From the Field - Hunting Ethically

by David Neils

For more than half a century, Dr. Ed Ashby has pursued a singular question with uncommon resolve: What does it truly mean to hunt ethically? Through the work of the Ashby Bowhunting Foundation, that question has never been answered with sentiment alone, but with careful observation, rigorous testing, and an unwavering respect for the animals we pursue. From its beginning, the Foundation has maintained that the first duty of the bowhunter is to deliver the quickest, most humane death possible. Whether one's preference is a traditional longbow, a recurve, or a modern compound bow, the obligation remains unchanged, to pair that bow with the most lethal arrow and broadhead combination practical. Equipment alone does not define ethics, but choosing equipment that maximizes lethality and minimizes suffering is among the clearest expressions of respect a hunter can offer the game.

Yet ethical hunting does not end where the arrow finds its mark. Competence with one's equipment, disciplined shot selection, and an understanding of anatomy are essential, but they represent only the beginning of a much broader responsibility. The measure of an ethical hunter must also include an awareness of how the act of hunting influences the long-term welfare of the quarry pursued. Hunting cannot be justified merely because it is legal, traditional, or personally fulfilling. If a hunting activity provides no meaningful benefit, or worse, diminishes the health and future of the species it targets, it deserves thoughtful examination and, when necessary, reconsideration.

Every species occupies its own place in the larger community of life, governed by a unique combination of biological needs, ecological relationships, and environmental pressures. Healthy populations depend upon habitat, nutrition, age structure, genetics, predator-prey balance, and countless other forces that no single season or regulation can fully capture. The highest purpose of wildlife management is to understand and support these natural requirements so that populations remain resilient for generations yet to come. Ethical hunting should therefore align itself with these same principles, ensuring that the harvest serves not only the hunter, but the enduring health of the species and the landscapes upon which it depends.

Hunting is a priviledge, not a right. It is important to understand this fact fully. How hunters support the wildlife they pursue will determine, in the long run, whether those animals will be hunted. If hunting is conservation and wildlife should benefit from that conservation effort, we as hunters should have enough education to describe the benefit for a particular species being hunted or trapped. As a voting block sportsmen are a small fly on the back of the public voting elephant. In Colorado I’m witnessing hunters and trappers wanting to maintain the status quo regarding seventeen furbearer species while claiming the current management of these species by Colorado Parks and Wildlife is “science-based”. Nothing could be further from the truth. For decades CPW has supported unlimited take of all seventeen species during the hunting and trapping season each year without any wildlife management plans or accurate population estimates for any of these species. Rather than supporting this reckless mismanagement of wildlife by our state agency, hunters and trappers should be first in line to challenge the status quo and ensure the management of furbearer species is backed by peer-reviewed research outside the organization. Supporting the status quo is nothing more than pounding nails into sportsman’s coffins. Wildlife deserve better. Just like houndsmen across seventeen western states in the 1960s challenged state agencies to change the status of mountain lions from vermin to a big game species because of their concerns about cratering mountain lion populations, hunters today would be wise to develop a backbone and challenge state agencies when needed.

Perhaps that is the enduring lesson of Dr. Ashby's work. The broadhead should penetrate the vital organs swiftly and decisively, but the hunter's ethics must penetrate much deeper. They should shape every decision before, during, and after the hunt, from the tools we carry, to the shots we accept, to the stewardship we exercise on behalf of the wildlife entrusted to our care. When ethics extend beyond the moment of harvest and embrace the flourishing of the species itself, hunting becomes more than recreation or tradition. It becomes a covenant with the land, a promise that our presence in wild places will leave them stronger, richer, and more whole than we found them.

Bobcats have a distinct set of biological and ecological factors they are dependent upon for a healthy population. If “Hunting is Conservation”, any hunting or trapping activity should support the bulk of these factors. If not, the state agency should be challenged rather than supported to maintain the status quo.