Home Main Category Hunting

Question on hunting ethics...........

orchidmanorchidman Senior MemberPosts: 8,364 Senior Member
Been watching the tv series Kodiak...............mainly cos of the fantastic scenery and footage of animals (Bears, deer, Roosevelt Elk etc)

On the program last night ( I think it was the series end) it showed the old guys (guides) going out to shoot ducks.
Most of the shots they took were at ducks on the water.

Over here it is regarded as unethical to shoot birds on the water and we have laws specifically banning it.

Question I have is, is it against the law over there.................or is it left up to the individual hunters ethical sense ?

It seems to me that a program showing Hunting guides who profess to show respect for the game ( every time they kill a bear/deer, they give thanks in a small prayer as they kneel over the animal) that shows them later shooting birds on the water destroys their credibility.

My personal view is that if they cant hit birds on the wing, they shouldn't chase ducks!

Can someone enlighten me please ?
Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
«1

Replies

  • LinefinderLinefinder Moderator Posts: 7,748 Senior Member
    There are no laws here against shooting a "sitting duck", unless it's local laws. And far be it from me to declare a legal method of taking game "unethical", but..................I grew up shooting ducks alongside a lot of other folks that grew up shooting ducks. I don't recall a single instance of a duck taking a load of shot while it bobbed on the waves. Shooting dove out of trees or off powerlines was greatly frowned upon, too.

    Mike
    "Walking away seems to be a lost art form."
    N454casull
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 8,364 Senior Member
    Linefinder wrote: »
    There are no laws here against shooting a "sitting duck", unless it's local laws. And far be it from me to declare a legal method of taking game "unethical", but..................I grew up shooting ducks alongside a lot of other folks that grew up shooting ducks. I don't recall a single instance of a duck taking a load of shot while it bobbed on the waves. Shooting dove out of trees or off powerlines was greatly frowned upon, too.

    Mike

    Thanks Mike.

    It just seems to me that portraying the practice on TV doesn't do the sport any good and gives more 'ammo' to the anti-hunting brigade to use against us.
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    I don't see anything unethical about shooting ducks on the water. Unsportsmanslike, sure, but not unethical. Shooting a duck on the water is likely more humane than wing shooting. Probably less lost birds as well.

    I don't hunt waterfowl much, but during trapping season last year I saw at least a dozen ducks and geese that were on the water that couldn't fly away because they were wounded. THAT seems unethical to me. I even posted a thread about it. I was told that losing waterfowl is very common.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,663 Senior Member
    I've never seen the show, but in Alaska they sustenance hunt. To many it's as much about 'sporting' as going to the grocery store and getting it out of the meat case. They shoot whichever way will get them the most to eat eat thru the winter....

    Same with fishing. Snagging hooks, dip nets, fish wheels.........
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    I don't see anything unethical about shooting ducks on the water. Unsportsmanslike, sure, but not unethical. Shooting a duck on the water is likely more humane than wing shooting. Probably less lost birds as well.

    I don't hunt waterfowl much, but during trapping season last year I saw at least a dozen ducks and geese that were on the water that couldn't fly away because they were wounded. THAT seems unethical to me. I even posted a thread about it. I was told that losing waterfowl is very common.

    I remember your thread and most of us blamed it on steel shot. But the reality is to many people take unethical shots, birds are to far away, "sky busting". Or they have poor shotgunning skills. But no one is perfect and they are moving targets after all.
    That said, the only sitting duck I would shoot would be a cripple.
    You should consider buying a license and stamps for your trapping excursions.
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 14,192 Senior Member
    I have shot some crips on the water and I have had a couple of suicidal mallrds come paddling out of the cat-tails into the decoys and get shot, otherwise the goal is to shoot them in the air, the shooting continues until the waterfowl is down and retrieved.
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    You should consider buying a license and stamps for your trapping excursions.

    Don't forget the non-tox $$ ammo! It wouldn't be too painful to add the shotgun to the john boat. You know as soon as I spend the money I won't see any cripples on the water.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    And if you did find one, it would end up having some nasty infection.

    Yuck. I hadn't even considered that.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,116 Senior Member
    Ducks on the water are harder to kill than ducks on the wing....much of their vitals are protected by water and folded wings...

    That being said....

    In Great Britain they still legally use punt guns...

