Ethics scenario

My point being, letting nature do it's process...that don't cut no hay. A front leg blown off by a rifle bullet isn't natural in any way... we personally didn't create the problem, sure. But anyone who doesn't end the scenario is either slightly psychopathic or lacking intestinal fortitude...IMO of course.
Grew up on a good sized ranch, if I strolled in and mentioned that I saw a deer with a blow off front leg wobble by...and didn't attend to it? The look would have been the same as when one steps in a big cow flop with good boots on.
So yes, I am assigning my morals to the situation.
We have been meddling in Nature's bidness for, what... a century now? If I see an animal that I decide is in distress and needs my help? Well, to continue on because a law says that I must... sometimes we need to make a decision to disregard that law.
Hypothetical scenario of course. Do as you see fit, your reality.
The same moral code that says I must give 120% to finding an animal I wounded... that code doesn't allow me to turn a blind eye to it because " I didn't do it...therefore it's not my problem"...that sediment smacks of cowardice.
I won't say that you are a coward if you do such a thing, nope.
But it would bother me personally to do it... I would consider it cowardly on my part
 
tokguy said:
My point being, letting nature do it's process...that don't cut no hay. A front leg blown off by a rifle bullet isn't natural in any way... we personally didn't create the problem, sure. But anyone who doesn't end the scenario is either slightly psychopathic or lacking intestinal fortitude...IMO of course.
Grew up on a good sized ranch, if I strolled in and mentioned that I saw a deer with a blow off front leg wobble by...and didn't attend to it? The look would have been the same as when one steps in a big cow flop with good boots on.
So yes, I am assigning my morals to the situation.
We have been meddling in Nature's bidness for, what... a century now? If I see an animal that I decide is in distress and needs my help? Well, to continue on because a law says that I must... sometimes we need to make a decision to disregard that law.
Hypothetical scenario of course. Do as you see fit, your reality.
The same moral code that says I must give 120% to finding an animal I wounded... that code doesn't allow me to turn a blind eye to it because " I didn't do it...therefore it's not my problem"...that sediment smacks of cowardice.
I won't say that you are a coward if you do such a thing, nope.
But it would bother me personally to do it... I would consider it cowardly on my part
Click to expand...

Fwiw, we’ve been meddling in nature’s business for a hell of a lot longer than 100 years....as long as our species has been around I figure.
 
Last edited:
woodchopper said:
yup hunted and killed off most of the megafauna in North America 20000 - 10000 years ago
Click to expand...

I've always been skeptical of that narrative. It seems a little off to think that a small group of stone age humans killed off entire populations of large mammals, when in Africa and the Indian subcontinent, the megafauna got along just fine until the advent of modern firearms. This in spite of the local gentry having access to iron weapons and some pretty nasty poisons.
 
Lyallpeder said:
Is that a written rule? I’ve never seen that as a written rule in my province.
Click to expand...
FLHTCUI said:
Call the CO's and let them decide......
Click to expand...
I asked the MNR the same scenario and they finally got back to me.
"The law requires that you invalidate your tag when you have killed the animal that the tag allowed you to harvest. There is no exception for circumstances where the animal spoils overnight. It’s recommended that hunters consider the time of the day, their hunting area and surroundings when making a decision to harvest an animal to reduce the likelihood of not being able to immediately retrieve an animal that has been shot."
 
captonion said:
I asked the MNR the same scenario and they finally got back to me.
"The law requires that you invalidate your tag when you have killed the animal that the tag allowed you to harvest. There is no exception for circumstances where the animal spoils overnight. It’s recommended that hunters consider the time of the day, their hunting area and surroundings when making a decision to harvest an animal to reduce the likelihood of not being able to immediately retrieve an animal that has been shot."
Click to expand...

Your call to the MNR doesn’t apply to lyallpeders quoted question. He was replying to the statement made that was “you shoot at something and it runs off so you have to cancel your tag because you obviously killed it even though you didn’t find it” (I’m paraphrasing, but that was the statement made that lyall was questioning).

Did you mean to quote that particular post?
 
tokguy said:
My point being, letting nature do it's process...that don't cut no hay. A front leg blown off by a rifle bullet isn't natural in any way... we personally didn't create the problem, sure. But anyone who doesn't end the scenario is either slightly psychopathic or lacking intestinal fortitude...IMO of course.
Click to expand...

