|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 25, 2011 16:47:59 GMT -5
Swilk and Russ Koon nailed it on this thread. What kills me the most is when guys decide whether something is right or wrong based on legality. You'll often hear these folks say things like "I don't care what others do....as long as it's legal." My response is.....What?? If hunting was illegal, would that mean that it is wrong to hunt? If hunting deer with bait, dogs, snares, and spotlights were legal, would that make it right? Look, we (society) decide (arbitrarily) what is right and wrong, then design laws accordingly. To look to our laws to decide whether something is right or wrong is complete rubbish....IMO. Matt, What legal game laws do you believe is "not right"?
|
|
|
Post by racktracker on Mar 25, 2011 17:40:56 GMT -5
Swilk and Russ Koon nailed it on this thread. That is two that I read every post from. Both could take either side of the fence in an argument/debate and do very well. No matter though. They are just two opinions just like anyone else’s.What kills me the most is when guys decide whether something is right or wrong based on legality. You'll often hear these folks say things like "I don't care what others do....as long as it's legal." My response is.....What?? Do you really believe that you should be able to impose what is right and wrong onto others - IF what they are doing is legal?If hunting was illegal, would that mean that it is wrong to hunt? That would make it illegal. In your opinion, would hunting then be “right”? If so then a person should be able to pick and choose which game laws are right. If a disease struck our Indiana deer herd and e reduced it to several thousand animals and the DNR said that we would have to curtail hunting for a few years would you say that is not ”right” and keep on hunting?If hunting deer with bait, dogs, snares, and spotlights were legal, would that make it right? Russ Koon = One of the people that you mentioned above has publicaly stated in a couple of forums and I believe to the DNR/NRC that they just might consider baiting in “strategic areas” where they desire to kill more deer. I can’t say that I disagree with him,. The DNR will not do it because some hunters don’t think it’s right, but because of the disease aspect. That could change IF the deer herd got way out of control.
Baiting and dogs for deer is a time honored tradition in some states. But, according to you they are not hunting “right”?
Snares and spotlights are OK for coyotes and just about every other critter out there , but not for deer? Are you a speciest in that you believe some huntable critters are on a higher order than others?”Look, we (society) decide (arbitrarily) what is right and wrong, then design laws accordingly. To look to our laws to decide whether something is right or wrong is complete rubbish....IMO. Now that is double speak. We decide what is right or wrong, make a law then we decide if that law is right or wrong? ?
We are talking about game laws. Game laws are enacted to provide safety for the hunters and the populace, protect the game and manage the game.
As we are seeing with the deer proposal those laws are pretty well in a constant flux to accomplish those goals.
ANYONE who operates within the framework of the game laws is doing what is “right” for themselves. You may not like it or think it is ‘right” and it may not be for you. My advice for you then is don’t do it.
|
|
|
Post by mattfinney on Mar 25, 2011 18:10:05 GMT -5
Woody,
Well, that's a tough question for me, you see..I don't believe in any kind of absolute right or wrong. I don't think it exists, I think we all just make up what ever we want, and go with that. For example, most Christians would say that killing people is wrong (thou shall not kill), but find it necessary and acceptable in say....times of war, or executions. Many consider lying to be fundamentally, or absolutely, wrong, but most wouldn't hesitate if it was necessary to protect the safety of ourselves or our family. We all decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, and I believe that all of our laws are nothing less than arbitrary, as a result....none of them are right, and none are wrong, at least in any fundamental or absolute manner.
Anyways, back to deer regs (which I guess this is supposed to be about), I don't think crossbows inclusion would be wrong, I don't think remotely viewable game cameras are wrong, I don't even think shooting deer with rocket launchers, or running them down with your car is wrong (remember, I don't think anything is capable of being right or wrong, or that a rightness or wrongness exists in any way).
If it was up to me though, I would probably only want to change our season dates. I would have deer season start in mid-September with the most primitive and challenging weapons, traditional archery. From here, I would gradually add more effective weapons as the season progressed. October 15th, I would add modern archery (compounds), November 15th, I would add crossbows, Dec 1st, I would add muzzleloaders, and then December 15th, general firearms would be added. Hunters would always be able to handicap themselves with any of the preceding weapons. I believe that this system would be the most fair to the hunters, and I believe that it would be better for quality of deer hunting in Indiana.
Hope that answers your question.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Mar 26, 2011 0:30:52 GMT -5
I agree with Matt at least in part. Laws are made by politicians, who are always pretty much aware of the public sentiment. Things are illegal not so much because they are intrinsically wrong, as because they are unpopular.
