Would you shoot it?

[Brian Pfleuger]

What exactly does it have to do with being a "sportsman"?

What definition would that be?

1. (General Sporting Terms) a man who takes part in sports, esp of the outdoor type
2. (General Sporting Terms) a person who exhibits qualities highly regarded in sport, such as fairness, generosity, observance of the rules, and good humour when losing

1): a man who participates in outdoor activities like hunting and fishing

2): a man who participates in sports

1.
a man who engages in sports, especially in some open-air sport, as hunting, fishing, racing, etc.
2.
a person who exhibits qualities especially esteemed in those who engage in sports, as fairness, courtesy, good temper, etc.


Those are the top 6 definitions of "sportsman" I could find. I don't see anything that even tangentially relates to how wild an animal has to be when you kill it.

Is it "unfair" or a lack of "generosity"?

Besides which, except for the concepts of following the laws, we've had quite a number of threads here over the years, some quite recent, with a great many respondents talking about how "sport hunters" are unethical, that killing an animal for any reason besides needing the meat is unethical.


So, let's see here:

It can't be inside a fence (of any dimensions or size), it can't be too tame (well, unless you don't know it's tame then it's ok), you can't hunt from tree stands, you can't shoot more than X yards, you have to hunt only because you need the meat, you can't be happy when you kill an animal, you can't hunt animals that were bred for the purpose of hunting, you can't shoot mothers with babies, you can't shoot babies, but you also can't have antler point limits nor intentionally hunt for trophies (see "meat only" hunting).

That's just the "Rules" I've seen in the last few weeks, that I can remember off the top of my head.

Oh, and the "5 Stages of Being a Hunter", always perpetuated by someone who fancies himself to be in stage 5, clearly a "superior" stage and likes to look down on those in the "lesser" stages. It's less than meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.

This is just one more issue with entrenched positions and no minds changing. I've had my say, no point in my beating this horse any further.

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger:

Oh, and the "5 Stages of Being a Hunter", always perpetuated by someone who fancies himself to be in stage 5, clearly a "superior" stage and likes to look down on those in the "lesser" stages. It's less than meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.

That is your opinion and you certainly are entitled to it. I've always looked at these forums as a source of opinions and rarely do they all mirror each other. Hunting ethics has always been one of the most controversial. To some, ground swatting grouse or pheasants is unethical, where as to some, not doing so is a wasted opportunity for an easy delicious meal. Neither is wrong where both are legal. As was said in the study I posted, not only is one's stage dependent on their age and experience, but by the ideals and ethics of their role model and mentors. Ethics and methods varies also by region and local laws. But laws are what determines whether or not you could be thrown in jail or fined. Ethics is being able to look at yourself in the mirror and have your children, friends and others that look up to you, do so with pride. MTT TL claims he would be heralded as a hero for shooting the buck in his town. He also claims that those same folks would illegally force anyone legally feeding wildlife outta their town. A classic example that your peers determine a lot of your ethics. Kinda like marrying your cousin. Some places it's legal.....does it make it right? Again, ethics. No where have I said one needs to hunt in a certain way to be a hunter. I only stated that I would not shoot the animal and that the negative impact that would come from doing so would not be advantageous to us as hunters. I grew up farming and raising animals for slaughter. Many of them had names and most provided us with satisfying meat. Was never considered a hunt or a memorable experience when it came down to puttin' one down. I still have a rabbit pen in the backyard for an occasional meal of New Zealand Whites. Altho I have to kill them first, I get no enjoyment from it. I also do not consider that hunting, even tho I am also a rabbit hunter. Others may disagree, and that is their right.

[FrankenMauser]

I don't understand how people can consider shooting an urban deer to be "unethical" and/or "unsporting", but they have no problem using 25 people to push 10 acres in the 'back 40' to drive a herd of deer to a dozen waiting hunters.

Maybe I should start "sport fishing" in a barrel....

[Guv]

Frakenmauser, you'd grind those antlers? Come on mate

[MTT TL]

FIVE STAGES OF A HUNTER

/ wall o'text /

Really?

I never went through any of those stages. I fill my freezer with venison every year because it tastes good, it is very healthy and it is a little cheaper than beef all told. I follow the law and the ever evolving rules and regulations. I am polite to my fellow hunters and as generous as I can be.

Do you really believe that the founding fathers thought about it in these terms? I am thinking not. Just because someone came up with some arbitrary terms out of some kind of false sense of sentimentality does not mean a thing to me. This is why I don't read hunting magazines.

[ZeroJunk]

Oh, and the "5 Stages of Being a Hunter", always perpetuated by someone who fancies himself to be in stage 5, clearly a "superior" stage and likes to look down on those in the "lesser" stages. It's less than meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.

I had not paid any attention to what somebody had named the stages of hunting. When I was a kid I would kill most anything. No telling how many deer I have killed. But, after a while it gets too easy.
I was really referring to there being no sport in it rather than some stage.

[Art Eatman]

Why is it so difficult to stay with the subject of that particular buck in that particular situation?

If I have a ranch near the edge of town, and that buck shows up as one of several other bucks of that size, I'm as likely to shoot him as any other buck in my pasture. But that, to me, is not the point of the opening post's question.

Now: If anybody wants to talk about the problems arising for a hunter from having shot a "pet" deer, feel free to start such a thread.

[shortwave]

The question was ' Would you shoot it ? '

Answer still, nope. As some others have said here, if I were out in the woods doing my normal hunting thing and got lucky enough to tag a deer of this size, I would.

But I just couldn't walk up to this deer in town with one hand full of oats and my pistol in the other and shoot this pet deer. Would be like going to a kids petting zoo and doing the same thing....

...and of course, YMMV.

[MTT TL]

But I just couldn't walk up to this deer in town with one hand full of oats and my pistol in the other and shoot this pet deer. Would be like going to a kids petting zoo and doing the same thing....

Those animals at the zoo belong to someone and shooting them would be a crime. In my state baiting is totally illegal so so giving feed would be a crime. Comparing criminal activity to non-criminal activity is not very apt.

[sc928porsche]

Nope. Way too close to the RR tracks! Everything else is moot.

[shortwave]

Those animals at the zoo belong to someone and shooting them would be a crime

Unless you had permission from the owner or I owned the petting zoo.

In my state baiting is totally illegal so so giving feed would be a crime

Not in mine. But I guess the only relevant thing is, is baiting legal where ms 6852 lives since the deer in question is where he's at. But if baiting is illegal where he's at, if the deer is as tame as presented, wouldn't be much more then walking up to one of the cows and shooting it. Or much different if I'd had raised this buck from a youngin and he were used to me.
Hey, there's an idea...sell off the cows and start raising deer for market. Bet they'd load just as easy on the stock trailer come market time. Ya think?

Comparing criminal activity to non-criminal activity is not very apt.

See how easy everything became legal.

Still not the obvious point I was making. I am simply saying, I would get more enjoyment watching this almost tamed deer(as I'm sure other townspeople do) then shooting/eating it. I'd rather eat a nice doe anyways.

FWIW, I'm not saying what others should do and not trying to convince others of my thoughts. I'm saying what I would do and have my own reasons for it.

[ChasingWhitetail91]

I believe it was a fellow staff member that took this thread a little off course Art Eatman.

[FrankenMauser]

Frakenmauser, you'd grind those antlers? Come on mate

I honestly don't care about antlers or horns. From a dinner table perspective, I'd rather not have them at all. Does/cows/fawns/calves are more tender and taste better.

I have a 6x6 elk rack sitting in my brother's garage, only because my wife wants it mounted. If she hadn't wanted to mount it, I would have cut it up for projects or sold it by now. When I look at antlers, I see tools, knife handles, handgun grips, Atlatl spurs, stock inlays, slingshots (), etc.; and scrap that can be saved for bone meal.

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

Most pet deer I ever seen had some Orange on it. A ribbon or spray painted. In this situation if the towns people really wanted to protect such a pet animal {as seen.} You would think they would find a way to {mark it} in hopes to protect (their) deer anyplace it wanders off too. If it isn't marked. That antlered pet may end up in someone sights during deer season. After all {as seen} it is a trophy in a Plain Jane wrapper.

BTW is it legal to shoot down a Rail Road Right of Way Bed?

[skoro]

Originally Posted by Art

What does a hang-around buck have to do with eating deer meat?

I like just sitting and watching wild critters. It's as enjoyable for me as going to a museum or watching a sporting event of some sort.

