An Ethical Question?

[Glockist]

Ever since the Utah spike elk hunt ended in mid-October I’ve twisted and turned over a decision I made during the hunt.
I’m just curious what the rest of you folks think?

Here’s the deal.

I had a general spike bull tag like I do every year (can’t ever draw one of those limited entry tags).
On Tuesday the 13th (only two more days left to hunt) I ran across a large 6 point bull with a broken antler on the left side. The antler was broken off just below the G2, which (according to the legal definition of a spike bull in Utah) made this bull a legal spike, despite the fact that it obviously WASN’T a spike.
I really wanted some meat this year and I had a tough time not shooting this bull. I watched him for almost an hour (he was bedded down) and I argued with myself the whole time.
...He’s legal, I’m taking him.
...He isn’t a spike---it’s not right.
...The law says I can shoot
...But he isn’t a spike.

I went back and forth a dozen times. Like I said, I REALLY wanted some meat and the hunt was almost over, but I finally decided that I’d never feel good about it, so I let him go.

A month later and I’m still stewing over it. We had beef last night and I wanted to kick myself, but other times I think I did the right thing.

Just wondering what the rest of you would have done?

[Sabre]

If he qualified as legal game under the letter of the law, I'd be eating elk steaks all winter. No question about that at all.

[Twanger]

GF - one of my "golden rules" is to not EVER beat myself up for not taking a shot. :)

[MOGC]

You answered your own question, read my "sig line" below...

[GF.]

Absolutely no question that you did the right thing, even though you would have technically been within your legal rights to not to. But only technically. That regulation was written to protect branch-antlered bulls, and because you honored the intention, it did.

As you said - you knew at the time that you would never feel good about it.

And FWIW, I'd say it was a damn smart decision, too, because anyone willing to stoop to it could shoot the bigger bull, smash off one antler in the right spot and call it a 'spike'. So while you would have been within your rights to take that one, any Conservation Officer, Warden, or anybody else who saw the bull would be entirely within his rights to scrutinize you very, very carefully.

[postoak]

Are you sure he would have been legal? Anyone would be able to make a non-legal bull into a legal one, just as G.F. said.

[Rock Chuck]

Idaho defines a spike as one having no points over 1" on either side. Ever tried to see a 1" point from 100+ yds? A broken antler could easily leave a 1" stub. Not worth the risk.

[swamp]

a broken antler on one side doesn't consitute a spike.... had you shot that 6 point bull you would have paid a hefty price...

[Glockist]

G.F. wrote:
And FWIW, I'd say it was a damn smart decision, too, because anyone willing to stoop to it could shoot the bigger bull, smash off one antler in the right spot and call it a 'spike'. So while you would have been within your rights to take that one, any Conservation Officer, Warden, or anybody else who saw the bull would be entirely within his rights to scrutinize you very, very carefully.

You bring up a good point but the local DWR officer is a friend of mine so that wouldn’t worry me too much.
And I wonder how easy it would be to break an antler in the right spot, or even break it at all? We’re not talking about the last inch of a brow tine, this is practically the thickest part of the main beam. It would take one hell of a blow to break one there in my opinion.

postoak wrote:
Are you sure he would have been legal? Anyone would be able to make a non-legal bull into a legal one, just as G.F. said.

Utah law defines a spike bull as ”a bull elk that has at least one antler that does not branch above the ears. A branch is a projection on an antler that’s longer than one inch, measured from its base to its tip.”

Since this one did indeed have one antler that did not branch above the ears it would have been a legal bull. I checked with the DWR and (based on my description) they confirmed that.

Rock wrote:
Ever tried to see a 1" point from 100+ yds? A broken antler could easily leave a 1" stub. Not worth the risk.

This is also a good point. I once passed up a spike that clearly had a small fork on one side but appeared to have a clean spike on the other. I just wasn’t entirely sure, though, so I didn’t shoot.
However, the bull in question here was only about 60 yards away and I watched him for quite some time through a very good binocular. There was no question in my mind that he would qualify as a legal bull.