    Here in KS it's illegal to shoot upland birds on the ground.and the practice of taking a "skillet shot" on a covey of quail is considered slobbish (unethical) behavior as well...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • RazorbackerRazorbacker Senior Member Posts: 4,646 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Don't forget the non-tox $$ ammo! It wouldn't be too painful to add the shotgun to the john boat. You know as soon as I spend the money I won't see any cripples on the water.

    Oh I know, the doves are thick as fleas around here and the season opens the 6th. But I know as soon as I pull in the driveway with my license and HIP registration, they'll move off.
    Correct me if I'm wrong but loaded ammo carries no haz mat fees. If that's the case I can send you a box of steel shot. I'll have to look and see what shot sizes I have. I wrote it off as an entertainment expense years ago so I can spare a little.

    Edit: spot and stalk them. That's what I did as a kid before I had money for dekes and calls. Much less waders or a boat. And I don't mean cripples, we used that technique on perfectly healthy flocks of ducks and geese
    Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Ducks on the water are harder to kill than ducks on the wing....much of their vitals are protected by water and folded wings...

    I was thinking head shots. Like turkey hunting.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    Oh I know, the doves are thick as fleas around here and the season opens the 6th. But I know as soon as I pull in the driveway with my license and HIP registration, they'll move off.
    Correct me if I'm wrong but loaded ammo carries no haz mat fees. If that's the case I can send you a box of steel shot. I'll have to look and see what shot sizes I have. I wrote it off as an entertainment expense years ago so I can spare a little.

    Edit: spot and stalk them. That's what I did as a kid before I had money for dekes and calls. Much less waders or a boat. And I don't mean cripples, we used that technique on perfectly healthy flocks of ducks and geese


    I think that all ammo is ORD because gunpowder. So restricted shipping. Thanks for the offer, but if I plan on shooting cripples, I'll spring for the expense. I don't want to "hunt" birds and trap. Too distracting.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 18,116 Senior Member
    A .22 would be cheaper and more effective....but illegal....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 8,364 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Ducks on the water are harder to kill than ducks on the wing....much of their vitals are protected by water and folded wings...

    l...

    I agree.

    In the days when lead was permitted, I used to carry a handful of #8 lead shells in my pocket for dealing with cripples when shooting on open water. The smaller shot size wouldn't penetrate the body ( if any part of it was exposed) but would certainly penetrate the head due to the 'thinness' of the feathers. It lessened the amount of damage compared with using #4 lead shot to dispatch cripples.

    As a side note to the whole 'shooting them on the water', my first shot at a live duck when I was a real young fella was under my fathers supervision..............a mallard drake landed in the decoys, he handed his 30" barrelled full choke SBS to me and let me 'water strafe' it.
    After the deed was done he congratulated me on a good shot...............then told me that if I ever shot another unwounded bird on the water I wouldn't be able to sit down for a month. I think I was about 8 yrs old at the time.
    He worked on the principal that if I was successful at my first attempt at duck shooting.............I would be interested for life...............He was right!
    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Roll the dice. You will either get lucky and have dinner, or end a wounded birds suffering. Or both.

    Good point.
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 5,486 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    I've got to send you a picture, Cali....

    Send it!
    When our governing officials dismiss due process as mere semantics, when they exercise powers they don’t have and ignore duties they actually bear, and when we let them get away with it, we have ceased to be our own rulers.

    Adam J. McCleod


  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
    If I have to shoot them while they're NOT on the water, in trees or on high line wires, I might as well stay home. This is pretty much the reason why I rarely hunt birds. -:(
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • Farm Boy DeuceFarm Boy Deuce Senior Member Posts: 6,083 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    If I have to shoot them while they're NOT on the water, in trees or on high line wires, I might as well stay home. This is pretty much the reason why I rarely hunt birds. -:(

    A few years back I had a dove commit suicide from my gun. A three of us were walking out a cut milo field when a pair of birds flies down the length of our line. Bird number 1 is hit and goes down like a brick. Bird number 2 puts on the brakes and lands in a open spot caused by alkali. This bald spot was about 20 feet from where I was standing, so I pulled up and ended it for bird number 2. It was delicious.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »
    Thanks Mike.

    It just seems to me that portraying the practice on TV doesn't do the sport any good and gives more 'ammo' to the anti-hunting brigade to use against us.

    It's not illegal but it is unethical. Well it's viewed as unethical by most real sportsmen. I cannot believe these idiots actually did this on camera, I don't care what the circumstances.