Hunting regulations reflect this maybe more than other laws. The legality of some weapons and techniques in some areas and not others is not because the folks in some areas are better people, but because they grew up with that type of hunting being the accepted method, whether it is hound hunting for deer in the southeast, party hunting in some states, shotguns with buckshot in some places, centerfire rifles, crossbows, compounds with more than 65% letoff, lighted sight pins, electronic calls, bait, or whatever.
And the reasons for some regulations do change with time. That's part of the rationale for my suggestion that the DNR reconsider baiting. Over the years, our deer woods have been broken up into smaller parcels, more adjacent places have been placed off limits to us because they've been sold to someone who won't allow any hunting, or sold or leased to someone who doesn't want anyone else tromping around in their woods shooting their deer.
Also, the DNR's goals have changed from regulating hunting to limit our harvest to allow for herd expansion, to trying to stabilize the herd numbers, to trying to reduce the numbers through more antlerless kills. So, if we have fewer hunters trying to kill more deer on fewer and smaller properties, it might be time to rethink some of the old notions about a technique that we migt not have found to be a viable tool back when the deer season was new and the woods were larger and less crowded.
The laws about other more permanent aspects of life change, and rules such as hunting regulations are supposed to be even more flexible to respond to the needs of the time.
The other major factor in my suggestion to reconsider baiting is something that probably has changed less over time. Those who make their own rules have always hunted over salt blocks or corn piles or other bait. Laws that are effectively unenforcable have long been a pet peeve of mine, whether it's tax laws that are cheated on by about half the taxpaying public, gun laws that are obviously not going to be obeyed by the very people we'd like most to obey them, or hunting regulations that simply can't be enforced with any degree of effectiveness.
Such laws may be necessary sometimes, but should be avoided whenever possible, because they only serve to hamper the legal citizen, and reward the scofflaws who ignore them.
And some regulations are just plain silly, like the possession limits that say I can't keep my squirrels in the freezer for a while and enioy them throughout the winter, but have to eat all but a few before I go hunting again.....unless I "gift" some of them to someone else by writing on the frozen package the name of the person I am donating them to, in which case I can keep them in my freezer! Hope the person I'm donating some of them to doen't have TOO many squirrel hunting friends also saving some for him/her in their freezers. They could end up in jail for violating the possession limits without firing a shot! Oh well, if it made any sense it wouldn't be a government regulation.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Mar 26, 2011 4:53:53 GMT -5
Legal hunting is the only way to judge how others hunt, any other way is the old "if you don't hunt like me then your less of a hunter" attitude. Quit judging others on how or what the hunt with. If they are hunting in a legal manner then they are hunting in an ethical way no matter what you may think. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Mar 26, 2011 5:46:29 GMT -5
Kind of cold around the 15th of December.
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Mar 26, 2011 8:20:40 GMT -5
I have posted about this before, years back there was a great article in Bowhunter mag or D&DH about all the gadgets. In reality it does not matter what or much you are toting, it is man vs deer. I cannot do the article justice but it really hit home for me, especially when I started an inventory of all the "crap" I carry. Carry a ruck sack or a pocket full, does not change your status as a hunter, and NOTHING material can alter the connection of man and deer. Solohunter Well said.. TRUTH....
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Mar 26, 2011 8:27:24 GMT -5
And some regulations are just plain silly, like the possession limits that say I can't keep my squirrels in the freezer for a while and enioy them throughout the winter, but have to eat all but a few before I go hunting again.....unless I "gift" some of them to someone else by writing on the frozen package the name of the person I am donating them to, in which case I can keep them in my freezer! Hope the person I'm donating some of them to doen't have TOO many squirrel hunting friends also saving some for him/her in their freezers. They could end up in jail for violating the possession limits without firing a shot! Oh well, if it made any sense it wouldn't be a government regulation.
