Great White Hunters and Morality...

[Dosing]

So a couple of posts on CGN recently got me thinking about this whole topic, so lets play....


"Pondoro" Taylor, and "Karamojo" Bell were both poachers. At one time or another each shot game out of season/without a licence.
Taylor wrote relatively freely of his 'extra' killings. In African Rifles for instance, stating that he knew better the herd numbers etc, than the bureaucrats, and so.....


I recall this issue first really hitting home about 10 years back, when some scribe in a US gun rag wrote a story about some if the great legendary African 'hunters', and a firestorm ensued between the 'romantics' and those who saw a poacher as a poacher.


Now personally I always liked Osa Johnson, and even she likely whacked a Rhino or two without provocation, but hey, it was a different era....


So, with that in mind....we hava a poll

 

[1899]

I think context is important.

 

[MiG25]

is it really poaching to hunt in the absence of law?

 

[Gibbs505]

Today NO!!

In the time and place of Taylor, Bell and others, that was different and the times were different. Kinda like judging a roman Senetor by the ways of the canadian senete!! Come to think of it, maybe they aren't so different! :twisted: :twisted:

 

[todbartell]

Today NO!!

In the time and place of Taylor, Bell and others, that was different and the times were different.

agreed

 

[troutseeker]

I say no, but this happens in Canada all the time with some privileged group and the government supports it. What exactly constitutes a law, and why does it not apply to everyone???

Troutseeker

 

[Dosing]

Today NO!!

In the time and place of Taylor, Bell and others, that was different and the times were different.

agreed

How so. Taylor worked as a game warden at times, but when times were tough he ignored the government people and went shooting. He was quite up front about it. Baring in mind that there were game regulations at the time, how is it any different now then than?
And certainly some of the guys who went into the 40s and 50s were flying in the face of increasing game management.
I think to simply say it was different then is a wide over generalisation. Sure it was different, but they knew what they were doing and chose to keep doing it because there were bills to be paid.

 

[death-junky]

hells no it pisses me off when i here people shooting animals out of season that means there is one less for the LAW abideing people when hunting season comes around.
talk to ya all later
Riley

 

[EnfieldMike]

Well you have to distinguish between "morality" and "legality"...they are not synonymous. Morality is defined and enforced by a community...legality is defined and enforced by a government. Which we damn well know creates laws which are easily defined as immoral.

Most of us break laws...whether its speeding, taking a forest chicken with a single projectile weapon, driving your ATV without a helmet etc etc. Is having an un-registered rifle "immoral"? Is smokin a doobie "immoral"?

On the other hand it IS legal for a 50 year old man to have ### with a 16 year old girl. For that matter its legal in some provinces for a 50 year old man to marrya 16 year old boy.

Therefore judging a great hunter by his morality is quite a bit different than judging him for his legal obedience or aquiescence!

A hunter who takes a nursing doe, is legal but not neccessarily moral. Same hunter who then takes the fawn, is now illegal but maybe moral. A great hunter who passes on both is highly moral.

 

[dumbdawg]

poaching is poaching

 

[Dosing]

Well you have to distinguish between "morality" and "legality"...they are not synonymous. Morality is defined and enforced by a community...legality is defined and enforced by a government. Which we damn well know creates laws which are easily defined as immoral.

Most of us break laws...whether its speeding, taking a forest chicken with a single projectile weapon, driving your ATV without a helmet etc etc. Is having an un-registered rifle "immoral"? Is smokin a doobie "immoral"?

On the other hand it IS legal for a 50 year old man to have ### with a 16 year old girl. For that matter its legal in some provinces for a 50 year old man to marrya 16 year old boy.

Therefore judging a great hunter by his morality is quite a bit different than judging him for his legal obedience or aquiescence!

A hunter who takes a nursing doe, is legal but not neccessarily moral. Same hunter who then takes the fawn, is now illegal but maybe moral. A great hunter who passes on both is highly moral.

Yeahhhh :lol: College Boy

 

[secondgen]

I say no, but this happens in Canada all the time with some privileged group and the government supports it. What exactly constitutes a law, and why does it not apply to everyone???

Troutseeker

Why don't you just say what you mean then perhaps someone can explain it to you?

 

[john-brennan]

no

NO!!!

 

[john-brennan]

poaching

NO!!!

 

[Gibbs505]

Today NO!!

In the time and place of Taylor, Bell and others, that was different and the times were different.

agreed

How so. Taylor worked as a game warden at times, but when times were tough he ignored the government people and went shooting. He was quite up front about it. Baring in mind that there were game regulations at the time, how is it any different now then than?
And certainly some of the guys who went into the 40s and 50s were flying in the face of increasing game management.
I think to simply say it was different then is a wide over generalisation. Sure it was different, but they knew what they were doing and chose to keep doing it because there were bills to be paid.

Because things change. judge them by there time, not ours! :roll:

 

[eltorro]

situations differ.
Robin Hood comes to mind.

some countries have prohibitive laws towards hunting. For the lay people that is.
So in that case the poaching takes a form of social battle... you get the drift.

it is so hard to pass correct judgements on people that you never met.

someone not driven by real hunger -with the obvious intent to use the meat for his/her famiy - and disconsidering the law is a poacher. Someone that endangers a species with limited numbers is a poacher. Someone that shoots neighbour's dog is a cat lover ??? :mrgreen:

 

[Dosing]

Because things change. judge them by there time, not ours! :roll:

Judging Taylor by his time he was a Poacher :!:
There were game laws, game wardens, courts, a judiciary, and Judicial system.
He wanted money and shot elephants to net the ivory to get his money.

So, in his time, if he had been caught he'd have been charged and convicted of a crime. Hell it wasn't like there was no law or regulations simply because it was "The Olden Days".

 

[Gibbs505]

Yes but their time also had different attitudes towards graft, paying off officials etc. Read Bells book, most of the time he was a poacher was because he refused to pay off the officials!

Are you saying that because he didn't pay graft, he was worse as a poacher? Again it was their time, not ours!

 

[dan belisle]

I agree with Enfield Mike, morality and legality are two very seperate issues. By the legal system of this country, we are all in illegal possession of firearms, which is then given a pass by way of a permit. Legal? Yes. Moral? you tell me. I have lot's of family members who fed themselves on wild meat with no regard to what the law of the day was back in the depression. Legal? No. Moral? I think so. Time and circumstance make villains or angels of us all. - dan

 

[Murf]

poaching is poaching


This comment is somewhat negated by the fact that the same action in one jurisdiction may be legal whereas across an imaginary provincial border it is illegal.
It also fails to address the question of subsistance hunting which many of our parents and grandparents did durring the depression.

On the reverse side there are times when taking the bag limit is not showing care for the resource despite it being legal. As an example there were several years when I did not hunt migratory game birds as the population in my area was very low but limits were still high.