Swamp wrote:
a broken antler on one side doesn't consitute a spike.... had you shot that 6 point bull you would have paid a hefty price...

See the definition of a “spike bull” above. The legal definition does not preclude a broken antler. The DWR confirmed this.

I wish I could say unequivocally that I’m satisfied I did the right thing by letting him go, but it’s awfully hard to feel that way when you’re eating and paying a fortune for beef. :(

[Sabre]

I wish I could say unequivocally that I’m satisfied I did the right thing by letting him go, but it’s awfully hard to feel that way when you’re eating and paying a fortune for beef. :(

Exactly why I would have killed him. The rest of these guys can do whatever they wish but as much as hunting licenses and store bought meat cost these days, so long as he met the state's legal requirement he'd be dead if it were me in control of the trigger.

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

Glockist, ultimately we all answer the shoot or not shoot question each time we're faced with the situation. You answered the question like you knew it should be answered for you.

Alan

[swamp]

Exactly why I would have killed him. The rest of these guys can do whatever they wish but as much as hunting licenses and store bought meat cost these days, so long as he met the state's legal requirement he'd be dead if it were me in control of the trigger.

A “bull elk” is an elk with antlers that are longer than five inches (R657-5-2(2)(g)).

Yes one antler was broken... Given the broken antler i'm sure the game wardens would let you walk with that "bull elk" that you are claiming to be a "spike bull" because it happened to break off an antler ... LOL

[Sabre]

A “bull elk” is an elk with antlers that are longer than five inches (R657-5-2(2)(g)).

Yes one antler was broken... Given the broken antler i'm sure the game wardens would let you walk with that bull elk that you are claiming to be a spike ... LOL

Glockist already addressed that issue in a previous post. The bull met the states legal definition of a spike. End of story.

[swamp]

Glockist already addressed that issue in a previous post. The bull met the states legal definition of a spike. End of story.

End of story... hardly...

A “bull elk” is an elk with antlers that are longer than five inches (R657-5-2(2)(g)).
A “spike bull” is a bull elk that has at least one antler that does not branch above the ears. A branch is a projection on an antler that’s longer than one inch, measured from its base to its tip (R657-5-2(2)(s)).

A hunter doesnt consider a bull elk with a broken antler to be spike and neither does the utah game and fish dept... last time i knew that was common knowledge.. common sense...

Why don't you contact utah game and fish.. http://wildlife.utah.gov

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

So Glockist, now it seems that there were actually two questions. One was a legal question (the status of the elk as a spike or not) and an ethical question (you deciding whether or not you were going to do something illegal). Some advice I used to give kids was, "If you cannot say with 100% certainty that what you are about to do is the right thing to do, then you probably shouldn't do it".

I wish it were easy to always follow that advice (even for the one giving it).

Alan

[swamp]

I'd love to see the game wardens face when a hunter trys to argue with him that a bull elk with a broken antler is a spike bull.. I can see the handcuffs getting ready for use now...

So a bull elk becomes a target of non ethical hunters with a spike bull permit... to make a bull elk legal just take a saw and cut off one antler... rough it up so it looks like a natural break and now you have your spike bull...

[Sabre]

Why don't you contact utah game and fish.. http://wildlife.utah.gov

Probably because I don't really give a shit. I don't ever intend to hunt elk in Utah so it's not terribly important to me what their definition of a spike really is. Glockist said it met the states legal requirement and I took him at his word. Your comments about the legal definition of a spike being "common knowledge and common sense" might apply to someone who is a Utah resident but such things are DEFINITELY NOT "common knowledge" in my neck of the woods.

[swamp]

Probably because I don't really give a shit. I don't ever intend to hunt elk in Utah so it's not terribly important to me. Glockist said it met the states legal requirement and I took him at his word.

Geeze.. its pretty much common sense that a broken antler on a bull elk doesnt change him into a spike bull... Whatever happened to common sense ????

