PDA

View Full Version : Does It Count?


roy reali
December 26, 2006, 02:32 PM
You are out dove hunting. You see an incoming bird, bring your shotgun up, and pull the trigger. No doubt it was a good hit. The bird comes down hard. You and your dog proceed to the spot it landed. You get there and there is a thick, thorny clump of brush.

You are sure your bird is in there. But there is no way that you or your dog will ever recover that bird. Even a chihuahua couldn't get through the thorns.

My question is, will you count that bird towards your bag limit? I don't mean from a legal standpoint, but from an ethical standpoint.

Edward429451
December 26, 2006, 02:50 PM
No. Same thing as having a deer run off and making a real but failed attempt to find it.

Coyotes gotta eat too.

CK1
December 26, 2006, 03:43 PM
My question is, will you count that bird towards your bag limit? I don't mean from a legal standpoint, but from an ethical standpoint.

Absolutely.

Ratsrepus
December 26, 2006, 04:15 PM
I count hit-but-not-recovered animals as part of my bag.

Gbro
December 26, 2006, 06:41 PM
I truly belive that this is a good baseline for the determination of a Red Neck.

Now us Red-Necks would (all but the lame would git that thar bird) not even think of abusing the term bag limit, Look in thar & count, What ya say the limit is?

Ethec? whats that talk about anyway????

FirstFreedom
December 26, 2006, 06:45 PM
It depends. On this issue, the ethics are 100% parallel to the state rules, IMO. So the ethics question IS the legal question, in my view. So it depends on the state. If the rule is "bag" means kill in "bag limit", then yes. If "bag" means "put into your game collection bag" (more likely), then no it doesn't count, quite simply because it ain't in your bag. The state wildlife department sets all of its rules & regulations for a REASON. They are the experts in how many of X or Y species needs harvesting. They of course take into account such scenarios. If they still define "bag" as keep, then they've taken it into account that others will be culled from the flock. Following the legal rules to the letter *nearly always* makes you an ethical hunter, IMO.

Art Eatman
December 26, 2006, 08:28 PM
Well, the great state of Texas sez I can go play with the doves for some eight weeks. Ten or twelve birds a day. In theory, then, I can go out and legally/morally kill around 600 doves in a season.

I'm not going out that often. Heck, who does? So at most if all goes well I'm gonna go out and get maybe four or five days' worth of limits.

My ethic says to make an honest effort to find any bird I down. Common sense says to not go berzerkoid worrying over one (bleep) dove.

Art

SD_Chop
December 26, 2006, 08:37 PM
Think of it as what it is... "bag limit" how many you bag and keep

trooper3385
December 29, 2006, 12:48 AM
If it isn't in my bag, (or my wifes bag if she goes with me) it doesn't count.

DonR101395
December 29, 2006, 12:55 AM
Nope, the other critters have to eat also. You just provided a free meal for a coyote.

dfaugh
December 29, 2006, 11:41 AM
Well, to me, ethically (forget about bag limits) I have duty to recover game that I killed. So I'd do my absolute best to recover it. But if it really, truly can't be recovered, well like others have said, leave to the scavangers.


"All God's children gotta eat."

revjen45
December 29, 2006, 07:55 PM
For some reason, this thread evoked the line from "The Outlaw Josey Wales" to the effect that "Buzzard gotta eat same as worms."

Jseime
December 29, 2006, 09:37 PM
I would not count it. This goes on the same idea that if you (or your cousins who cant shoot) wound a deer and you try and try and try to track it down and follow it for miles you dont punch out the date on you deer tags and go home you find another deer.

IMHO if you make every attempt to get your game and still cant do it you can go shoot more but only after you are finished looking and trying to recover the lost ones.

rem33
December 30, 2006, 01:03 PM
If you've made a reasonable effort to retrieve and were unsuccessful then no I would not count that bird as part of my limit.

T. O'Heir
January 2, 2007, 03:37 AM
Jseime, that's embrassing to all Canadian hunters and shooters. You have a legal obligation to recover any game you kill. And an ethical obligation to be competent enough with whatever firearm you hunt with. If your cousins aren't competent, leave them at home.
Thorny bushes can be cut away. You killed it, go get it.

76-bronco-J
January 6, 2007, 09:16 PM
----you should always give a 110% effort to try & recover game ,,,but anyone who say's this is always possible to achieve surely hasn't been hunting very much,,,,,,,,,,,,,

auburnboattail
January 6, 2007, 09:32 PM
I will count it. The purpose of limits is population management for the good of Public,Game and environment.
Im my state doves/ Pheasants/quail are not that plentiful.

