tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post7807934324004295570..comments2024-03-13T10:11:14.165-04:00Comments on Fair Chase Hunting: At Times, The Token Cheap Shot Is The Fairest PlayEric C. Nusehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-26811081142399147162011-10-24T19:12:59.754-04:002011-10-24T19:12:59.754-04:00First of all, welcome back to duck hunting, Chris!...First of all, welcome back to duck hunting, Chris! I am an avid duck hunter, and it is comforting to know it's possible to get back into it even when life has dealt you a difficult blow.<br /><br />On to the substance of your post: I think there's absolutely no question whether your shot was ethical. The question I have is why it would be unethical for <em>anyone</em> to take that shot.<br /><br />Most of us shoot turkeys holding still, not on the wing. And if you're lucky enough to spot a rabbit before he's spotted you, fire away! So why would shooting a duck on the water be a problem, in the absence of backstop issues (i.e., a person somewhere behind that duck within a shotgun's range)?<br /><br />In all three cases, you've had to create an environment in which you didn't trigger the animal's defenses. That is an accomplishment in and of itself.<br /><br />This was, to me, your most pertinent point: "I was also quite certain that a standard shot pattern was more likely to cleanly kill a sitting duck than one passing on the wing, regardless whose barrel it came from."<br /><br />I think any form of ethics that compels hunters to pass on highly effective shots in favor of dicier ones is problematic. My primary allegiance in ethical decision-making is to the animal I'm about to shoot, not to the nimrod who wants to judge me against his or her own personal standards. I want a quick death for that animal; I don't care about the nimrod.NorCal Cazadorahttp://norcalcazadora.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com