    When I was very young, about 16-17, we used to shoot dove anyway we could, whether off the highlines or off a fence. we also used to jump shoot ducks off ponds. But I can remember by dad telling me once that that was no way to hunt. After he chewed on me a bit, it made me think. I haven't done anything like that since. Later on in life I taught hunter education for the state and this reinforced my ethical stance. My whole career, 15 years, teaching hunter ed classes I preached hard against such practices. Now I have the opportunity to instill a good ethical mindset in my grand kids. That I am doing and will continue. To me, shooting ducks off a pond is akin to poaching or road hunting. In my opinion it's criminal because when you take game like that you are stealing from the rest of us.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 27,456 Senior Member
    Snake,I remember when you held the position that I was unethical because I shot game over 400 yards and made head shots as well. My how opinions change.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    Zee wrote: »
    Snake,I remember when you held the position that I was unethical because I shot game over 400 yards and made head shots as well. My how opinions change.

    Heck, I don't know what I said back then, but I never meant that YOU were unethical. I just did and still believe that some people don't need to be attempting shots like that because they aren't ready for that. I know there are several people on this forum talented enough to make such shots, guys like yourself, Ernie, Shooter, Pegasus, line finder and MHS to name a few, but there are plenty more of us here that aren't because we haven't honed our skills to that point. And I believe people that aren't talented enough to pull off a shot like that and that still make the attempt are guilty of being unethical. I'm still of that opinion. However, I don't feel that our forum members are of that persuasion. I think most everyone here knows his limitations and most everyone here is very ethical. Forums like this aren't exactly magnets for the average Joe Sixpack.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • gatorgator Senior Member Posts: 1,746 Senior Member
    Back in the 80's when I first moved to Az. all the farms used flood irrigation in the cotton fields, for those who don't know what flood irrigation is, all the fields have a concrete ditch at the upper end and they would use a siphon hose to flood each row.Once the rows were watered the excess would run into a sump.

    These sumps were all over, and thick with the lush greenery that accompanies an area that is perpetually wet.

    They were full of bullfrogs, and some even had catfish in them. They were a fantastic place to hunt dove and there always seemed to be a covey of quail close by. In the winter the ducks would use them as a stop over on their way south and some would even winter here.

    We used to "sump jump" the ducks (mostly mallards and teal) by driving from sump to sump. We never would shoot them on the water because we didn't have a boat or a dog and no one wanted to go swimming in the cold. If one of us did drop one in the water we would have to throw rocks and dirt clods at it until it was close enough to reach with a pole with a fish hook tied to the end of it.

    If the duck was dead it wasn't a problem but we had some interesting fights with the crippled ones.
    USMC 80-84
    -96 lbs
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    My opinion is that as long as you intend to eat what you kill, you can take them in any legal way that suits you. To me, the dove you wound and don't find because he was flying 50 mph and landed in the weeds 80 yards away is a bigger hunting sin than the one you shot off a tree limb and put in your bag.

    99% of birds I have shot have been on the fly, because it is so much more fun. But I eat what I kill, so if their numbers are few, and one lights in front of me, I probably won't pass on it...at least not for 'ethical' reasons.
  • orchidmanorchidman Senior Member Posts: 8,364 Senior Member
    This is what our Game Regs say........( Just for your info)

    22. Shooting of game not in flight prohibited


    (1) Except as provided in subsection (1A), every person who shoots at or attempts to shoot at any game bird not in flight commits an offence against this Act and is liable to the penalty set out in section 67E(3).


    (1A) No person commits an offence under subsection (1)—

    (a) who shoots at or attempts to shoot at any game bird already wounded by shooting:


    (b) where that person was acting in accordance with any authorisation under sections 53 or 54:


    (c) where that person was acting in accordance with any notification given by the Minister.



    (2) For the purposes of this section—

    (a) a bird shall be deemed to be not in flight at any time when it is alighting on or rising from any water or land or any vegetation or structure in or on any water or on any land and any part of the bird is in contact with the water or land or vegetation or structure:


    (b) subject to paragraph (a), a bird shall be deemed to be in flight at all times when it is airborne, including times when it is soaring or banking or swooping, and whether its wings are in motion or not.


    Section 22(1): replaced, on 15 October 2000, by section 8 of the Wildlife (Penalties and Related Matters) Amendment Act 2000 (2000 No 43).

    Section 22(1A): inserted, on 15 October 2000, by section 8 of the Wildlife (Penalties and Related Matters) Amendment Act 2000 (2000 No 43).