Hopefully most hunters do exercise good judgment and good common sense...

[Sabre]

Geeze.. its pretty much common sense that a broken antler on a bull elk doesnt change him into a spike bull... Whatever happened to common sense ????

Hopefully most hunters do exercise good judgment and good common sense...

Comments like that make me wonder if you've ever really hunted or thoughroughly read the hunting regulations of any state. If you had ever read NY's hunting regulations you'd realize how wrong you are for trying to use "common sence" as any kind of yardstick in determining the legality of anything. For instance, a mature buck whitetail absolutely would meet NY's legal definition of an "antlerless" deer and therefore would be perfectly legal to put a doe tag on so long as both antlers had been shed or broken off shorter than 3". Doesn't matter if he weighs three hundred pounds with a neck as big as a holstein bull and balls the size of coconuts dragging in the dirt. If his antlers aren't over 3" long he's not a buck by legal defintion and REQUIRES an antlerless permit to be legaly taken.

[Glockist]

Swamp,

I understand your argument that the bull was not a spike. That’s precisely why I ultimately decided not to shoot it. Legal or not---he wasn’t a spike. Also, and this may sound a bit sappy, it just seemed unfair to kill him because he lost a fight.

As far as your assumption that any game warden would break out the handcuffs I disagree. I already noted that I called the DWR to get their take on it and I was told the bull would be legal under the law. The guy I talked to said he had seen pictures of a mature bull a few years ago that had been shot during the spike hunt. The bull had 5 points on one side and a single spike on the other that virtually came straight out of his forehead like a long dagger. The DWR considered that one a legal spike bull also.

I honestly don’t think many hunters would try the “saw off one antler and turn a bull into a spike” trick. It probably wouldn’t be that difficult for the forensic dept. to prove the fraud, and who wants to take the chance of losing their hunting privileges for who knows how long?

[swamp]

the bull elk with the broken antler wasnt a spike... he was a bull elk with a broken antler... I don't see any shades of gray... its black and white to me...

[Wismon]

Swamp, I thought you weren't going to allow fighting on these forums, yet here you are fighting. I guess you want us to do as you say, not as you do. Yeah, I know, you'll probably delete this post...

[Sabre]

its black and white to me...

Yep, it's black and white to me too. It's nearly the end of the season. I've got a tag for a spike elk in my pocket. I have a shot at an elk that I'm sure meets the legal definition of a spike...BOOOOOOOM.. Meat in the freezer.

[Wismon]

My philosophy of hunting is to taken the first legal critter I see, whether it has ten points or ten spots. (Actually I've never killed a fawn, but I've sure killed button bucks, spikes, and does...all legally.) Then, after that, if I feel like trophy hunting I will, but I don't apologize to anyone for having hunting success within the law.

Edited to add the following:

Glockist, all of the above was based upon the presumption that the situation is very clear-cut legally and that in so doing I won't have any trouble with the game warden. If I have any doubt about that it changes the equation for me because I have no desire to tangle with Smokey Bear, the Fish and Bunny Nazi.

[Sabre]

all of the above was based upon the presumption that the situation is very clear-cut legally and that in so doing I won't have any trouble with the game warden.

Same here.

[ncboman]

the bull elk with the broken antler wasnt a spike... he was a bull elk with a broken antler... I don't see any shades of gray... its black and white to me...

Swamp, there is a point where you must understand the intent of a law and also understand that law may not work in every circumstance. In a court, the definition of 'spike' would be required. If ANY bull fits within that definition, it would be legal.

In NC, the definition of 'antlered deer' and 'antlerless deer' are defined by law. We know the intent is regarding buck/doe harvests but a lot of bucks go in the books as antlerless deer.

Obviously you feel the intent of the law should be enforced over what the law actually states. I'd be careful of that as the same logic may be applied to your guns someday.

