In "Meditations of Hunting" Jose Ortega y Gasset basically states that "one must kill something in order to have hunted". If, after walking all day, a ruffed grouse runs from me back into deep cover (other than flying)...I will kill it if I can. I have no qualms about that. If not that day, then on certainly another, that bird will be my (or my family's) dinner. I take the shots that game presents to me, no more and no less, and I will not apologise for that.
Edit to add: "One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted...If one were to present the sportsman with the death of the animal as a gift he would refuse it. What he is after is having to win it, to conquer the surly brute through his own effort and skill with all the extras that this carries with it: the immersion in the countryside, the healthfulness of the exercise, the distraction from his job." Jose Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Hunting, Spanish philosopher & politician (1883 - 1955)
It is legal according to the laws of the various States I hunt in, and ethical (in my mind) as long as the game is used properly (i.e., prepared & then consumed). Moralize all you want, but those are the cold & hard facts of the world I live in. I would certainly prefer that all the birds I take be flying, but that has not always been my reality. I am generally dog-less (which is a factor), I don't take unsafe shots (for all the usual reasons) and I'm certainly not interested in wounding game with little chance of recovering it, but... occasionally some form of "ground-swatting" is the only solution to the challenge of filling one's bag.
Live with that knowledge or ignore it as you please.
Last edited by Lloyd3; 08/30/24 02:10 PM.
