Ethical hunting

[brian]

I was reading something from Native American hunters. I forget where I read it but it left an impression on me. They said (loosely quoted),


You should never take the first animal you see. If you don't see any more, then not taking that animal was not wasted. The population is too low in that area and that animal will be needed to breed.

Its seems like a decent little system of local game management. But I lack real world experience with hunting to really judge the value of it. What do you guys think? Anybody practice this?

[Stone Sheep Steve]

In the old days the Natives did the same thing with harvesting salmon. They would let so many go past their weirs and then take one.....they did this repeatedly.

SSS

[TPK]

I say it's wrong. If there is a problem with the population of a certain species it will be addressed with either an LEH or complete closure. If it's a general open season (GOS), then there isn't an issue with the population regardless of what you see or don't see. Remember these are animals, not cans of soup, they can't be stockpiled or stored for harvest later. By letting one go there is absolutely no guarntee that animal will survive the winter and breed or be bred. Take it while the taking is good, that's why you're out hunting, to harvest an animal. How many people do you know that have tried this approach, let the first one go and never seen another? Happened in our group last year, the guy is still kicking his arse for not pulling the trigger.

[brian]

How many people do you know that have tried this approach, let the first one go and never seen another?

That's the point I don't know anybody who practices it, but the idea intrigued me. So I want get the opinion of people with more experience than I.

[CanuckShooter]

I was reading something from Native American hunters. I forget where I read it but it left an impression on me. They said (loosely quoted),
Its seems like a decent little system of local game management. But I lack real world experience with hunting to really judge the value of it. What do you guys think? Anybody practice this?

With moose hunting...all the damm time because I can't get the darned LEH tag....so have to let 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10..or more walk every year. Don't know if it's does much to save the specie though because usually they walk down to the lake shore and the guided hunters and fellows with leh tags shoot every damm one that sticks it's toe out for a drink!!!:???:

[hunter1947]

When I hunt a new area I look for sign etc. After hunting that area for a few days and not seeing nothing I scratch that area out ,but in the mean time if I did see an animal after two days hunting it and had seen very little sign I would proubly let the animal walk. I don't like hunting a area wear there is a low population of animals. I would rather conserve the few animals in the area then take one.

[tomahawk]

I think that as a general rule that makes sense. Before there was game management and first nation folks had to look after there own animal populations this would be a good theory. I don't usually shoot the first animal I see either but there are several factors that contribute to that decision.

Unlike TPK, I don't just hunt to kill something, I hunt for a lot more than squeezing the trigger.

[kgriz]

Quote:"First Nations had to look after their own game management"
Are you serious implying that there was some complex management system used back in the day? Have you noticed that all of the original native sites were located in areas where either fish spawned or animals migrated in such numbers that the small populations of native people would barely make a dent. I guess that's management by default. I'm not knocking their methods or saying that anybody manages better than anybody else but I think saying that the original people managed so much better than today is simply a PC statement popular for tv commercials and political gain; its easy to manage vast resources if the user's numbers are so small that they barely make an impact.

[tomahawk]

Quote:"First Nations had to look after their own game management"
#1 Are you serious implying that there was some complex management system used back in the day? Have you noticed that all of the original native sites were located in areas where either fish spawned or animals migrated in such numbers that the small populations of native people would barely make a dent. I guess that's management by default. I'm not knocking their methods or saying that anybody manages better than anybody else but #2 I think saying that the original people managed so much better than today is simply a PC statement popular for tv commercials and political gain; its easy to manage vast resources if the user's numbers are so small that they barely make an impact.

Not sure if this was my quote as it is not word for word but here we go.

#1 I don't see where you get "complex management system" out of my statement "Before there was game management and first nation folks had to look after there own animal populations this would be a good theory". The definiton of "theory" includes "rules and reasoning". Having said that it was not meant to be complex but rather good reasoning on there part.

#2 I don't have a clue where you got that statement from?

[kgriz]

my apologies.....read and answered too fast; I've just seen too many bad commercials these days and expereinced too many jaded political statements at land-use meetings lately

[kgriz]

Oh and obviously it depends on what your looking for; big sneaky mature bucks, bulls and rams etc. can be around in surprisingly small areas for a long time before you catch a glipse of them in the daylight. If you let one of these go because you only saw one I think it might be a mistake if you were trying to take a trophy specifically.

[325]

I wonder how many would pass on the first legal stone or bighorn sheep, based purely on ethical principles?? I don't pass on animals, unless they're not what I'm looking for.
Natives didn't truly 'manage" game, but were generally few in number using stone-age weapons....instant game managment.
I am an avid reader and amateur historian, and went through a period were I was quite captivated by Plains Indian culture. When Plains Indians ran buffalo into a buffalo pound, they killed every single animal...cows...bulls..and calves. They did this even if they could not possible utilize all the meat, as they were pre-scientific and superstitious, and believed that if any animals were allowed to escape, they would tell the other buffalo how to avoid the entrapment of the buffalo pound.
Most of the "game managment" utilized by natives was soley based on superstition.

Flame away..

[Gateholio]

I pas up animals all the time, but it's because it's not the one I was after. IF the first animal I see wis the one I am after- BOOM!!

Fortunatley, that rarely happens, so I get to hunt longer. I like hunting...:cool:

[TPK]

Unlike TPK, I don't just hunt to kill something, I hunt for a lot more than squeezing the trigger.

Then don't bring a gun and call it a hike. To hunt means to kill. Why you hunt (meat, trophy, excercise, scenery, etc. etc.) was not the question, do you shoot the first legal animal you see or not as a means of wildlife management was. As a meat hunter, I'll shoot the first legal animal I see within reason ... and for the most part, that reason is size. If it's a small animal I "may" let it go. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the same things as you along the way. Under our new Wildlife allocation guidlines, to "not squeaze the trigger" will see the opportunities you pass up taken away from you and given to Guide Outfitters. Use it or lose it is the new hunting philosophy that is being preached by the MOE.

[Eichelherr]

id love to be the guy who shoots the last wolf.

seriously though, where there's one, there's always more...
________
Opa (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_Opa)

[TPK]

The original post was asking if passing up the first legal animal you see on a hunt is a valid game management technique, period. It was not asking about ethics, why you hunt, etc.etc. it was asking about if it's sound game management. To which I said "NO". So, let's keep this on track and not get lost on "ethics" as that was not the question.

Why I said "NO" ... The MOE sets the AAH (Anual Allowable Harvest) for a species based on (OK I know this is an "in theory" statement ...) biological data. If there was/is a concern about the population it has already been taken into account in that it's either a G.O.S. or L.E.H. hunt for that species in that location. Your decison to "squeeze the trigger" should not be based on management concerns because they have already been dealt with. Not squeezing the trigger circumvents what the MOE is trying to accomplish with G.O.S. and L.E.H. hunts. Further, continued under harvesting by resident hunters will see their AAH transferred away from them. Again, we have been put into use it or loose it scenario with the way the Wildlife Allocation policy is now setup.

[tomahawk]

The original post was asking if passing up the first legal animal you see on a hunt is a valid game management technique, period. #1...It was not asking about ethics, why you hunt, etc.etc. it was asking about if it's sound game management. To which I said "NO". So, let's keep this on track and not get lost on "ethics" as that was not the question.

Why I said "NO" ... The MOE sets the AAH (Anual Allowable Harvest) for a species based on (OK I know this is an "in theory" statement ...) biological data. If there was/is a concern about the population it has already been taken into account in that it's either a G.O.S. or L.E.H. hunt for that species in that location. Your decison to "squeeze the trigger" should not be based on management concerns because they have already been dealt with. #2...Not squeezing the trigger circumvents what the MOE is trying to accomplish with G.O.S. and L.E.H. hunts. # 3...Further, continued under harvesting by resident hunters will see their AAH transferred away from them. Again, we have been put into use it or loose it scenario with the way the Wildlife Allocation policy is now setup.

#1.........Have a look at the title of the thread, it is based loosely on the ethics of a decision to pass on the first animal as well as relating to management of first nations folks at that time.

#2.........Not squeezing the trigger has no relation to the MOE, it is a personal decision by each hunter as to whether that animal suits their needs. Not squeezing the trigger on the first animal was the statement, if it happens to be the right animal its all over.

#3.........I don't under harvest, I take what I need for meat for the year ahead. Because I pass on the first does not mean I do not harvest an animal.

[TPK]

#1 Ok, I'll admit the actual title of the thread .. I kinda missed:confused: I was looking soley at the content of the opening post and going with that.

#2 People not squeezing the trigger on the first animal "may" mean they don't get any animal if another is not seen, it becomes a lost opportunity. That my friend does affect what the MOE is trying to do, that is, for hunters to harvest animals. The point I'm making is "not squeezing the trigger" should not be considered a "wildlife management" decision. Make the call based on other factors but don't think that you're doing wildlife management, you're just being picky about what you shoot.

#3 While you don't intentionally underharvest, what do you call it (besides bad luck) if you pass on an animal for no reason other than "it was the first one I saw" and then you don't see another and don't get to harvest an animal? Passing on the first animal may very well mean you don't harvest an animal.

[kgriz]

I agree with 99% of what TPK has to say about this....I was originally caught up with the ethics/management/native suggestions.

[brian]

When I had read the the statement it was under the umbrella of ethical hunting practices that are founded from practical reasons. Like it is ethical to do X because of Y. But what Hunter1947 wrote really makes sense to me.

[TPK]

I kinda mis-cued on the ethical part , some days things don't click in place like they used to. :lol:

If it makes you feel good, do it, but IMO, it isn't wildlife management letting a legal shooter go. Our allocations are already decided on and thousands or hundreds of animals (depending on species etc. etc.) are expected to be harvested. It's too fine a brush to make a difference when the broad strokes of the policy have already determined the harvest. I look at it like this, if it's legal, take it, that's what your there for. If there are problems reported with the hunt, the Ministry would step in and make changes (a closure etc.). Last year they added extra hunting opportunities late in the season, so it is monitored and adjusted as new info becomes available.

[TPK]

I posed the question at our Rod and Gun club meeting last night and got just as a divided response as we see here.

[brian]

Thanks for doing that and reporting back here.

[tomahawk]

#1 Ok, I'll admit the actual title of the thread .. I kinda missed:confused: I was looking soley at the content of the opening post and going with that.

#2 People not squeezing the trigger on the first animal "may" mean they don't get any animal if another is not seen, it becomes a lost opportunity. That my friend does affect what the MOE is trying to do, that is, for hunters to harvest animals. The point I'm making is "not squeezing the trigger" should not be considered a "wildlife management" decision. Make the call based on other factors but don't think that you're doing wildlife management, you're just being picky about what you shoot.

#3 While you don't intentionally underharvest, what do you call it (besides bad luck) if you pass on an animal for no reason other than "it was the first one I saw" and then you don't see another and don't get to harvest an animal? Passing on the first animal may very well mean you don't harvest an animal.

Hey TPK

I see your point and I have been there at times as well but I guess I've been lucky in my 40 + yrs of hunting cause I can only remember once when I regretted not squeezing on the first animal, there may be more but that may start the brain smokin cause of overload.

[TPK]

Well .. my comments are a bit of a generalization in the respect that not all my hunts are "equal". It's quite different for me if I'm out for the day hunting locally vs let's say a hunt where you have to travel a long distance, setup camp, etc. etc. Also as mentioned by some folks earlier, the animal you're after is also going to play a BIG part in your decision to shoot that first one or not. Looking at your first Mulie of the hunt is not the same as looking at your first Grizz, Goat, or Sheep. If you get a Roosevelt Elk draw .... I think you'ld be pretty hard pressed to pass up a shooter.

[Marmo+]

First off, hello to all here. New to the board. Hope I'm not too fresh here to stir the pot a little....so here goes.....

Times have changed. I don't think its an "ethical" decision, just one based on nothing more than speculation. If you know there are 10,000 smarties in a bag, do you reach in, pull one out, and then....just in case there aren't any more, put one back? Probably not...regs say that two smarties out of this region is ok, so I'll eat the first two (unless i don't like the color). Now,If I had no idea how many smarties were in the bag, thats a different story. I wouldn't be reaching into the bag at all if that were the case.

It's probably more ethical to take the one animal and get out to minimize your impact on their habitat rather than trudge around in the bush all day searching....especially if you're on an ATV (nothing against ATVs!)

[TPK]

Welcome aboard Marmo+ , it's never to late to jump in !

Well .. let's wait and see what ya stirred up with your post ....

[Marmo+]

Thanks TPK. I'd like to clarify, if it was a blue smartie I would of course not take it as they are endangered.

[CanuckShooter]

First off, hello to all here. New to the board. Hope I'm not too fresh here to stir the pot a little....so here goes.....

Times have changed. I don't think its an "ethical" decision, just one based on nothing more than speculation. If you know there are 10,000 smarties in a bag, do you reach in, pull one out, and then....just in case there aren't any more, put one back? Probably not...regs say that two smarties out of this region is ok, so I'll eat the first two (unless i don't like the color). Now,If I had no idea how many smarties were in the bag, thats a different story. I wouldn't be reaching into the bag at all if that were the case.

It's probably more ethical to take the one animal and get out to minimize your impact on their habitat rather than trudge around in the bush all day searching....especially if you're on an ATV (nothing against ATVs!)

Smarties have rights too you know, what is wrong with M&Ms??! What difference does the colour of the smartie have to do with anything? Just because you cannot count or see all of the smarties doens't mean there is a shortage. And Keep ATVs out of this, we are talking smarties now!! :biggrin: Welcome aboard.

[islandboy]

It's probably more ethical to take the one animal and get out to minimize your impact on their habitat rather than trudge around in the bush all day searching....especially if you're on an ATV (nothing against ATVs!)

I am in agreement with this approach to "modern hunting ethics". Particularly prior to and including the rut.

[sawmill]

I`m lucky,I get to hunt close to home so I can afford to be choosy.I passed a lot of nice Whitie`s last fall,not monsters and took a little 5x5 second last day for the meat.The fall before I shot a dandy 5x5 second day of the season...........So as far as I`m concerned it really ain`t up to me.There are no ethics involved,it`s all about the meat.
Ethics come into play when you shoot one for your buddy,who hasn`t punched his tag and has to work that day.That shit happens a lot.