[postoak]

I'm with Swamp on this one. I CANNOT believe that you could get away with following the strict wording of that law, and saw and file one antler and have it be a legal spike. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the "law" consist, also, of court rulings? Unless we know all the legal precedent, I wouldn't want to gamble on the actual statute.

[Sabre]

I'm with Swamp on this one. I CANNOT believe that you could get away with following the strict wording of that law, and saw and file one antler and have it be a legal spike. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the "law" consist, also, of court rulings? Unless we know all the legal precedent, I wouldn't want to gamble on the actual statute.

I don't believe you could get away with sawing an antler off. That would be pretty obvious vs. a natural break. I killed a big whitetail buck during the late muzzleloader season here a couple of years ago and all I had was an antlerless tag. I knew he was a buck before I killed him but he had already shed his antlers so did in fact meet the legal requirement for an antlerless deer. I never did feel the least bit "unethical" about killing him and still don't.

[DaveHawk]

I think that for the most part most of us would in fact if we were hunting for meat would take a deer in the confinds of the law.

[Greybeard]

I've run into similar dilemas with steelhead a few times. Hard fight, deep hook, bleeding fish (yes you can put a hook into a fish's heart), and a nice adipose fin (means a wild fish which you cannot keep). I know the fish is close to death and will die very shortly. So the question arises should I keep the fish as part of my 2 fish limit or release it and go on and kill a hatchery fish. If I keep it and a fish cop checks me, I'll get a ticket. So despite the better conservation goal of keeping the dying fish, I always release them and feel bad about it.

The conservation goal for not killing brach bulls is to keep them in the breeding population. Spikes are not effective breeders. So your broken antler bull will grow a new rack next year and be fit for breeding. That is a good thing and you should feel good about it despite not having elk meat this winter. Greybeard/

[GF.]

The guy I talked to said he had seen pictures of a mature bull a few years ago that had been shot during the spike hunt. The bull had 5 points on one side and a single spike on the other that virtually came straight out of his forehead like a long dagger. The DWR considered that one a legal spike bull also.

But that one did naturally fit the description, didn't it? They require it to qualify as a 'spike' only on one side (I'd wager) for two reasons - One is that we don't always get a great look at every animal, and it would be unreasonable to prosecute a hunter who had made a good faith effort to identify a legal animal, only to discover on the ground that the off side didn't pass the specs (and besides, there's not much down-side to culling an animal with an abnormality like that).


I honestly don’t think many hunters would try the “saw off one antler and turn a bull into a spike” trick. It probably wouldn’t be that difficult for the forensic dept. to prove the fraud, and who wants to take the chance of losing their hunting privileges for who knows how long?


Spoken like an Honest Man, G - but as a counterpoint, I offer you Two Words:

Sledge.

Hammer.

Or just shoot it off and claim it was like that when you saw it - lots of stories out there about guys getting mesmerized by a rack and putting a round into an antler., so why not one of those 'missed' bulls getting picked off on a spike tag later on? Or you wedge the rack between a couple of trees and apply gentle persuasion with the bumper of a pickup truck. None of those would be at all easy to prove to be anything other than whatever the hunter claimed Point is, where there's away,there's a will, and people who think they're too smart for the system never contemplate getting caught.


I already noted that I called the DWR to get their take on it and I was told the bull would be legal under the law.

Legal? Yes, technically. Beyond/above suspicion? No way.

But your original question wasn't a legal one, it was an ethical one.

And remember that 'legal' is simply the lowest standard of conduct that society will tolerate before imposing sanctions. It is Legal for a vicious felon to get off on a technicality. It was Legal for the courts in the UK to throw that poor SOB in jail for illegal possession of a weapon. Neither one (IMO) is Right.

You wanted to know if you did the Right Thing, and because you went with your understanding of the clear intention of the law (rather than stooping to the letter of it) I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yes. Not that my opinion matters, because you're the one living with the consequences of your decision that you made for yourself at the time & in the field. But my sense is that you held fire because you knew that it was required under your personal definition of the High Road, and not because you figured you were likely to get thrown in jail. And FWIW, I'd bet that you would have some real regrets had you compromised your own personal standards only because of your distaste for buying beef.