    This is the penalty.............

    A person convicted of an offence under any of the provisions listed in subsection (4) is liable,—

    (a) in the case of an individual, to a fine not exceeding $5,000 plus a further fine not exceeding $100 for each head of game and egg of game in respect of which the offence is committed:


    (b) in the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 plus a further fine not exceeding $200 for each head of game and egg of game in respect of which the offence is committed.

    Still enjoying the trip of a lifetime and making the best of what I have.....
  • waipapa13waipapa13 Senior Member Posts: 915 Senior Member
    Bisley
    Re: Question on hunting ethics...........
    My opinion is that as long as you intend to eat what you kill, you can take them in any legal way that suits you. To me, the dove you wound and don't find because he was flying 50 mph and landed in the weeds 80 yards away is a bigger hunting sin than the one you shot off a tree limb and put in your bag.

    99% of birds I have shot have been on the fly, because it is so much more fun. But I eat what I kill, so if their numbers are few, and one lights in front of me, I probably won't pass on it...at least not for 'ethical' reasons.

    :that: fairly well my take on it also
  • Six-GunSix-Gun Senior Member Posts: 8,155 Senior Member
    I find the ehtical view on shooting sitting birds varies from place to place. Given that I have now hunted ducks in both plentiful (Nebraska/Iowa) and lean (Arizona/southern Nevada) places, I have found a very big discrepancy in the view on this. In Nevada hunting pamphlet, they literally advise you to go jump shoot birds, on the water or however you need to, to make something of your hunting day. When you have extremely limited bird numbers, that's just how things are. In the Midwest, where morning bird movements off of one lake can easily break 500K ducks, shooting birds off the water is far less accepted and viewed as unsporting, at best. That doesn't apply to cripples, of course - if a bird is wing shot and sitting on the surface unable to fly, nobody will give you a hard time for water-swatting it.
    Accuracy: because white space between bullet holes drives me insane.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,324 Senior Member
    I imagine the "ethics" of only shooting birds in flight goes back centuries to when "fowling" was the way for one nobleman with a stick up his butt to impress other noblemen with sticks up their butts. When you've got a paid huntsman in turn employing a horde of beaters flushing game for you, it's about showing off for your peers, and aerial shots are far more macho. Giving the bird a "sporting chance" was an invented part of the game

    The unwashed peasants fighting off starvation would take game by any means necessary. I suspect the notion of "aerial shots only" grew out of a way for the nobility to further distance themselves from the subjects with a show to convince themselves and everyone of their superiority.

    There IS the safety issue of firing your birdshot only on an upward path. In crowded shooting areas, that may be the main reason for banning ground-sluicing.

    I get the idea of shooting hours and hunting seasons for species management, and I get the development and display of skill, but as long as the hours and season are open, it makes zero difference to me how that bird gets in the pot. The only ethical kill is the clean kill IMHO. I think it only matters to the birds that they're being shot.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 12,575 Senior Member
    I've shot a total of ONE duck in my life, (flying) and I'm no authority. However, I belong to a shotgun board where a guy from Russia posted a video of shooting a duck or a goose (can't remember) as it landed in a field. He was criticized but said in Russia, the skill was luring them to land rather than shooting on the wing. Just a different view I guess. If I was hunting for the table, I would not pay much attention to where they were, but I'm not a duck fancier.

    I tried to eat the duck I shot but was totally unprepared for cleaning it. It was awful. I understand the ducks that fly in from the grain states are great, but to me, they're fat and awful tasting.

    I remember when Canada geese were a novelty here. I remember the first flock I saw in the Spring. Now they stay here all year and eat unspeakable things. I wouldn't eat one at gunpoint.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Pelagic KayakerPelagic Kayaker Banned Posts: 1,503 Senior Member
    orchidman wrote: »

    It seems to me that a program showing Hunting guides who profess to show respect for the game ( every time they kill a bear/deer, they give thanks in a small prayer as they kneel over the animal) that shows them later shooting birds on the water destroys their credibility.

    No silly a** prayer from me, ...just lots of pepper, butter, onions, garlic....

    Idiots who "pray" over the animal they just blasted shouldn't be hunting. Nothing more than showing their egotistical side, especially when the camera's are rolling. Giving thanks my a**!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    There are lots of folks who think that, I'm sure. But it takes a real jerk to say it to someone in 'friendly' conversation.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement