Many of the comments to my most recent What Would You Do Series got me thinking about ethical decision-making. For example, in response to a scenario in which a hutner sees a wounded buck but doesn’t have the proper tag to harvest the buck, Kris from Jake’s Outdoors wrote:

I hate to see any animal suffering, but i would have to do as the rest have already said: let him walk. Like Othmar [Outdoors with Othmar], I will not do anything that endangers my hunting privilege. Like Chris [Penn’s Outdoors] said, I don’t know too many game wardens who would accept this as an excuse for shooting a deer.

Echoing these sentiments, everyone else who replied (including myself) decided going with the law was the best way to go (other respondents included the likes of Arthur [Simply Outdoors], Rick [Tails & Trails], Matt [Bright Idea Outdoors], Brad [Southern Adventures], Marc [NYBowhunter], and Marian [Marian’s Hunting Stories].

What does that say about hunting culture? While many people seem to agree that shooting the wounded animal would be the most ethical think to do, we all seemed to go with the most legal route. Now, I realize that my little blog comments don’t represent the whole hunting culture, but I think we might be onto something here. Let me explain…

A Little Psychology For You…

A developmental psychologist named Lawrence Kohlberg theorized that humans develop through different stages of moral development. I’ll save you all the details, but basically, he said that the way we respond to ethical dilemnas reflect our moral development. The most matured levels of development, according to Kohlberg, involved ignoring the law and doing what’s right. Examples of people who may have reached this stage include people like Martin Luther King, Jr. He ignored the law to better our world.

Is there a place for this in Hunting?

I hope so, but I know I don’t want to risk my hunting privileges (my hunting excursions are already too far and few between)…so how can I expect it from others?

But wait…maybe it goes beyond individuals?

Hmmm…what could I mean here. Ideally, we wouldn’t have to worry about telling the truth. That is, if I honestly shoot an animal for the better of the world, and not just because I wanted to (i.e., harvesting a wounded buck), and I then took this deer to the game warden to report it — in an ideal world this would all check out smoothly. Unfortunately, our hunting culture is infiltrated with 1- selfish liars…which leads to 2- wardens who are out to get us. (I know “out to get us” is a negative term…but my run-ins with wardens have been mostly negative - and for no good reason).

Conclusion:

It is hard to do good in a culture that focuses on the negative…and unfortunately our hunting culture reflect the culture of society (one in which we are punished for wrongdoings much more than we are rewarded for good deeds). Even so, I hope that someday I am able to find a balance between these two - doing what’s right — even if I can find a way to bend the law!

development, ethics, hunting, Kohlberg, law, morals, Psychology of Hunting, theory, truth

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Blogging is having a wonderful and profound impact on how I think, which in turn influences how/what I write. Case in point: a recent discussion on the language of outdoor writers. My thinking on this issue is evolving. What follows is a description of where my thinking is headed on this issue and a few more questions. I look forward to continued discussion on this topic. Many thanks to those who are participating in this ongoing debate (click here to read original post).

There definitely seems to be some type of tension between accurately discussion a topic, being respectful, and being overly PC. BNF, Phillip (Hog Blog), and Kristine (Gunslinger) all touched on this issue in their comments. Others, such as Arthur (Simply Outdoors) took the viewpoint that despite any tension, they desire to write what they view as reality. It was also mentioned that we should consider our intended audience (CDGarden - Timber Life; Marc - nybowhunter), but we might also want to be cognizant of our ‘unintended’ audiences. This issue rang true in this discussion as a self-professed ‘non-hunter’ (Amanda - EnviroBlog) decided to share a very interesting viewpoint that PC in the outdoor writing world can actually be more offensive than just writing what really happens.

As Amanda stated in her comment, the key issue might be respect for the animal. Is it respectful to refer to an honest kill as a harvest? As Othmar (Outdoors with Othmar) later suggested, saying we ‘harvest’ animals might be akin to saying that deer are like cattle (or corn): we grow a better species and then reap the benefits when they are ripe (that definitely does not sound like ‘fair chase’).

On the other hand, I had one my first encounters yesterday with a surprise comments, a self-professed non-hunter. Turns out that you really never know who is in the audience, particularly on the world wide web…which brings me to my next question. How far is too far?

Honesty is one thing, but what first inspired this series wasn’t necessarily the “harvest” versus “kill” debate. It was more on the other side of the fence. That is, I think there is a bit of a continuum from being PC (such as “harvest”) to being accurate (”kill” or “shot”) to being something else. I’m actually hesitant to use any actual examples, but for the sake of this discussion I think I need to in order to convey my argument. Here goes - the following are all ways of stating someone shot at and killed a deer:

• I “harvested” a deer.
• I “shot” a deer.
• I “whacked” a deer.

I’m sure we all have other examples. Here are my honest questions:

• Can we go too far? Can we press beyond the respect of our game?
• Should our choice of language depend on context? (in the woods versus on a blog?) or should we be consistent regardless of situation?
• If our language does depend on context, then is it only because we need to PC?
• Is there a difference between saying whatever we want because we are protected by Freedom of Speech and being careful about what we say because we want to offer a positive portrayal of our passions?

Culture, hunting, Language

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I believe hunters are part of their own culture. Part of that culture includes language that is used among members of the culture. “Outsiders” (non-hunters) may not approve of this language, but they also may not fully understand the language or the purpose of usage of certain words. (Hang with me, I’m going somewhere).

What’s this all about? Most responsible outdoor writers are very careful about the language they use (myself included). We talk about how we love the hunt more than the kill, and we use words like ‘harvest’ instead of ’shot’ or ‘killed’. While I think this language is very important for our image as hunters (and I use it myself), I don’t think it captures the essence of hunting.

The Tension: When in my hunting niches, I use language that’s not seen much on our outdoor blogs. Part of my is tired of being PC, another part of me never wants to stop being PC so as to protect the image of hunters, and yet another part of me just wants to share my innermost thoughts on this blog.

The Result: Even though I’m ‘protected’ by the First Amendment, I don’t feel the liberty to speak my mind. Hunters get a bad wrap sometimes, so I feel obligated to “behave my best.”

Am I alone in this struggle? Do others experience the same?

Culture, hunting, Language

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!