ABSTRACT
This study focuses on three stakeholders in duck shooting in Victoria, Australia: hunters, activists, and a government regulator, each of which competes for the public’s support. The issue is intensely debated, especially considering that the ducks are native animals and are not over-populated. The paper compares statements from each stakeholder’s website, to identify their ethical positions. The hunters demonstrate an instrumental, deontological ethic that requires them to follow a set of detailed rules. They portray themselves as safe and responsible hunters, with expertize that enables them to exact a ‘clean kill’. The management authority supports and regulates hunting, and provides a detailed explanation of ‘ethical hunting’ that includes ‘ethical practise in the field’ and legal compliance. The animal activists hold an animal rights ethic, and directly oppose duck shooting. They demonstrate a teleological, or ends-based approach, that is focused upon the outcomes of shooting on the ducks.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Debra Lord
Debra Lord has an interest in ethical business issues involving animal interests. Her current focus is on animal welfare and the provision of fair and ethical processes to stop the suffering of animals. Her research interest include performance appraisals, HRM functions, sustainable environments, and animal welfare.
Caroline Winter
Dr Caroline Winter has a personal and professional interest in the ethical issues of using animals for human entertainment, particularly thoroughbred horse racing. Her early work concerned values for natural places, including intrinsic value, passive and instrumental use. Caroline has also undertaken extensive research with respect to social memory and tourist visitation to the battlefields of the First World War in Europe.