The need for an ethical code of conduct for hunters is rooted in the historical redefinition  of hunting from a common source of food to a form of recreation. As hunting became less  universal and people became detached from the process of obtaining meat, the necessity of hunting to survive was less clear and objections to hunting appeared, at first couched in  the familiar criticisms of the Protestant work ethic, i.e. hunting was a waste of time.

Environmental psychologist James A. Swan has written compellingly about the "good old days"  of hunting and how modern practices reflect the lore and woodcraft of countless earlier  hunters. He speaks well of the tradition of passing down stories and skills from one  generation to the next, but his most interesting statements come from his perspective as  a psychologist. Swan writes that hunting can be a spiritual activity, transcending the  normal through "peak experiences" characterized by "intense emotional excitement [and]  encounters with the deepest issues of life and death." He feels it is important for  humans to recognize their role as natural predators (and prey) and that to avoid this truth  is harmful.

Whenever we deny our instincts, we create problems for ourselves, those around us, and  the world. In our inner nature we are all animals... As long as our psyches do not change,  we will never be able to give up our hunting heritage. The hunting instinct is bred into  the bone and blood of at least most of us and is one of the fundamental elements of human  nature. Our challenge as humans is to find the best ways to express our instinctual nature. Hunting, an instinctual activity governed now by science, technology, and the constraints  of modernity, offers one way to express this element of human nature and to experience first  hand the role of predator in the food chain. To Swan and others this is as necessary a part  of being human as sleep or sex, although convincing opponents of that may require more  research.

Philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset believed that ethics were the dividing line between hunting  and killing.  He wrote that he exemplary moral spirit of the sporting hunter, that manner of feeling, of  taking up and practicing hunting, is a very precise line, below which fall innumerable forms  of hunting that are deficient modes of this occupation. Hunting, like every human activity,  has an ethic which distinguishes virtues from vices.

There is no central source of hunting ethics, however, and standards vary considerably from  place to place and between individual hunters. Consequently, what one hunter may feel is a  legitimate (or even the only) way to hunt a particular species may violate another's basic  ethical precepts. The contemporary debate over the future of hunting has created an ideal  atmosphere for hunters to come together and collectively formulate an ethical code that  will apply to all conditions, species, regions, and practices, while seeking to address  the issues that give rise to conflict with non-hunters.

Hunting ethics have historically been learned by young hunters from older hunters,  usually transferring from father to son in our male-dominated hunting society.  The Izaak Walton League's "Hunter's Pledge" was created with both ethics and public  relations in mind by a coalition of major national hunting and conservation organizations.  The league's Executive Director expressed the organization's concern for the future of  hunting at the unveiling of the pledge, noting that the effort "shows that hunting and  conservation groups are united in their efforts to change hunter behavior. In a crowded  society, hunting must be ethical and responsible- or it will not be tolerated." Similar  thoughts were voiced by a representative of the International Association of Fish and  Wildlife Agencies. "With the public's continuing interest in the environment and wildlife,  we must be sure hunters are good environmental stewards whose images are not tarnished by  unethical behavior." The Hunter's Pledge speaks directly to a variety of issues not  addressed by the fair chase standard or hunting regulations, and includes specific  provisions related to the most common criticisms voiced by non-hunters. It asks that  hunters:

• Respect the environment and wildlife

• Respect property and landowners

• Show consideration for non-hunters

• Hunt safely

• Know and obey the law

• Support wildlife and habitat conservation

• Pass on an ethical hunting tradition

• Strive to improve their outdoor skills and understanding of nature Hunt only with other ethical hunters (38)

Each of these points are defined in more detail in the pledge, presenting a standard of  ethical conduct that is built upon respect for wildlife and other humans, and a concern  for the public image of hunters.

1) To foster positive relations between hunters and landowners.

2) To increase access to private lands by giving landowners a way to identify Master Hunters.

3) To improve the hunting experience and the public image of hunters.

4) To develop a pool of ethical and knowledgeable hunters.

To encourage hunters to participate in the program Master Hunters are allowed to hunt on  special parcels of private land, in areas closed to other hunters, and in state-sponsored  wildlife management hunts used to solve specific animal population or depredation problems.  To become a Master Hunter in Oregon hunters must satisfactorily complete a home study course  on ethics, a classroom session with a hunter education instructor, a firearm proficiency test,  and at least twenty hours of volunteer service to benefit wildlife.(41) While it is unlikely  that a large percentage of hunters will have the time and inclination to pursue this  certification, the presence of even a few Master Hunters in the field and the associated  media coverage of the program can only improve the public image of hunters.

Whatever method may be used to propagate it, establishing a comprehensive ethical code for  hunters will yield immense benefits. First and foremost, it will address many of the concerns  of non-hunters and improve the public image of hunting. While a media campaign aimed at  alleviating popular misconceptions of hunting would help counter the prevalence of negative  stereotypes in the media and popular culture, public contact with ethical hunters would  likely stir more minds in support of hunting. Eliminating, or at least dramatically reducing,  the problems of poachers and "slob hunters" would further reduce the negative attention  hunters currently attract. Anti-hunting groups would have to rely specifically on  animal-rights language in opposing hunting, a position that has proven attractive only to a  small number of people and would likely fail to motivate enough voters to further restrict  hunting. Similarly, concerns over safety, property, and competition for resources could be  reduced by a new strain of ethical hunters who are more concerned about their impacts on  other people and animals than current hunters may be.