One last thing - this is Swamp's statement you're responding to, NC, but since I'm pretty much in the same camp....



Obviously you feel the intent of the law should be enforced over what the law actually states.

Not at all. Law enforcement absolutely must be held to a strict, objective standard - the Letter of the Law - even when the result clearly flies in the face of any reasonable interpretation of its intent.

But as individuals - and as a matter of moral/ethical guidance - we do have the freedom and (IMO) the obligation to hold ourselves to our own, personal interpretations of the intent of the law. And we are called (IMO) to do the Right Thing, which is to choose a course of action which constitutes a clearly higher standard than that of Law alone.

[Glockist]

But that one did naturally fit the description, didn't it? ...(and besides, there's not much down-side to culling an animal with an abnormality like that).

You could be right, but then again the abnormality may have just been the result of an injury. If so, that particular bull could very well have been a normal branch-antlered bull the following year. So killing him may have been no different than killing the bull with the broken antler.
Who really knows?


You wanted to know if you did the Right Thing, and because you went with your understanding of the clear intention of the law (rather than stooping to the letter of it) I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say yes.

Actually I wasn't looking for confirmation that I did the "right" thing. I was just curious as to what some of you would have done in the same situation?

Like you said, I decided not to shoot because I decided that it wasn't the right thing for me to do. I wasn't the least bit worried that I would be in trouble with the law if I took the bull, I just knew I wouldn't "FEEL" right about it, and that's really all any of us can go by in situations like that.
I'm not going to condemn Sabre or Wismon or anyone else who says they would have shot the bull. The moral high ground can be a pretty slippery slope so I'm not the least bit eager to claim it.
I don't think my decision was either "right" or "wrong"; it just was what it was.

As hunters and fishermen we are forced to make ethical decisions on a regular basis. Every one of us could relate scores of different stories (like Greybeard's steelhead) where we're placed in an ethical quandry, and I doubt we could come to a consensus on any one of them.

[Altjaeger]

As long as it was legal I would not have been critical of you either way. Ethics being individual and distinguishable from law I would say you made your "ethical" choice.

On the question of common sense every man seems convinced that he has it. Yet there are differences of opinion so perhaps common sense is the most uncommon sense of all.

[swamp]

i sent an email to the Utah DWR regarding this... if I get a response from them I will post it here...

[ncboman]

I think that for the most part most of us would in fact if we were hunting for meat would take a deer in the confinds of the law.

I agree.

Talk forum ethics seldom recognise the fact that some/many hunters still hunt for subsistence in some degree. That can add another dimension to ethics.

I also agree that sport hunting shouldn't be about 'my ethics are higher than yours'. Sport hunting should be about personal satisfaction levels well over trying to impress other hunters.

[GF.]

But isn't it always more satisfying to know that you've held yourself to the highest standard that came to mind?

:D

I thought a bit more about this... Seems to me that shooting the broken-branch bull would have been Legal, but not Sporting.

Sporting means taking no unfair advantage, and I think that's exactly what Glockist was feeling when he thought it might be 'unfair' to give that bull the death penalty for having gotten busted up in a fight.

It's probably Legal to kill a bull stuck in a wallow or a snow drift, but not at all Sporting. Call it nature, call it bad luck, but if the world deals the bull a blow that makes him vulnerable to being shot when he otherwise would not be, then what's the difference between being stuck in the mud and having a broken antler?

Depends on your frame of mind.

And 'Ethical' isn't entirely gray and fuzzy; what it's about, though, is having one set of rules for everybody, including yourself and that guy down the road that you just can't abide.

