Would you shoot it?

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.
 
Originally posted by Art Eatman:

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

I'm with Art. In the first sentence of the OP, we are told the animal is the town pet. Not just any urbanized deer eating the shutters off every house in the town. We are not told is is a pest, or diseased or a threat to small children(altho I am surprised this wasn't brought up by someone to legitimatize shooting it). This scenario has nuttin' to do with hunting or the ethics of fair or unfair chase. It has to do with the ethics of shooting the town pet......by someone well off enough financially, they do not really need the meat. I'm thinkin' shooting this animal knowingly, would make one's mama, their wife, and their children real proud. Maybe even help you hang the deer up in the front yard or make sure everyone in town sees it in the back of the truck at the local watering hole. Whatta you think?
 
I haven't the slightest issue with choosing to not shoot this buck if you could.

I probably wouldn't be interested, though if they opened a hunting program as they did with Cornell, due to severe over-population problems, and that deer walked by I'd shoot it.

That's a different scenario than trying to find a way to meet this particular deer in one spot that just happens to be legal and then shooting him and bragging about it.

The issue I have is the implication that it's somehow unethical to shoot it.

Given a big bucks range, there's good chance that this guy wanders onto huntable land and probably a good chance that some of the people who hunt that land have no idea that this wild animal is someone (or a whole town's) adopted "pet".

I worked with a guy once who hunted an area about 25 miles from his home. Opening day of deer season one year, he or his father (I don't recall which) shot a piebald deer.

On the way home, the stopped at the town diner. Before they had even been served, someone walks in and says "Hey! Who shot that deer out on that truck!?" Long story short, the owner of the diner refused to serve them and they were all but run out of town.

Turns out the town had "adopted" that deer. People had food piles in their yards for it. That's illegal in NY State, BTW. The guy I worked with had no idea. He didn't know anyone knew the deer existed. He had no idea if it were tame or not tame. He saw it and shot it. Suddenly it's a huge ethical issue, he's a bad guy, whole town hates him.

It's just crazy, IMO.
 
Implications ??

The issue I have is the implication that it's somehow unethical to shoot it.
Click to expand...
It would be unethical, but only for "me" and others, who feel that way. I won't judge others hunting ethics, as long as they hunt, legally. No implications here. As stated before, someone will eventually shoot it and that's their call. ..... :rolleyes:
The issue I have, is that you are passing judgment on those who would choose not to shoot or at least, that is the implication.

As a moderator, you are suppose to make sure we are following the rules and being civil, not to measure or question our hunting ethics. .... ;)

The Piebald deer, mentioned in my earlier reply, was shot illegally. Two weeks later, the park was opened to a control "Hunt". That is not what I call it but so be it. I, as well as other instructors, provided support to the hunters and previously had wondered who would get the Piebald. .... :rolleyes:

Hunt and;
Be Safe !!!
 
I am just a meat hunter. That thing would be going straight to the freezer and table.

I'm thinkin' shooting this animal knowingly, would make one's mama, their wife, and their children real proud. Maybe even help you hang the deer up in the front yard or make sure everyone in town sees it in the back of the truck at the local watering hole. Whatta you think?
Click to expand...

In my town? I'd be the pride and envy of ALL. No way it could have lived that long in "my" town. If they ever found out who the heck was feeding it they would be run out of town on a rail or the hunters would just start hanging out around her place looking for low hanging fruit.

This thread is not about the ethics of shooting a deer for eating it. It's about shooting a deer that other humans have befriended and fed, that is no longer a truly wild animal but an adopted pet. While I agree, training a wild animal to look to humans as a source of food and protection is not the most intelligent thing to do, it happens more than we care to admit. Too many times there are stories in the local papers about a similar situation and the amount of negative feedback hunters receive....even tho shooting the animal was legal. I believe we as hunters should always present the most positive image we can.
Click to expand...

I name my animals, I even like some of them. Even the tasty ones. I say quit the hypocrisy and become a herbivore if you can't handle it. I would much rather eat one of my animals that I know than the mystery meat at Mickey D's any day of the week.
 
Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger:

I worked with a guy once who hunted an area about 25 miles from his home. Opening day of deer season one year, he or his father (I don't recall which) shot a piebald deer.

On the way home, the stopped at the town diner. Before they had even been served, someone walks in and says "Hey! Who shot that deer out on that truck!?" Long story short, the owner of the diner refused to serve them and they were all but run out of town.

Turns out the town had "adopted" that deer. People had food piles in their yards for it. That's illegal in NY State, BTW. The guy I worked with had no idea. He didn't know anyone knew the deer existed. He had no idea if it were tame or not tame. He saw it and shot it. Suddenly it's a huge ethical issue, he's a bad guy, whole town hates him.

It's just crazy, IMO.
Click to expand...


But that is not the case in this scenario. We know from the start, it is the town pet and we are asked if we would shoot it, fully aware of the fact.

