a personal evolution and the culmination of a lifetime's experience. For others, it's neither a goal nor a consideration.
I will continue to rail against the slobs, the poachers, and the dangerous cretins out there. I will hope to educate the uninformed, and offer my own ethical standards as a model. But not as dogma.
I think that's an approach that might behoove many of us, both on this list and in the field.
No offense here, and your 2 cents' is always welcome. The fact that you qualified your statements as your own opinion ("..to me..") suggests a non-judgemental stance. Which is cool...
I've just been noticing this trend toward raising the ethical bar higher and higher on the list lately. I've been as guilty as anyone, a fact that has triggered a bit of introspection. Your post just happened to be the one to tip the scale.
It's easy, on a platform like this, with a general sense of anonymity, to let the theoretical override the practical. We tend to think more in ideals, and reflect those ideals in our words despite what the reality on the ground may be. It's then easy to criticise those who don't measure up to our lofty standard, because this format is impersonal and you're not really looking an individual in the eye when you suggest that they are sorely lacking.
I've had the priviledge and honor of hunting with several of the folks from this list, and everyone of them has been a good, and ethical hunter. But none, including myself, has measured up as the paragon of hunting virtues that some of the attitudes here would imply. We all have feet of clay.
Ethics are good, and important. We need to remember that non-hunters see our sport only in the light that hunters shed on it, and some practices throw a pretty ugly glare. We really have nobody but our own numbers to police the sport and manage the image. So it's right that we be concerned, and that we strive to hold a high standard. I think it's even right that we occasionally say to someone, "Look. What you're doing, even while legal, is making us all look really bad. Are you sure it's worth the damage to our image?"
But... At some point, we need to retain our grasp on reality. We need to accept that some folks are going to say, "Yes. I enjoy this enough to accept the chance that someone finds it distasteful. It's my choice. It's not going to be the end of hunting as we know it. And it's legal."
Maybe it's because I've participated in almost all of the hunting activities that have come into question here. I've run hounds for hogs and deer. I've hunted over bait and feeders. I've done a bit of ambush hunting, as well as spot and stalk. Tried my hand at road hunting. I have shot "preserve" pheasants and quail. Some of these things I'll eagerly do again, and some I can live without. But having seen it through my own eyes, as well as the eyes of afficianados, it's easier to understand that all hunters have their different "needs". The level of experience that satisfies one may leave another totally empty.
We need to remember too, that social and cultural attitudes vary from place to place. The tripod stands and feeders are generally as acceptable in Texas as pack strings and cowboy hats in Montana. In parts of coastal North Carolina, the ambush hunter in his treestand is not only exercising his preference... but he's obeying the law, as centerfire rifles may ONLY be used from at least 8' off the ground.
None of us is perfect. For that matter, I doubt that any of us share the same ideal of perfection. And that's just it. Whose definition is the right one, and who is to be arbiter of hunting perfection? We are not all purists, nor should we be. For most hunters, that's a personal evolution and the culmination of a lifetime's experience. For others, it's neither a goal nor a consideration.
I will continue to rail against the slobs, the poachers, and the dangerous cretins out there. I will hope to educate the uninformed, and offer my own ethical standards as a model. But not as dogma.
I think that's an approach that might behoove many of us, both on this list and in the field.
