the new sniper's nestUpdate: on Friday I lost a second fox due to crippling. The fox was moving away from me and I took a 100-yard quartering away deer shot at him from my bedroom sniper's position, but unfortunately I hit him in the hind left leg, and he ran off into the underbrush.
I did send my gun-shy labrador to find him. Aldo rousted him out, and I came eye to eye with Reynard at five yards down on the creek's edge--but alas, I did not take a gun so as not to freak out the dog, and the fox crossed the creek along a log and went down a hole on the other side.
I thereby resolved to shorten the distance and to set up a new position in the shed closest to the sheep pasture. This shed is conveniently missing a single pane in a window at gun rest level.
the view from the sniper's nest:bait stump at far right
fox bait: ethical? sporting? discuss.Then, as both animals circled around the brush pile to figure out where the noise had come from, one poked her head above the grass about 45 yards away. This time I hit what I was aiming at--a clean head shot.
neck-shot fox kitHere's another issue for you from the animal control world. The pelt of the adult I took the other day (see the picture previously posted) was in fairly poor condition--either the winter coat was giving way to a summer coat, or the pelt was in bad shape following her giving birth to a litter. But compare hers with the coat of the young fox shot last night--there's no comparison. I'm not even sure one could sell the pelt of the previous fox.
So (I'm asking Keith primarily, I suppose, although I'd love to hear from others), how would that factor in to your thinking about full utilization of the resource?
Posts
6 comments:
For me, if your willing to squeeze the trigger ( or set the hook, or set the trap) you must also be willing to skin or fillet or what have you-- good pelt or bad, good fish or bad. Obviously, spoilage is spoilage and would rank an "exception."
Jim, the first one (fox) looks to me like a classic "doily under the lamp" kind of pelt...thin and weak, but fur is fur. The second, maybe juvenile, nicer pelt may make the fur market, or even the beginnings of a nice fur stole or coat for the family.
I am not overly "dogmatic" on this (if you'll pardon the pun), I simply feel that there are ways to use these things that somehow to me are better than throwing the animal in the burn barrel. For me (and obviously for no-one but me, unless I am asked for my opinion)I think its important to be able to SAY why I killed something and also to be able to demonstrate some UTILITY...IE "I killed the fox 'cause he was munchin' my chickens and I got a nice liner for my hood to boot."
Clearly this isn't about the fox and his feeling in these matters...
Nice shootin' Jim!
I am in complete agreement with you that I really SHOULD be using the animal in some way, and, frankly, I feel a little ashamed in simply tossing the carcass. I'm not even leaving these for the buzzards this year.
But I also believe that the "waste not, want not" ethos (for lack of a better label) is occasionally taken too far by hunters wishing to justify their kills. Sometimes a kill is just a kill--and the benefits that accrue to the person doing the killing may be limited simply to the removal of the animals killed.
Or the benefits may be limited simply to the satisfaction of the clean shot when it comes to varmint "hunting." Granted, I know that sounds like a selfish reason for hunting, but isn't ALL hunting selfish in this way? And, as you say, once the fox is dead, he certainly doesn't care. I believe if he is killed with respect, that may be enough to honor the deceased.
There is a class of moral behavior that comes under the term, "supererogation," roughly, "going beyond the call of duty."
Although I believe in the duty to "eat what you kill" as much as anyone, I do not believe that as a moral rule the injunction to "eat/use what you kill" is a moral absolute. I think that eating/using the critter may sometimes be morally supererogatory behavior--i.e., above and beyond the call of (strict) duty.
This claim relates to my outlook on ethics as an academic discipline, and I don't expect anyone here to simply agree with me without argument. But I strongly believe that a principled argument against moral absolutism is not only possible, but it is also necessary.
This was the gist of the great "Coggins/Tantillo debates" of a few years ago. Which was slightly before your time, Cabin Boy, you young whipper snapper . . . heh heh. just teasing.
Anyway, since I'm heading into Hunter Education Ethics Week, I think I'm just trying to leave the theatre and ballet business behind me. Warming up with some hunter ed mental moral calisthenics, you might say. :-) thanks for indulging me.
and here I was going to use the name "supererogation" for my next lab. Jat had to go spoil things again. Had a turkey in full strut <70 yards from me this morn out at Deckers. Trouble is he was over the lip of the ridge and I did not encounter his personage until I was walking out. Sh*t. Metcalf, if you be blogging, you can be emailing--how's the data matching progress?
You can run, but you can't hide.
Is this why you invited me here? So you can keep tabs? I vote no work related discussions/no work related harassment. What say ye?
(I'll have something for you Wednesday)
Naw. Invited you to help reduce my property tax burden...
...but in principle, you are right. I will henceforth cease and desist.
Alex, don't take any guff from the Vicar. We've all known him a long time . . . once you've earned your union card we'll tell you all about him.
Just be sure to wear a helmet at grouse camp.
Post a Comment