Since the world is full of deer who do the hide-or-run thing, having a volunteer to show up and be looked at seems like a neat thing. So why shoot him and wipe out the enjoyment? And not just for me, but for others as well? I dunno. I like seeing folks smiling a lot more than I like seeing boredom or frowns.

Personally, I see shooting that particular buck in the described circumstance as the shooter's having an attitude of, "Ha, ha, ha, I sure rained on your parade!"

Lord knows I love hunting, and deer meat is yummy-tasty. But this particular situation? 'Scuse me, this old redneck will pass that deal.

Thanks Art...

That says it a lot better than I did.

Seems those who want so badly to shoot a "friendly" critter have a pretty narrow viewpoint on themselves and others.

[MJN77]

Seems those who want so badly to shoot a "friendly" critter have a pretty narrow viewpoint on themselves and others.

Or, more likely, it's the fact that deer season comes once a year and most hunters like to eat venison. In the right setting, it would be hard to pass up a buck like that. It's funny, if someone disagrees with you it's because they "have a pretty narrow viewpoint on themselves and others" instead of the fact that that they just see things differently than you. Why is it that people with opposing view points are selfish, or they don't care about other people instead of maybe, they don't get a chance at a deer like that very often? Not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to hunt every year (work) or to have a good place to hunt. "Friendly" or not, it's still a wild animal, not a "pet" as some folks keep saying. No one owns it. Just because people are "attached" to it doesn't make it theirs.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by skoro

Seems those who want so badly to shoot a "friendly" critter have a pretty narrow viewpoint on themselves and others.

You've got to be kidding me.

Side A says "It's not an ethical issue. Each hunter should do whatever they want that's legal."

Side B says "I don't want to shoot it and no one else should either."

and it's Side A that has a NARROW VIEW?!

[Bezoar]

this is something of a joke.

A large portion of the respondents would aparently stop hunting if i ran up to them, if they were about to shoot the world classest trophy red stag that they waited in line 20 years to get the tag for, and paid 25,000 dollars for the trip and the permits, etc simply because i ran up and said "mr, thats my PET i like looking at him on a webcam"


its nice to look at, it looks nice and tender. But the thing is its meat. Lets understand that.

sure if its in city limits its illegal to hunt. But if it wanders out, and sees a nice carrot on the end of a string tied to thme muzzle of a rifle you were holding....soo beee it.

ITS

FOOOD

[buck460XVR]

Originally posted by MJN77:

"Friendly" or not, it's still a wild animal, not a "pet" as some folks keep saying.

In the scenario presented to us by the OP, the deer in question IS the town's pet. We have been informed of this, thus a simple deduction means that intentionally killing it while being aware of this will make a very good number of folks upset. My argument since the first post has been, we as hunters do not need the negative image this would impact upon us, especially considering the fact that shooting it, in THIS scenario, is not a hunt. In the majority of states, even where baiting is illegal, feeding wildlife is not a crime and is considered by many to be beneficial. Believe it or not, more folks in the lower 48 enjoy watching wildlife than hunting. Hunters are in the minority and are allowed by the majority to hunt because they tolerate us and most realize we are doing what they don't want to.

Why is it that people with opposing view points are selfish, or they don't care about other people instead of maybe, they don't get a chance at a deer like that very often?

The total disregard of the facts presented to us in the OP and the attitude that the 60 pounds of easy, tasty venison is worth more to someone, than creating a negative image of hunters to a large group of folks, many who are probably hunters themselves, shows a degree of selfishness and not caring about other folks also. It certainly goes both ways. The statement about not getting a chance at a deer like that very often is a testament to why so many big bucks get shot illegally. Funny how a big rack can cloud judgement.

The argument here for shooting the deer, is that if it is legal, it is fair game. No one can argue with what is legal, that is generally spelled out in black and white in the regulations. What is fair and or right seems to be where the discussion starts. Finding a hunting partner/partners that have similar hunting skills and ethics is as hard as finding motorcycling companions with the same riding skills and priorities. This is because in both cases they vary so much. I have not told anyone they can't shoot the deer in question if it's legal to do so. I'm just saying in the scenario and facts presented to us, in my humble opinion, the negatives of doing so greatly outweigh the positives. In other scenarios, I may or may not have a different opinion.

[ZeroJunk]

Side B says "I don't want to shoot it and no one else should either."

Nonsense, it's your business if you want to shoot it. Some of us have simply stated that we would not and why. The reasons that you and other may have to shoot the deer I just don't have.