Pointer
January 6, 2007, 09:56 PM
No

Coyotes gotta eat too.
Even in a thorn bush... :D

Desertfox
January 7, 2007, 05:47 AM
I personally would have shot that dove so it would die on the ground next to my cooler. Ok, not really.
Heck no I wouldn't count it. Anyone ever dove hunt, and go to the spot that dove landed, just to find it is alive enough to fly away unexpectidly?
Like Art said, my season limit would be 600, 24 in possession, 12 a day.

It aint in possession and I can't see it in that thorny bush (btw, that must be a helluva bush if I can't recover it) I won't count it.

trooper3385
January 7, 2007, 02:35 PM
Down here in South Texas, if you don't find your bird with in about 10 minutes, you might as well forget about it. The fire ants have already found it. Heck, you better not leave your feet in the same place for more than 10 minutes because they will find you too. Nothing worse than getting bit by the fire ants. Especially when the first one you feel bite you is at your knee. You know your really in trouble then.

piercfh
January 25, 2007, 10:08 PM
I think I have heard " I killed X, but picked up X" all my life. Thats just part of it. As far as counting towards a legal bag l wouldnt worry about it. Alot of folks keep a lunch box to fill up after they hit the limit. Then some even dump the lunch box out in the tool box and come back for more.

Dove hunting is awesome.

roy reali
January 25, 2007, 10:18 PM
If I saw someone do what you said, and I thought they were exceeding the limit, I would immediately call Fish and Game. That really ticks me off.:mad:

Anyone caught exceeding the limit hunting should be made to spend the night as Rosie's sex slave.

skeeter1
January 25, 2007, 10:34 PM
I've had the same thing happen. AFAIC, what comes home in my bag is my bag limit. I'm sure I nicked a duck once that kept on flying until way out of range to retrieve before he went down (on someone else's private property). The bugs at the bottom of the food chain took care of it I'm sure.

BIGR
January 25, 2007, 10:54 PM
If I couldn't find it I wouldn't count it since I would not be in posession of it.

castnblast
January 26, 2007, 10:38 AM
AMEN ART AND TROOPER! The ethics part comes from the wanton waste rule...you make the honest effort to locate you downed game. End of story...As much as I hate fire ants, they're gonna get their meal every dove season... Also, If I make the effort to go dove hunting, at only 12 birds per day, and their diminuative size, I'm taking home 12 birds so I can have a meal...:D
To each his own though, but I'm not gonna loose any sleep over one or two doves...as long as I know in my heart I made an honest effort to retrieve them.

afterthought...one way I cut down on wanton waste birds is to not shoot doubles...It seems like if I take my eye off a downed bird and get greedy, I'll loose one if not both birds...

Art Eatman
January 26, 2007, 10:55 AM
Something else about this south Texas dove hunting: More than one fella has found himself arguing about the rights of possession with a dadgummed rattlesnake.

Art

roy reali
January 26, 2007, 02:06 PM
There is a big difference between not counting lost game and taking more then the legal limit. Unless I misunderstood, in one of the previous posts, someone seemed to claim he knows guys that take more then the limit.

That is no different then being a thief. Those folks have no business sharing field or forest with law abiding hunters.

rem33
January 26, 2007, 03:05 PM
unfortunatly some people seem to want more than their share.

Yellowfin
February 1, 2007, 04:46 PM
No. Doves are in absolutely no threat of me making even the slightest impact on their population, nor from anyone else. By no means do I advocate being loose on the count in total lest we encourage another passenger pidgeon occurrance, but I doubt seriously that at the present cost of shotshells and horridly diminished numbers of young hunters--mostly due to divorce rates than any other factor-- there is little concern at all for overhunting of them. I eat whatever I shoot and I see few people who don't, so that ends that matter. The truly trigger happy go to Argentina for massive shoots; there isn't much of that kind of activity that I'm aware of here, or at least not in Alabama. I think the days of the bloodthirsty jackasses that killed off the buffalo and such are long since done.

Art Eatman
February 2, 2007, 10:19 AM
Yellowfin, the demise of the Passenger pigeon was due to habitat loss (clearing of forests for farmland) and meat hunting for restaurant supply. In no way was it anything similar to today's hunting.

Same for the buffalo. The near-eradication was U.S. Government policy to "...destroy the commisary of the Plains Indian."

Art