So if you think it would be 'wrong' for that 'damned SOB' to shot the bull on what might be considered a technicality or loophole, then it's no more acceptable for you to do it yourself. And (JMO) it's OK to have one standard for a guy whose budget or diet will be appreciably impacted by the presence or absence of the Elk meat, and a different standard for someone who's really more into the braggng rights on a 'Six-by". As long as it doesn't shift when it's you vs. somebody you don't know or don't like.

And JMO - an Ethical standard is hardly worth having if it doesn't make you uncomfortable every once in a while :D

[Sabre]

It's probably Legal to kill a bull stuck in a wallow or a snow drift, but not at all Sporting. Call it nature, call it bad luck, but if the world deals the bull a blow that makes him vulnerable to being shot when he otherwise would not be, then what's the difference between being stuck in the mud and having a broken antler? I know I don't really give a damn if it's the end of the season and I need the meat. Any natural predator [wolf, bear, mountain lion] will take advantage of the sick, injured or weak and I'm as much a natural predator as any of them. Besides, a broken antler doesn't effect an animals ability to detect, evade or escape hunters/predators. In that regard he was likely just as "healthy" as if his antler weren't broken.


And 'Ethical' isn't entirely gray and fuzzy; what it's about, though, is having one set of rules for everybody, including yourself and that guy down the road that you just can't abide.So if you think it would be 'wrong' for that 'damned SOB' to shot the bull on what might be considered a technicality or loophole, then it's no more acceptable for you to do it yourself. I wouldn't look down on, or hold it against anyone for taking that broken antlered bull, so long as it was legal game under the states rules. Seems like you'd have that "ethical" soap box about plum wore out by now GF. Life isn't all about ethics to me. Sometimes it's just about hunting and feeding myself and my family.

[Wapitibill]

"But isn't it always more satisfying to know that you've held yourself to the highest standard that came to mind?"

Isn't 'highest standard' a sliding scale?

"I thought a bit more about this... Seems to me that shooting the broken-branch bull would have been Legal, but not Sporting."

I've never looked at hunting as a sport, game or competitive event. The animal has nothing to gain and I have nothing to lose. It's not like football or baseball where the conditions that make for a score or victory are rigidly defined. The pain from the shot and the animal's fear of death is the same no matter if the hunt is conducted in a "sporting" manner or not.

"Sporting means taking no unfair advantage, and I think that's exactly what Glockist was feeling when he thought it might be 'unfair' to give that bull the death penalty for having gotten busted up in a fight."

Come on! Is this for real? The only way to be successful in hunting is to take "unfair advantage" in some way or another. We walk slowly and quietly so the animal can't hear us as we approach. We squirt ourselves with scents and play the wind to defeat the animal's superior sense of smell. We hunt during the rut when the bucks have other things besides survival on their minds. Where legal, we bait game with food or at least position ourselves to intercept game as it moves to feeding areas. It's never really "fair" one way or the other. I've never had an animal intentionally give me a second chance to kill it when I blew the first chance.

As for the "death penalty" comment, it sounds just like an animal rights person asking how I can kill "innocent" animals. My answer is that I kill innocent animals because I can't find any guilty ones. Taking an animal while hunting is predation; it has nothing to do with inflicting some sort of punishment or penalty. Even if I'm doing damage control I never take the attitude that the deer is being "executed" for theft of a crop. It's just a matter of bad luck for the for the animal.

"It's probably Legal to kill a bull stuck in a wallow or a snow drift, but not at all Sporting. Call it nature, call it bad luck, but if the world deals the bull a blow that makes him vulnerable to being shot when he otherwise would not be, then what's the difference between being stuck in the mud and having a broken antler?

Depends on your frame of mind."

Back to that "sporting" thing. Let's say we play the wind right and are able to get within point blank range to a nice bull. To be truly "sporting" shouldn't we announce our presence in some way before taking the shot? Maybe give him a warning shot?

When hunting is looked at from a practical prospective (an act of predation) it makes no difference if the bull is stuck in the mud or has a broken antler. If it's legal and you want/need it, take it. If the bull is truly stuck he's probably going to die anyway, and under other circumstances a broken antler might have saved his life.

"And 'Ethical' isn't entirely gray and fuzzy; what it's about, though, is having one set of rules for everybody, including yourself and that guy down the road that you just can't abide."

You've got it backwards. Ethics IS entirely gray and fuzzy. "One set of rules for everybody" defines the LAW.

"So if you think it would be 'wrong' for that 'damned SOB' to shot the bull on what might be considered a technicality or loophole, then it's no more acceptable for you to do it yourself. And (JMO) it's OK to have one standard for a guy whose budget or diet will be appreciably impacted by the presence or absence of the Elk meat, and a different standard for someone who's really more into the braggng rights on a 'Six-by". As long as it doesn't shift when it's you vs. somebody you don't know or don't like.

And JMO - an Ethical standard is hardly worth having if it doesn't make you uncomfortable every once in a while"

I agree with most of that.

[Herne]

Well I WOULD NOT have shot the bull stuck in a wallow. Absolutely not.

Too much like effing hard work to get him out.

I'd have found one nearer the road.

Unless the farmer would lend me his tractor with a front end loader. Then I'd have shot him - (the elk, not the farmer). With a 270. (Ethical - humane. Seriously)

[Sidekick]

Well I WOULD NOT have shot the bull stuck in a wallow. Absolutely not.

Too much like effing hard work to get him out.

I'd have found one nearer the road.

Unless the farmer would lend me his tractor with a front end loader. Then I'd have shot him - (the elk, not the farmer). With a 270. (Ethical - humane. Seriously)

I like the way you think.

[Glockist]

Wapitibill,

I agree with your sentiments about hunting.
There was a time in my life when I was a predator through and through. But as I've grown older, for some strange reason, my sentiments have become a bit "sappy".

A few years back I hunted pheasants almost every day of the season. My goal, as usual, was to take just as many pheasants as I could legally obtain.
But something odd happened in the last few minutes of the last day of the season. 20 minutes before legal shooting hours ended my dog got birdy and made a beeline toward the end of a ditch we were walking. For the next 10 minutes the bird went through every trick in his book to get away, while the dog went through every trick in his to counter. Finally, between the dog and me, we had the bird pinned. It was a beautiful old rooster that came up cackling when I kicked him up.

Like I said, it was the last few minutes of the last day of the season.
And when that old rooster came up I couldn't shoot.

In those few seconds after he flushed I thought about all the hunters he had successfully eluded through the entire season, and now just a few minutes before he would be safe for another year he was about to lose the battle.

I just couldn't shoot, and I have no idea why I became so "sappy" all of a sudden?
I know very well he could have been eaten the following day by a red fox, or hit by a moving vehicle, or poached by an unethical hunter, or even just died from old age or starvation during the winter.
But I still couldn't shoot and I just watched him sail away.

A couple of years ago I was in "goose hunting" mode and I had already killed over a dozen before Christmas.
The day before Christmas I went out to take two more. I was hunting near the inlet to a local reservoir where the terrain is flat and featureless for 300 yards in any direction. The ground was covered with snow and ice from a previous storm and it was lightly snowing again. I had a small flock of about a dozen Canadas land on an ice shelf about 200 yards from where I was (completely dressed in white) laying near my decoy spread.
I clucked and moaned at them for a few minutes but it was obvious they had no intention of going anywhere.
So, I decided to go to them. I started belly-crawling and it really didn't take that long to cover the distance. The snow had picked up quite a bit and visibility was lousy.
After getting to within easy shooting distance I just laid there and watched them for a minute. Their backs were covered with snow and the whole flock looked as though they were asleep. It was so peaceful and beautiful that I simply could not bring myself to interrupt it by pulling the trigger on a shotgun. Not only couldn't I shoot, I couldn't even bring myself to stand up (knowing they would then take flight) so I could walk back to my spread!!!
I ended up turning around and belly-crawling all the way back! Then I quietly picked up my spread and went home empty-handed, a disgrace to predators everywhere. How's that for "sappy"?

