-
- Species
- Whitetails
- Big Game
- Small Game
- Birds
- Special Methods
- Bow Hunting
-
- Species
- Bass
- Trout
- More Freshwater
- Saltwater
- Special Methods
- Fly Fishing
AnswersASK YOUR QUESTION
Print
Email
Share
Answers
Browse By
Top Users
Q:
Do you fella's think Sporting and ethics are the same or different? In other words, do you think something could be ethical but unsporting or vise versa? I think they're differn't, but that is just my opinon. What do you guys think?
Question by BigBboy25. Uploaded on October 10, 2009
Answer QuestionADVERTISEMENT
Today on Field & Stream
Loading...
Visit Our Sister Sites at Bonnier Corporation
| Enthusiast | Kiteboarding | QUAD | SKI | Skiing | Scuba Diving | Sport Diver | TransWorld Ride BMX | TransWorld Business | TransWorld Motocross | TransWorld SKATEboarding, | TransWorld SNOWboarding | TransWorld SURF | WakeBoarding | WaterSki | Warren Miller Entertainment | WindSurfing |
|---|---|
| Travel | Caribbean Travel & Life | Destination Weddings & Honeymoon | Islands | Meeting Traveler | Resorts & Great Hotels |
| Lifestyle & Shelter | Florida Travel & Life | Garden Design | Home Ft. Lauderdale | Home Miami |
| Luxury | SNOW | Spa |
| Marine | Boating Life | Cruising World | Fly Fishing in Salt Waters | Power Cruising | Marlin | Motor Boating | Sailing World | Salt Water Sportsman | Sport Fishing | Yachting | NewBoats.com | UsedBoats.com | YachtBroker.com |
| Outdoor | Field & Stream | Outdoor Life | SHOT Business |
| Parenting | Babytalk | Parenting |
| Science | Popular Science | Science Illustrated |
| Saveur | Saveur |
| Working Mother Media | Working Mother |
| Entertainment / Events | World Entertainment Services | World Sports & Marketing |
FieldandStream.com is part of the Bonnier Outdoor Group Network
Copyright © 2009 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Answers (17)
They are different but could also appy equally also.
Hard question to answer. NICE !
I think there is a difference between right and wrong, and morally right and morally wrong if that's what you're asking. For example, if the speed limit were 150 mph (right by law), does that mean you should travel that fast? My guess would be that if you value your life and the lives of others, you would probably go under the speed limit (morally right). Same idea applies for hunting and fishing. Just because there are laws that say you can do certain things in the field, does not mean that you should.
Sporting is "how you roll" when you have ethics.
So to shoot a duck of the water would be considered "unsporting" wouldn't you say? Well, wouldn't it seem more ethical to shoot it off the water rather then when it is flying by at 40mph? Your odds of making a clean kill on a stationary target are much greater than on a moving one, yet it is "unsporting" to shoot it while it is easiest to kill cleanly.
This is just one of the many examples of the differences I see between the two, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, this is just mine.
Nice retort !
But as for the duck question. They would have "no chance of escape" ergo no shooting at ducks on the water.
Legal yes, sporting, not exactly.
+ 1 for you !
Interesting question. I was just about to challenge you or someone else on this thread with an example, but the one on the duck is pretty darn good.
very nice . while the flying duck has a better chance of a possible maiming from a wounding shot he also has a greater chance of escape with out being harmed at all verses the duck on the pond he is just dead and has no chance at all really .
Sporting means it's fun and has rules.
Ethical means there are choices that are either more or less humane.
Moral means there is right and wrong.
People disagree on particular cases for each of the above; that's why we have laws.
Tradition rules all the above, even when there are clear conflicts between them. It's traditional to shoot birds in the air.
i would say sporting and ethics are one in the same because every body goes by a different det of ethics there fore every one has a different view of what is sporting
Some people think it is wrong to eat meat because the animal has to die. Well, it has to die one way or another. How it lives, and how it dies are what's important.
If it spends it life, not only free range, but wild, and a hunter ends its life quickly with a clean kill, that's a more humane life than any domestic animal has, and definitely a more humane death than starvation or disease. Wild animals do not die of old age.
No I disagree, radam.
Sporting means we make a game (with rules) of it. Fair chase, for instance. The game has an opportunity for escape. There's nothing unethical about shooting a caged animal, but it is not sporting. Something can be sporting but still be cruel. Bullfighting and foxhunting spring to mind.
Ethical means we have a range of options and we choose the one that causes the least suffering (as we imagine it). A gutshot deer is going to suffer more than one shot in the heart/lungs. Overpopulated deer starving and getting CWD in a no-hunting park are going to suffer more than those kept at a sustainable level through managed hunts. It is ethical to bring in a hand-picked team and kill every last deer in an airport, but it is not sporting.
Lesser Son,
I'd differ slightly with you on your caged animal one.
I would say the taking of a caged animal being unethical would be when you don't have a purpose or reason for doing so.
I don't think you were advocating double tapping something in a cage for no reason, you were just illustrating your fair chase point there.
These words have different meanings, but we have to agree on what they mean to communicate effectively.
I am proposing that ethics should be resticted to the choice among a range of options, with the intention of causing the least suffering to the animal, and maximizing the safety of other humans. An ethical shot, therefore, is one that places no humans in danger and minimizes the pain in severity and over time of the wounded animal. Somewhere between these goals is that the shot poses no danger of striking another animal, which causes unintended suffering and indicates a lack of safety.
I think dispatching a trapped and wounded animal is entirely ethical as it abreviates the suffering, but it cannot be considered sporting as the animal is not free to exercise any options.