It depends what you define as "Natural", if we humans; an apex predator in the food chain take action to harvest an animal, does that not make it natural in any way? Does the fact that a firearm was used not make the kill natural? The raw materials used to manufacture the rifle were all natural, one living organism dies for the success of another.
I agree though downing the animal that is in a dire situation (AKA 'coup de gras') is just an animal welfare issue. I am not picking on you tokguy but my point is that I tend to think it odd that some narrative is being purported that anything human is not natural, as if we are alien and somehow unclean and unfit to do anything with the planet and should be extinct or something...
 
Last edited:
rocklobster said:
It depends what you define as "Natural", if we humans; an apex predator in the food chain take action to harvest an animal, does that not make it natural in any way? Does the fact that a firearm was used not make the kill natural? The raw materials used to manufacture the rifle were all natural, one living organism dies for the success of another.
I agree though downing the animal that is in a dire situation (AKA 'coup de gras') is just an animal welfare issue. I am not picking on you tokguy but my point is that I tend to think it odd that some narrative is being purported that anything human is not natural, as if we are alien and somehow unclean and unfit to do anything with the planet and should be extinct or something...
Click to expand...

Input received. My thoughts are we can't just wear the 'Stewards of our environment' jacket only when it works in our favor...sometimes we have to act when it's not convenient. Point in case; I've a son who lives in Cowtown, he seems a good enough sort ( child of divorce sadly... don't know him nearly well as I should). He phoned me, quite distressed a while back. Someone had hit a deer on a main thoroughfare... broke all of it's legs. He stopped and cradled it's head and neck until it died. No-one would stop to help... it's Cowtown so not surprising that it's full of folks whom couldn't care less.
Us Super hunters would have ended it's anguish right on the spot ( although sadly most would keep driving IMO) with a pocketknife.
The Natural 'line' has moved...you are correct. But that 'No cruelty in Nature line' has always seemed like Bunk to me.
If someone needs to say it to validate their position, they will. But I'm going to glance at you like 'Poo on my boot' and do what I think needs doing.
I've seen enough natural death in my time... deer rifles and cars are not on my list of natural death causation for wild animals.
As before. My rules, I must abide by them... if that means euthanizing an animal in my Sunday clothes... then I must.
Feel free to turn a blind eye and continue on, it is within your right... I will not.
My rules, I must abide by them. If you don't agree...that is OK as well. Just don't think of stopping me because your rules are different... I'll hit you with my cane, lol. And it is a great honking cane...make no mistake about that.
 
captonion said:
I see ethics brought up in many treads so I got a scenario for you..

You shoot, arrow a deer/moose etc near last legal shooting time, animal runs and you can't find it that night. Go back in the morning and find the animal a short distance where you left off the night before. You find that wolves found your animal before you did and ravaged it. Do you cancel your tag or hunt on?
Click to expand...

Cut the tag.

- It was only through your choice to shoot that the wolves were able to eat
- It was only through your choice to go home that you didn't find the deer
- It was only through your choice to shoot late that you had limited daylight to find the deer

This isn't an ethical dilemma at all it's a very simple example of consequences
 
tokguy said:
OK...let's expand on the theme.
You are hunting and you have a doe tag...you see a Buck ( same species) with a foot shot off.
Do you shoot the buck to give it a good death and pull the tag? It's a small buck, so it's not a 'He just happened to be a 5 pointer' thing.
By the letter of law you are wrong... but morally?
Having ones guts pulled out their behind by coyotes is a bad way to die. See that sorta thing...nightmare fuel.
What do you do then?
Are your morals strong enough that you would run afoul of the law to stand by them?
Click to expand...

There's just no way we're ever going to get close enough to determine that the leg was shot off, deer break legs and have all sorts of breakages/cuts etc. So you might be intervening in a non-human caused issue.

Our part in nature is that which we choose but we in my opinion we shouldn't walk around as moral decision makers. Enforcing 4 bedroom house, 3 square meals a day,affordable healthcare morality on a deer & coyotes just doesn't work.

Coyotes are what they are, we don't have to like them, and killing them is fine, but they go after the wounded & weak before others. So in taking an injured stag I would assume that you are increasing the likelihood of a healthier animal being the target of their attention. Thus you might be inadvertently causing the deaths of two fawns.

