WANWTF

IMHO much of the legislation (i.e., rules) in the hunting and fishing arena has little to do with effective or efficient management of the resource, but is, instead, an effort by government to impose some standard of ethical conduct upon hunters and fishermen. If not, why is it ruled unlawful (in some states) to shoot turkeys on the roost, or to shoot deer at night, or to use live ducks as decoys when hunting, or to shoot ruffed grouse within a set distance from an ATV, or to use spinning wing decoys for waterfowl hunting, or to use electronic calls for waterfowl in the fall, or to bait waterfowl, or to shoot waterfowl with a gun greater than 10 gauge, or to hunt waterfowl (in some states) from a sneak boat (i.e., in an area free from vegetation), and on and on? None of these examples (and a creative mind would undoubtedly come up with many more such examples) have anything to do with harvest management. Instead, those types of rules are simply efforts by lawmakers to impose some element of ethics upon hunters. The prohibited conduct would undoubtedly, in most instances, result in a more successful hunt for the hunter. Regulation as to how many of a species are harvested in a particular season or state can be controlled with reduced season length, reduced numbers of licenses, and/or reduced limits. Those options (reduced season lengths, licenses/limits) are not enacted because legislatures have made a determination that certain types of hunting (and fishing) activities are not ethical. That is why I contend ethics are legislated.