The squirrel possession limit is asinine, never understood why someone could not kill up to 5 a day and keep them in the freezer until ready to use. Unaware of the "donating" to friends aspect of this ignorant law.
|
|
|
Post by deweydutchmen on Mar 26, 2011 9:19:26 GMT -5
Legal hunting is the only way to judge how others hunt, any other way is the old "if you don't hunt like me then your less of a hunter" attitude. Quit judging others on how or what the hunt with. If they are hunting in a legal manner then they are hunting in an ethical way no matter what you may think. h.h. Legal and ethical are in 2 different catagories for me.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Mar 26, 2011 12:51:41 GMT -5
Legal hunting is the only way to judge how others hunt, any other way is the old "if you don't hunt like me then your less of a hunter" attitude. Quit judging others on how or what the hunt with. If they are hunting in a legal manner then they are hunting in an ethical way no matter what you may think. h.h. Legal and ethical are in 2 different catagories for me. Please expain the difference as I fail to see how a legal hunter is an unethical hunter. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 26, 2011 13:25:59 GMT -5
Legal and ethical are in 2 different catagories for me. Please expain the difference as I fail to see how a legal hunter is an unethical hunter. h.h. Good question. If it is legal and a hunter wants to do it is ethical for that hunter. Might not be for the next hunter. Ethics are very personal. I'll not call unethical on any hunter that is hunting legally. All one can say correctly is " that would be unethical for ME to hunt that way. " we can not and should not try to impose OUR standards of ethics on others that are hunting legally.
|
|
|
Post by deweydutchmen on Mar 26, 2011 14:10:33 GMT -5
There are many instances in the outdoor world where IMO there are differences in legal and ethical. Me and another guy have permission to hunt 100 acres. He has been hunting there for twenty years and this is my first year. I move in on him and place my stand 20 yards from his. Legal yes ethical IMO no. etc, etc, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 26, 2011 14:28:40 GMT -5
There are many instances in the outdoor world where IMO there are differences in legal and ethical. Me and another guy have permission to hunt 100 acres. He has been hunting there for twenty years and this is my first year. I move in on him and place my stand 20 yards from his. Legal yes ethical IMO no. etc, etc, etc. No, no no... we are talking about game regulations, not horning in on someone. Name us present game regulation that is unethical for anyone to do. In your opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by deweydutchmen on Mar 26, 2011 14:44:04 GMT -5
Legal hunting is the only way to judge how others hunt, any other way is the old "if you don't hunt like me then your less of a hunter" attitude. Quit judging others on how or what the hunt with. If they are hunting in a legal manner then they are hunting in an ethical way no matter what you may think. h.h. Hornharvester said to quit judging on how people hunt and thats what I was responding to.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Mar 26, 2011 16:41:15 GMT -5
And some regulations are just plain silly, like the possession limits that say I can't keep my squirrels in the freezer for a while and enioy them throughout the winter, but have to eat all but a few before I go hunting again.....unless I "gift" some of them to someone else by writing on the frozen package the name of the person I am donating them to, in which case I can keep them in my freezer! Hope the person I'm donating some of them to doen't have TOO many squirrel hunting friends also saving some for him/her in their freezers. They could end up in jail for violating the possession limits without firing a shot! Oh well, if it made any sense it wouldn't be a government regulation. The squirrel possession limit is asinine, never understood why someone could not kill up to 5 a day and keep them in the freezer until ready to use. Unaware of the "donating" to friends aspect of this ignorant law. Nice thread about that very subject that should explain it! www.hoosierhunting.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/20/1824.html
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Mar 26, 2011 22:51:41 GMT -5
I started a thread about it on here a couple years back, too. We had some interesting discussions on the topic.
In the process of arguing the point, I researched a bunch of other sites, mostly state DNR sites and state sportsmens sites. That was when I learned about the "gifting" provision that gives a guy the option of donating those extra rabbits or fish or whatever to Grandma, and keeping them for her in his freezer, with the packages properly marked.
Most states were similar to ours in that few people thought much about the subject, and many were surprised to find that they were in violation.
If I remember right, there were a few states that had pretty much solved the problem by stating that game once processed and in the freezer no longer counted against the possession limits. If the CO wanted to catch a game hog, they needed to do so before the evidence went into the freezer. Pretty sure Texas was one of the states that took that position. Most states were like ours, though, going along with the silliness.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Mar 27, 2011 17:58:57 GMT -5
Good luck with the CO catching the bad guys. Since Dave retired, Brian is the only CO we have. With days off, sick days, vacation, and almost every other weekend patrolling Monroe Reservoir, the low life's are going to be hard to bust.
|
|
|
Post by tickman1961 on Mar 28, 2011 9:41:12 GMT -5
"Please expain the difference as I fail to see how a legal hunter is an unethical hunter. h.h."
Some here would say it is unethical for someone to hunt sheds/morels on a leased property despite that someone getting permission from the owner of the property to hunt said items.
Some might find it unethical to shoot a deer/turkey during legal hours and in season from your back porch.
Ethics many times are not about legal vs illegal
|
|