It's a tough call but life is brutal and unintended consequences are long reaching.

Edit: I just sat this from Tokguy

My point being, letting nature do it's process...that don't cut no hay. A front leg blown off by a rifle bullet isn't natural in any way... we personally didn't create the problem, sure. But anyone who doesn't end the scenario is either slightly psychopathic or lacking intestinal fortitude...IMO of course.
Click to expand...

I think it's rather unreasonable and inaccurate to refer to someone this way on account of what I said above
 
tokguy said:
Input received. My thoughts are we can't just wear the 'Stewards of our environment' jacket only when it works in our favor...sometimes we have to act when it's not convenient. Point in case; I've a son who lives in Cowtown, he seems a good enough sort ( child of divorce sadly... don't know him nearly well as I should). He phoned me, quite distressed a while back. Someone had hit a deer on a main thoroughfare... broke all of it's legs. He stopped and cradled it's head and neck until it died. No-one would stop to help... it's Cowtown so not surprising that it's full of folks whom couldn't care less.
Us Super hunters would have ended it's anguish right on the spot ( although sadly most would keep driving IMO) with a pocketknife.
The Natural 'line' has moved...you are correct. But that 'No cruelty in Nature line' has always seemed like Bunk to me.
If someone needs to say it to validate their position, they will. But I'm going to glance at you like 'Poo on my boot' and do what I think needs doing.
I've seen enough natural death in my time... deer rifles and cars are not on my list of natural death causation for wild animals.
As before. My rules, I must abide by them... if that means euthanizing an animal in my Sunday clothes... then I must.
Feel free to turn a blind eye and continue on, it is within your right... I will not.
My rules, I must abide by them. If you don't agree...that is OK as well. Just don't think of stopping me because your rules are different... I'll hit you with my cane, lol. And it is a great honking cane...make no mistake about that.
Click to expand...

The apex predator would have finished the deer off on the side of the road and then strapped the thing to the roof rack of the subaru to bring around home for some chili. - Just kidding

I agree from my perspective there is cruelty in nature yes but it is not evil, its just the way things are.



To be totally honest I have lost a nice 11 point buck before by hitting it behind the diaphragm with my arrow, probably in the liver. I could not recover the animal because it didn't die quick and while attempting to recover it I kept bumping it further into a blowdown of cedars, on the advice of the more experienced hunter helping me follow up on the deer, I left the animal for the night to expire. Well the weather turned from fresh snow to rain overnight washing all traces of blood. I continued to follow up the next day and finally I found it later that day with the help of a friends dog. The deer had died in a mess of blowdown and was mostly eaten by coyotes.

I didn't cut my tag after and kept hunting, but I honestly didn't know any better back then, at the time I even talked to a CO about the experience and they did not object to me continuing to hunt. And by the end of the season I harvested a nice doe to feed myself and family.
I think this thread has changed my mind on the subject.
 
Bratwurst said:
Cut the tag.

- It was only through your choice to shoot that the wolves were able to eat
- It was only through your choice to go home that you didn't find the deer
- It was only through your choice to shoot late that you had limited daylight to find the deer

This isn't an ethical dilemma at all it's a very simple example of consequences
Click to expand...
There is no YOUR CHOICE! I said i started this thread because I see it on hunting shows where they leave the game till morning!!!
 
Right on the money! That humans could havewiped out mammoths etc. is totally bogus |The fact that we are even discussing these issues shows that hunters are a lot more moral than our critics give us credit for.
 
Bratwurst said:
There's just no way we're ever going to get close enough to determine that the leg was shot off, deer break legs and have all sorts of breakages/cuts etc. So you might be intervening in a non-human caused issue.

Our part in nature is that which we choose but we in my opinion we shouldn't walk around as moral decision makers. Enforcing 4 bedroom house, 3 square meals a day,affordable healthcare morality on a deer & coyotes just doesn't work.

Coyotes are what they are, we don't have to like them, and killing them is fine, but they go after the wounded & weak before others. So in taking an injured stag I would assume that you are increasing the likelihood of a healthier animal being the target of their attention. Thus you might be inadvertently causing the deaths of two fawns.

It's a tough call but life is brutal and unintended consequences are long reaching.