A canned hunt is by my definitions unsporting, but could remain ethical. The way animals are supposed to be treated in a slaughterhouse could be ethical, but I would never consider it sporting.
Ok we're on the same page. Just coming at it a little differently. Carry on, sir.
In most cases I think they do coincide but there are those situations that are specific to an individual.
I once read an article of a hunter who had a permit to shoot from his truck window because he was in a wheelchair. This in my mind is 100% OK with the given situation.
Good point about different people being in different situations, IanS.
In addition to those with limited physical mobility, PA recognizes hunters with limited experience (junior hunters 15 and younger), and those with limited time (military personnel on leave from active service). For them, antler restrictions do not apply legally.
Yet I would guess most of these hunters still have self-imposed restrictions, so they set their sportsmanship (adherence to the rules of the game) to a higher standard than the law requires.
I still think that ethics is a separate (though related) issue. The hunter in the truck should avoid shooting along or across a road, for instance, and be sure to aim for the vitals of one animal rather than shooting into a group.
Lesserson i think you put it alot better than i could have
Post an Answer
So to shoot a duck of the water would be considered "unsporting" wouldn't you say? Well, wouldn't it seem more ethical to shoot it off the water rather then when it is flying by at 40mph? Your odds of making a clean kill on a stationary target are much greater than on a moving one, yet it is "unsporting" to shoot it while it is easiest to kill cleanly.
This is just one of the many examples of the differences I see between the two, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, this is just mine.
I think there is a difference between right and wrong, and morally right and morally wrong if that's what you're asking. For example, if the speed limit were 150 mph (right by law), does that mean you should travel that fast? My guess would be that if you value your life and the lives of others, you would probably go under the speed limit (morally right). Same idea applies for hunting and fishing. Just because there are laws that say you can do certain things in the field, does not mean that you should.
They are different but could also appy equally also.
Hard question to answer. NICE !
Some people think it is wrong to eat meat because the animal has to die. Well, it has to die one way or another. How it lives, and how it dies are what's important.
If it spends it life, not only free range, but wild, and a hunter ends its life quickly with a clean kill, that's a more humane life than any domestic animal has, and definitely a more humane death than starvation or disease. Wild animals do not die of old age.
These words have different meanings, but we have to agree on what they mean to communicate effectively.
I am proposing that ethics should be resticted to the choice among a range of options, with the intention of causing the least suffering to the animal, and maximizing the safety of other humans. An ethical shot, therefore, is one that places no humans in danger and minimizes the pain in severity and over time of the wounded animal. Somewhere between these goals is that the shot poses no danger of striking another animal, which causes unintended suffering and indicates a lack of safety.
I think dispatching a trapped and wounded animal is entirely ethical as it abreviates the suffering, but it cannot be considered sporting as the animal is not free to exercise any options.
A canned hunt is by my definitions unsporting, but could remain ethical. The way animals are supposed to be treated in a slaughterhouse could be ethical, but I would never consider it sporting.
Nice retort !
But as for the duck question. They would have "no chance of escape" ergo no shooting at ducks on the water.
Legal yes, sporting, not exactly.
+ 1 for you !
No I disagree, radam.
Sporting means we make a game (with rules) of it. Fair chase, for instance. The game has an opportunity for escape. There's nothing unethical about shooting a caged animal, but it is not sporting. Something can be sporting but still be cruel. Bullfighting and foxhunting spring to mind.
Ethical means we have a range of options and we choose the one that causes the least suffering (as we imagine it). A gutshot deer is going to suffer more than one shot in the heart/lungs. Overpopulated deer starving and getting CWD in a no-hunting park are going to suffer more than those kept at a sustainable level through managed hunts. It is ethical to bring in a hand-picked team and kill every last deer in an airport, but it is not sporting.
In most cases I think they do coincide but there are those situations that are specific to an individual.
I once read an article of a hunter who had a permit to shoot from his truck window because he was in a wheelchair. This in my mind is 100% OK with the given situation.
Sporting is "how you roll" when you have ethics.
very nice . while the flying duck has a better chance of a possible maiming from a wounding shot he also has a greater chance of escape with out being harmed at all verses the duck on the pond he is just dead and has no chance at all really .
Lesser Son,
I'd differ slightly with you on your caged animal one.
I would say the taking of a caged animal being unethical would be when you don't have a purpose or reason for doing so.
I don't think you were advocating double tapping something in a cage for no reason, you were just illustrating your fair chase point there.
Good point about different people being in different situations, IanS.
In addition to those with limited physical mobility, PA recognizes hunters with limited experience (junior hunters 15 and younger), and those with limited time (military personnel on leave from active service). For them, antler restrictions do not apply legally.
Yet I would guess most of these hunters still have self-imposed restrictions, so they set their sportsmanship (adherence to the rules of the game) to a higher standard than the law requires.
I still think that ethics is a separate (though related) issue. The hunter in the truck should avoid shooting along or across a road, for instance, and be sure to aim for the vitals of one animal rather than shooting into a group.
Interesting question. I was just about to challenge you or someone else on this thread with an example, but the one on the duck is pretty darn good.
Sporting means it's fun and has rules.
Ethical means there are choices that are either more or less humane.
Moral means there is right and wrong.
People disagree on particular cases for each of the above; that's why we have laws.
Tradition rules all the above, even when there are clear conflicts between them. It's traditional to shoot birds in the air.
i would say sporting and ethics are one in the same because every body goes by a different det of ethics there fore every one has a different view of what is sporting
Ok we're on the same page. Just coming at it a little differently. Carry on, sir.
Lesserson i think you put it alot better than i could have
Post an Answer