RowdyGSP wrote:We all know it's an unwritten rule that you don't shooting un-injured bird that aren't flying, however I'm not aware of any state where it is illegal to shoot game birds that are on the ground, on the water or in a tree. Why not? Water swatting ducks and ground sluicing upland game birds is definitely unsportsmanlike, so why isn't it against the regs? I could see allowing hunters with disabilities being allowed to, but for the rest of us we should have to shoot them on the wing, fair and square. Not wanting to start an argument, but I'm just curious why it isn't illegal or if it is against the law in any state.

Rowdy,
Kinda funny, but I was all set to respond to this one regarding legality, but I thought I'd just do a quick look at the regs so I could maybe throw a link in.
And then it got weird. In Washington State, where so much is not legal .. no bait, no electronic calls, no night vision (lights are okay) for coyote, you can't track wounded big game with a dog, etc, etc... It turns out, there's nothing in the regs pamphlet. So, I called the WDFW state office, and after a little bit of fielding questions from two souls there.. no. There's nothing on the books. The closest you get is not shooting birds off of utility lines, cross arms, poles or insulators.
On a second (mind bending) point, they did have a list of some hunter ethics (not what I'd call a full list) along with a note that all hunters were allowed to hunt with a (paraphrased) 'requirement to do so ethically'. That's a little nebulous and a point I brought up with the folks that, as it turns out, also are the ones that write the pamphlets. Ethics dances around a definition that can share elements of 'mores', 'creeds' and 'guidelines' and may, or may not be shared among a group in the form of a pledge. However, in the latter case there would be typically some decent definitions of the particulars of those ethics. The Hippocratic Oath is a defined set of ethics essentially. If the specifics are undefined, then the subject becomes quite subjective. Which is a pretty tough to 'require', someone else to conform to by just requiring 'ethical behavior'.
I grew up in Kansas. Legally birds had to be in flight. In the family and friends groups, that really translated to not shooting at birds that were 'almost landed', for waterfowl and doves. For upland birds, especially with dogs, shots were then and are now still legit if the bird has sky under it, or the equivalent. I remain comfortable with that.