Edit: I just sat this from Tokguy



I think it's rather unreasonable and inaccurate to refer to someone this way on account of what I said above
Click to expand...

You would be able to come upon an animal, still alive, that is having it's guts dragged out of it's hind end by coyotes... shrug and say..."that is nature... no cruelty in nature..." and just walk on with a clear conscience?
If it's at that point... or is obviously going to be there soon... what difference does it make if you hasten it's exit ( and cut the anguish short ) with a well placed shot? Easier for the deer, easier for the coyotes... and truth told 'make's me feel a touch better about it as well'... I don't have a problem admitting that either. Would do the same thing for Bovines, Equines and Canines... suddenly I can't because it's a wild animal?
Can say what you would like about morality...feelings... nature... get all pragmatic on us. But seriously; I grew up on a Ranch...left and went to work out of school. Still lived in the country almost exclusively...still do... I struggle to come up with any of my neighbors who wouldn't shoot the animal. Not a one... I really can't fathom it.
Maybe it's a rural / urban divide...maybe it's regional... it just wouldn't fly here.
If me being judgmental about it bothers you... that is a problem for you I suppose.
I'm still going to ' be me'... and the way I might make the decision might contravene wildlife reg's... but I'm going to do it anyhow. If I go to court... so be it.
Standing up for one's beliefs is what you do... so you can shrug and walk on, if your beliefs tell you to do so.
It might be inaccurate and unreasonable in your circles... it's not in mine.
 
Last edited:
tokguy said:
You would be able to come upon an animal, still alive, that is having it's guts dragged out of it's hind end by coyotes... shrug and say..."that is nature... no cruelty in nature..." and just walk on with a clear conscience?
If it's at that point... or is obviously going to be there soon... what difference does it make if you hasten it's exit ( and cut the anguish short ) with a well placed shot? Easier for the deer, easier for the coyotes... and truth told 'make's me feel a touch better about it as well'... I don't have a problem admitting that either. Would do the same thing for Bovines, Equines and Canines... suddenly I can't because it's a wild animal?
Can say what you would like about morality...feelings... nature... get all pragmatic on us. But seriously; I grew up on a Ranch...left and went to work out of school. Still lived in the country almost exclusively...still do... I struggle to come up with any of my neighbors who wouldn't shoot the animal. Not a one... I really can't fathom it.
Maybe it's a rural / urban divide...maybe it's regional... it just wouldn't fly here.
If me being judgmental about it bothers you... that is a problem for you I suppose.
I'm still going to ' be me'... and the way I might make the decision might contravene wildlife reg's... but I'm going to do it anyhow. If I go to court... so be it.
Standing up for one's beliefs is what you do... so you can shrug and walk on, if your beliefs tell you to do so.
It might be inaccurate and unreasonable in your circles... it's not in mine.
Click to expand...

I still can’t decide if you are deliberately convoluting this to defend your position or if you simply read part of a sentence and then immediately jump to conclusions without reading the rest of it fully to actually understand what is being written. I suspect the latter.

However, Bratwurst gets it. There is a FAR cry difference between what you stated previously in that (and I’ll paraphrase for brevity) you are calling anyone who wouldn’t shoot a limping deer that walks past a coward, and ending the suffering of an animal that had been run over by a truck or is being eaten alive by coyotes.
Your stance, as you have written it, comes across as any animals that is seen in the wild that has suffered an injury of some description should be euthanized because obviously that was human caused and a human needs to take responsibility.

MY stance (and Bratwursts I think if I read it correctly) is that an animal can suffer an injury and recover from it and lead a happy life for years. You are convoluting that to try to defend your position into it going from a deer limping past in the bush with a leg injury, to try and say that we would be able to drive past a deer with its guts strung out for 100 yards on the highway that is screaming in pain and has zero chance of survival.

In my mind there is a pretty big difference between an animal that is still moving under its own steam, not obviously suffering or in shock, and one slowly dying with no chance of anything other than pain and suffering.
To each their own though I suppose, and eventually one of these days you are going to walk up on a 3 legged doe that didn’t run off when you stopped and you euthanized on the side of the road and find an injury that is 3 years old and a pair of spotted fawns hidden in the grass. Hopefully you are man enough to stand by your morals at that point…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom