What concerns me most is the author's attempt to justify and apply to others' an ethical cloak for hunting, where-as I believe its a matter of individual choice. Individual choice mostly turns on an individual's values, and not on a certain ethical standard that others might wish to apply. Albeit that ethics might inform our values. Difference Between Ethics and Values - Key Differences
Its a useful debate, and at the least Mr Orman has raised our consciousness about the topic.
When I first began hunting (over 50 years ago) the average range for my kills might have been 80 yards. The deer were often running, and often many shots were fired. Some were wounded. Mr Orman would say that was unethical. I would say it offended my own values. As time went by and I became a better shot and a better hunter the average range increased to the point where mostly the animals were undisturbed and I had time for an accurate kill shot. So, after about 10 years of hunting I was head and neck shooting (hundreds) of deer with a .222. I would say that was consistent with my values, Mr Orman would likely say it was unethical because I was shooting too many and it was for money. And then things got even better...better 'scopes and better ammo...and hand loading. Now, by the mid to late 90's I could do what I did with the .222 with a more powerful cartridge but at 200-400 yards if I wished...and I did wish because I shot for the trade and wanted every deer I saw. Still consistent with my values, but offending the cloak of ethics Mr Orman would wish to throw over me. For the last 20 years I've hunted for fun. Fun is shooting undisturbed animals cleanly with one shot, analysing the results and talking ballistics and bull shit with my few friends and sons. And munching on meat, and giving it away. The last 3 deer I have shot have on average been 318 yards away. Totally consistent with my values, and Mr Orman can go and jump in the lake.![]()
![]()
Bookmarks