That may not be a bad idea for people that have no ethics.

I think landowners with no common sense has no ethics.

huge buck, doe, whatever. I would go get it if possible.

Yep Big Country, in this instance you are right on the mark in terms of where the lack of ethics can be identified. But NYBH should get partial credit for the set-up.

Hunters have an ethical responsibility to retrieve a downed deer. Hunters have an ethical responsibility to obey the law which of course includes tresspassing laws. So the questions is, given a situation where the responsibilities are in conflict and it's not possible to honor both, is the hunter acting ethically to basically say that the ethical responsibility to retrieve the deer trumps the ethical responsibility to obey the law and respect the rights and wishes of the landowner?

IMO the answer is no. It is not the ethical thing to do. First of all I believe the ethical responsibility to retrieve ends at the point when the hunter has exhausted all "legal" means to retrieve the deer. Once you open the door to illegal means ethics are gone and all we are doing is rationalizing our actions in order to get what we want (the deer). Once the deer enters property clearly posted no tresspassing by the landowner the ethical responsibility to save the meat from spoiling has now shifted to the landonwer. Your ethical obligation is to urge the landowner to do the right thing but it is his decision not yours.

IMO, the ethical obligation to prevent a deer from rotting awayin the woods does not trump a hunters ethical obligation to obey the law and respect land owners rights. Preventing a few pounds of meat from becoming coyote food (something that happens all the time when hunters shoot and loose deer) is simply not even close to a justification in my book. Again, it's simply a ratioinalization for a hunter to satisfy his own selfish interests.

So clearly imo a hunter does not act ethically when he tresspasses in order to retrieve a deer. Would I cross a few yards on to posted property to retrieve one? Yes I would, but I would admit that I was wrong and that I was actingfor my own selfish interests and would accept any consequence that resulted because of it.

Sylvan,

Excellent analysis and comments. However, we differ somewhat in this area, since I see things as going a bit beyond just self-interest.Therefore, the willingness to accept the legal consequences, to me, representsadherence toanotherset of ethics. And no, I'm not arguing that any breaking of laws canbe justified as ethical simply because one iswilling to accept the consequences.The closest parallel that i could thing of would be acts ofcivil disobediance where one commits a "criminal" act in pursuit of a supposedly higher moral goal. But in such situations one cannot expect sympathy from the law or some of their peers, although they sometimes do get it from both.

Thank you Lanse. I don't think we're far apart at all. I agree completely with the concept of a "higher moral goal". The analogy here might be theone ofthe child drowning in a swimming pool and the signs around the pool say "no tresspassing for any reason". Clearly the ethical and moral thing to do is save the child.It without question trumps the ethical responsibility to respect the tresspass law. I simply don't feel that retrieving a deer to save some meat from becoming food for scavengers rises anywhere nearthat moral equivalency.IMO it simply fails that test miserably and comes down to again imo simply the hunter raionalizing his willingness to break the law merely to gain what he wants.It is a selfish act as opposed to the selfless act of saving the child. His motivation is not any "higher moral goal". He just wants his deer. But again, I don't believe it is the hunters moral dilema in the first place but rather that of the landowner. Like I said, I believethe hunters moral obligation is to urge the landowner to do whathe believes is the right thing and lethim retrieve the deer.

Sylvan,

I think that there is some ethical responsibility in regard to letting meat go to waste, or letting an injured animal suffer on the hunters part. I would think thateither scenario goes a bit beyond simple self-interest. If someone is operating only in self interest, then why risk a fine (or perhaps even jail in some states)for trespassing. Wouldn't it be more rational and self-servingto just let the dead/wounded animal go, then try to shoot another one that is easier, and legal,to collect.But then again, the game laws muddy things somewhat bymaking retrieval of game of great legal importance, but then, in some states, backing off when it comes to crossing property lines. But, I think that you make a really good point that the "moral burden" does/should shift to the landowner when they refuse permission to somewhat who asks, and who even offers to bring along a game warden to get a deer that has crossed property lines. Anybody who takes it that far and is denied, can go home empty handed and with a clear conscience. But, I must confess that I remain a poor sinner who will go after the deer.

Lanse,

As I said, I too believe a hunter has an ethical responsibility to retrieve a downed deer. Where we disagree is that you seem to believe that ethical responsiblity trumps the hunters responsibililty to not violate trespassing laws. I don't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there and be satisfied that we at least agree on some points. Have a great day and go in peace!

Sylvan,

Ditto, and thanks for making a weekend trapped indoors with a two year old a bit more interesting. Have a good rest of the weekend.