[Art Eatman]

ChasingWhitetail91, all I've tried to do is explain and then amplify my reasons for my viewpoint. And I've tried to limit the scenario to that of the opening post, in the specified situation. I fail to see how any of that is off-topic.

[MJN77]

In the scenario presented to us by the OP, the deer in question IS the town's pet.

It is not a pet. It wasn't raised in a barn on a bottle. It wasn't bought at a pet store. It is a WILD ANIMAL. It is not a sacred calf. Just because people take a shine to a wild animal doesn't mean it belongs to them. If you're really that scared about what anti-hunters say, why do you hunt at all? If I was afraid that everything I do is going to make someone mad I wouldn't do half the things that I do. Can't hunt it sets the hippies off. Can't own a gun, the news will say EVEN MORE bad stuff about me. The "anti" crowd hates us no matter what we do. A hunter could save thirty children from a burning building and the media will still say how bad of a person he is because he owns guns and shoots bambi. It's funny how worked up some people get in a conversation about a deer they have and will never see in a town they don't live in. I guess some people just need to feel morally superior.

[MTT TL]

ChasingWhitetail91, all I've tried to do is explain and then amplify my reasons for my viewpoint. And I've tried to limit the scenario to that of the opening post, in the specified situation. I fail to see how any of that is off-topic.

He wasn't talking about you, he was talking to you about BP. I think this is a conversation that should be had and is well within the topic though.

Hunters are in the minority and are allowed by the majority to hunt because they tolerate us and most realize we are doing what they don't want to.

Where I live hunters are either in the majority or run everything that matters.

When that deer becomes "a problem deer" Are they going to then turn around and hire someone to kill it?

[shortwave]

When that deer becomes "a problem deer" Are they going to then turn around and hire someone to kill it?

IF(not When) that deer becomes "a problem deer" of intolerable proportions then I'd either call the game warden to have it relocated away from civilization so it would regain its more wild instincts and if the warden would not do that then I'd shoot it with no second thoughts.

If I wasn't so lazy when it comes to learning computer skills, I would learn to download a vid off my camcorder of a small doe that came in my brothers yard and disrupted our family reunion softball game. I filmed the family, especially the small children and G-kids petting this doe like the family pet. You may not believe this but my brother has got pics. of this doe walking home with his kids from the bus stop. None of the neighbors knew where this doe came from as it just appeared and wouldn't leave the area. A call to ODNR was made and they had no knowledge of a family adopted deer that was turned loose in the area.
Some states, such as Ohio have these adoption programs and when the deer gets so old, the deer has to be turned loose. We have neighbors that are a part of this program.

Maybe this buck was raised as a fawn by a family due to its mom being killed at a very young age. Who knows.

[FrankenMauser]

When that deer becomes "a problem deer" Are they going to then turn around and hire someone to kill it?

You might be surprised what happens to nuisance deer, across the country. In some areas, they get killed. In other areas, they get relocated. In other areas, they get sent to zoos or game ranches. And in a few places, you can adopt them as pets. Most places use more than one of the options, depending on the situation.

Utah, for example, has done all of the above, except for pet adoption, in the last 40 years. They routinely capture nuisance deer and antelope, force them into a small herd (6-12 animals), and then trade with Wyoming or New Mexico for deer or more antelope, to add some genetic diversity to some of the geographically isolated herds.

But, deer that aren't good candidates for a trade? Nope. Most of them are given one chance at relocation (if they aren't shot). If that doesn't work, they're shot, sold to small zoos, or sold to (out of state) game ranches. If there's an entire herd causing problems, they might offer special tags and a special season to let hunters help eliminate the problem.

And, sometimes, things get a bit ridiculous....
Utah currently has a herd of about 75 deer causing problems on a golf course frequented by rich, well-connected persons. Compounding the problem, is the fact that the public land bordering the golf course is closed to hunting. To solve the problem, the DWR issued special deer tags specifically for that location. The goal is to eliminate all deer "on the wrong side of the highway". But whatever deer are left in the area after January 1st are not going to be relocated, because it would be too expensive. The state is going to send in the wardens to shoot them all. And when they're done there, there's a herd of 90 antelope farther south in the state, that are "on the wrong side of the mountain". Every last one of them will be shot where they stand, and left to rot.