the devolution of hunting ethic

At risk of sounding like a contrarian (because I both agree and sympathize with what you are saying) , I feel compelled to point out a certain irony in the above quote.
A farmer or motorist also does the same things a yote does, and is often compensated or incentivized to do so.  To me, that is ironic.  It also probably says something about the nature of ethics. . 

If I had to make a determination, I would say that, as a whole, hunters are more ethical today than previously in history. 

I'm for ethics, and troubled by that quote. 
However I know from past experience, 2 things.
1. People often say things that aren't necessarily, or completely true. They often make claims of "what they would do",  out of frustration. So I believe half of what I see and none of what I hear.
2. I also know that I cannot change people to make them meet my ethical standard.

I use to hunt with a man who by all definitions was a law breaking unethical hunter.  You might ask yourself why I would do that. Well, hunting with me prevented him from breaking the law and being unethical. Decades of hunting together never changed him one bit, but me hunting with him reduced the number of incidences. 

Now you know why I deleted my previous posts. 

I've kind of dropped out of this as it became very involved very quickly and things I wanted to respond to wound up having several posts go by before I could.
So, just a couple quick notes, they may seem disjointed.
Spence,,, my criticism of CT DEEP (our agency that handles fish and game laws, regulations, and enforcement) is NOT of the officers in the field. Our Fish and Game officers here are fantastic, I've only met one in all these years who was a problem. The issue here is our lawmakers and the DEEP executives that do NOT do what you have described yours doing over the years.
Ours used to be great about bringing back animals that were gone or almost gone. Very few deer here when I was a kid, now some parts of the state are overrun. There were no turkeys, moose, bears, fishers, few is any bobcats. We now have plenty of turkey, a small resident Moose population, increasing bobcats, fishers, and a bear problem in this part of the state.
But, now, they operate on a basis of political popularity and money (not budget, but what is good financially for the water and energy companies that hold or control much of the land, and small timber cutting concerns). I understand working with the water companies to manage their properties, this has worked out well for all of us in the past. For a few years though, they have been undertaking "forest thinning" projects in the name of habitat management and "edge cover," which would make sense. But, recently they have focused on cutting the trees that produce the mast for deer, turkeys, bears, squirrels, etc to eat and encouraging certain pines, on state, not water company, properties, at the behest of said companies. Also they have scheduled these projects during deer season several years in a row,,, after raising the fees for licenses and tags without adding any additional days to the season in any way.
One big wildlife comeback here are raptors or birds of prey. Seeing a hawk was a big deal when I was a little kid. There were no eagles. Now hawks are as common as crows and eagles are making a big comeback. But, there are very, very, few ruffled grouse/partridge left and we no longer see stocked pheasants that have managed to hold over even a month or two much less into the following spring.

No, my problem isn't with the officers,,, but the administration is horrible.


As to social media showing people as they really are.... Well, the bigger problem is the opposite. It let's people project an image of whatever they want. This is often an influence to others. Project that chest thumping "SSS" image in a certain way and even if it is b.s. (the person projecting it could be a basement dwelling 95 pounder who's never really done anything outdoors) people will follow along. People project a life and lifestyle of glamor and happiness like life is all roses, even if it isn't true, and others compare themselves to that and have "issues," especially young people.
I personally think a lot of the people on that other forum are total bullshitters operating solely on ego and bravado.


I agree that the ethical slide started a long time ago. If we put aside differences about the use of certain technology,,, I do see some of the worst offenders being folks in what is now their late 50s to early 70s,,, or younger people who have been influenced by them.
This is still mostly amongst the hunting community that gravitate toward modern equipment. I see much less of this in the traditional bowhunting community, and a little less of it in the muzzleloading community.

I won't even get into crossbows and inlines.

Unfortunately technology, both for gear in the field and for information/entertainment uses has produced an element within the hunting community that is kill focused and trophy focused,,,, maybe call it "results oriented," but experiences don't count as results. And this has changed hunting ethics, probably not for the better.

Joe said: "There's a lot of truth in that statement. However, "results" orientation begins in kindergarten and only intensifies as we get older. It's not until retirement that the pressure for most to succeed subsides. That's a lifetime of conditioning. 
How can ethics compete with that ?" 

 


[/quote]


And yet, somehow, for some of us at least, it does...even competitive "type As."

Some, yes. But are they the norm, or the exception ?

Well, it's not exactly an empirical question, but...I have come to believe we are the exception.

And yet, in one sense, it doen't matter for us, does it? We do what we believe is right because we couldn't look ourselves in the mirror and sleep at night otherwise.

If you want to see what "morality" as a poll-driven popularity contest looks like, just read the news on any given day.

Another phenomenon I have seen blossom in recent years is folks mistaking "libertarianism" for nihilism. I have come to view the former as merely a euphemism for the latter.