In previous similar threads I have told two stories of where this has happened around me, involving folks I know. Either they did the shooting or they had befriended the deer. As you stated in the above quote, in both of the other scenarios, it was perfectly legal...the problem was the huge negative impact on the local hunters by it. Thinking that the portrayal of negative images of hunting does nothing to hurt hunting opportunities is just simple denial. If a hunter, with permission to hunt a property, wrecks a fence or tears up a field because he is after deer causing crop damage, who do you think will suffer the most from the farmer next season? In one of the scenarios I brought up in previous threads was the shooting of an albino deer. Albino deer have always been protected in Wisconsin for as long as I can remember(I've been hunting deer since 1964). The exception in the last few years has been in the newly created CWD zones. In these areas hunters are allowed to take any deer and as many as they want. Just last year an out of state hunter knowingly shot a albino deer that many in the area had befriended, fed and protected. Altho it was perfectly legal, because the area was a CWD zone, it created a big stink in the area and many of the local landowners swore to reduce hunter access to their property because of it. Solely, because of all the negative media attention contributed to this one legal activity, the state has now again, just this year, put albino deer in CWD zones on the protected species list. So tell me again, tickin' off non-hunters and even hunters themselves with a negative image, has no consequences.
 
I name my animals, I even like some of them. Even the tasty ones. I say quit the hypocrisy and become a herbivore if you can't handle it. I would much rather eat one of my animals that I know than the mystery meat at Mickey D's any day of the week.
Click to expand...

Amen. I raise beef cattle and have had no problem butchering one or two every year. I've even eaten a few I have raised on a bottle. If you eat meat from a store, you eat domesticated cattle. Not wild, animals that are hunted. Tame animals from a farm. I don't see a difference in shooting a "tame" deer or butchering a "tame" steer. Meat is meat. Nobody owns that deer. It is a wild animal and in the right area it would be legal to shoot.
 
Well, someone killing a domesticated cow is not referred to as a sportsman. I would like to think that more goes with the name than just killing whatever you can kill.
 
One time, I had a doe and hers fawns within 15 feet of my stand.
Click to expand...

That's poor game management. The fauns stand a much greater chance of growing into big eatable animals if they stay with their mother as long as possible.
 
Originally posted by ZeroJunk: Well, someone killing a domesticated cow is not referred to as a sportsman. I would like to think that more goes with the name than just killing whatever you can kill.
Click to expand...

In Hunter Safety, besides asking our students to do the right thing when no one else is around, we also talk about the 5 stages of a hunter. It is a study that is recognized not only by my state, but by most other states as well as many Provinces in Canada. The "sportsman" stage comes last in the cycle and for many folks, they never get there. Pretty obvious from the various posts here where the authors of those posts are in the cycle.

FIVE STAGES OF A HUNTER

Hunters change through the years. Factors used to determine
"successful hunting" change as well for each hunter. A hunter's age,
role models, and his years of hunting experience affect his ideas of
"success."

Many hunters may fit into one of the following five groups. In
1975-1980, groups of over 1,000 hunters in Wisconsin were studied,
surveyed, and written about by Professors Robert Jackson and Robert
Norton, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. The results of their
studies form a widely accepted theory of hunter behavior and
development. Where are you now? Where would you like to be?

SHOOTER STAGE

The hunter talks about satisfaction with hunting being closely tied to
being able to "get shooting." Often the beginning duck hunter will
relate he had an excellent day if he got in a lot of shooting. The
beginning deer hunter will talk about the number of shooting
opportunities. Missing game means little to hunters in this phase. A
beginning hunter wants to pull the trigger and test the capability of
his firearm. A hunter in this stage may be a dangerous hunting
partner.

LIMITING OUT STAGE

A hunter still talks about satisfaction gained from shooting. But what
seems more important is measuring success through the killing of game
and the number of birds or animals shot. Limiting out, or filling a
tag, is the absolute measure. Do not let your desire to limit out be
stronger than the need for safe behavior at all times.

TROPHY STAGE

Satisfaction is described in terms of selectivity of game. A duck
hunter might take only greenheads. A deer hunter looks for one special
deer. A hunter might travel far to find a real trophy animal. Shooting
opportunity and skills become less important.

METHOD STAGE

This hunter has all the special equipment. Hunting has become one of
the most important things in his life. Satisfaction comes from the
method that enables the hunter to take game. Taking game is important,
but second to how it is taken. This hunter will study long and hard
how best to pick a blind site, lay out decoys, and call in
waterfowl. A deer hunter will go one on one with a white-tailed deer,
studying sign, tracking, and the life habits of the deer. Often, the
hunter will handicap himself by hunting only with black powder
firearms or bow and arrow. Bagging game, or limiting, still is
understood as being a necessary part of the hunt during this phase.

SPORTSMAN STAGE

As a hunter ages and after many years of hunting, he "mellows out."
Satisfaction now can be found in the total hunting experience. Being
in the field, enjoying the company of friends and family, and seeing
nature outweigh the need for taking game.

Not all hunters go through all the stages, or go through them in that
particular order. It is also possible for hunters who pursue several
species of game to be in different stages with regard to each
species. Some hunters feel that role models of good sportsmen,
training, or reading books or magazines helped them pass more quickly
through some stages.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.... :rolleyes:
 
FIVE STAGES OF A HUNTER

/ wall o'text /
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :)
 
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.
 
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top