These kinds of feelings seem to be getting more and more frequent as I get older.
I have no idea why, either?

[swamp]

its called HONOR and RESPECT...

[Twanger]

Lordy - we are all getting old and sentimental!

Last Wednesday night a chunky 8 pointer with about 90 inches of antler walked up to within 20 yards of my stand and stood broadside for 5-10 minutes feeding on ground vines. He was big, but obviously young. He would have made a proud shoulder mount for someone who had never taken a decent buck. I could have killed him, but would likely have just cut his rack off and let it gather dust in the basement, or cut it up to make bottle openers. I just couldn't do that to such a fine animal, and put my bow down and took some video of him instead. He finally wandered off, never knowing that he was given grace to live another day. Hopefully he will make it through the season. He's in a place where guns are not allowed, so there's as good chance.

Sometimes I get more out of not-shooting than shooting, and this was one of those times.

[Wapitibill]

Glocklist asks: How's that for "sappy"?

I wouldn't call it "sappy" at all!

Without a doubt we humans are predatory animals. The urge to hunt is coded in our genes and it's in our blood. But we're voluntary predators and have the luxury to decide to kill or not kill. No one will go hungry because you didn't want to pull the trigger.

You had a chance to take the birds but chose to let them go. In my opinion your hunts were successful because YOU made the decision to let them live. It is YOU, not the game, that had control over the situation. And it sounds like you were satisfied with the results of the hunt even though you went home empty handed. It's all about personal satisfaction with the experience and there are many ways to be satisfied while hunting. After all, what's not to like about hunting? There's nothing "sappy" about it!

But the decision you made does not necessarily prove that you a "better" or "more ethical" hunter than someone who would have shot the birds under the same conditions.

The simple act of killing has nothing to do with ethics. To say otherwise is to make an argument in favor of animal rights. It is neither ethical nor unethical to kill game as long it exists in plentiful numbers and is taken in compliance with all laws. Likewise giving a game animal or bird a 'pass' is, by itself, neither ethical nor unethical.

I faced an ethical question this past weekend. Saturday marked the opening of our regular deer season. A local farmer lets me hunt on a 2 acre meadow surrounded by woods. This year the meadow was planted in corn that had been harvested several weeks ago. The farmer complains about how the other hunters on his property (all family members) are only interested in shooting bucks and are unwilling to do their part to control the herd. This farmer does not want to participate in the state's damage control program.

I was on my stand (a portable folding blind) for about 4 hours when I noticed a doe sneaking around at the edge of the woods. The wind direction was not exactly in my favor and she knew that something was wrong. Opening morning sounds like a battle zone here in Wisconsin, she'd have to be deaf to not know it was deer season. It wouldn't be long before she bolted but I had plenty of time to take a carefully aimed shot. The distance was about 70 yards and the .270 slug hit home, taking out both lungs. Down she went. A few kicks and it was all over. I tagged the beautiful, sleek and fat doe. She was truly a wonderful piece of Nature's best meat. I decided to donate this deer to a local meat market where it will be made into sausage to be sent to the troops serving in the "sand box."

It was a beautiful morning. The shot was perfect. The deer died quickly and humanely. She was put to good use. What more could a dedicated meat hunter like myself ask for? What could possibly be wrong with this picture?

It's hard to admit but I felt a tinge of sadness as the deer was taken from the back of my truck at the meat market. A tear swelled in my eyes as I watched the carcass being dragged inside. It was as if I was disposing of the deer like a bag of garbage. Nothing could be farther from the truth but that's how it felt at the time.

What was the matter? It came to me after a bit of thought. I shot this deer with no intention of personally using it. There's plenty of elk meat in the freezer, and I'll be heading to New Mexico in a few weeks to get some more so I didn't really need to kill this deer. Even though the meat will be used and enjoyed, was it really the right thing to do?

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Deer_456_3.jpg

[GF.]

I don't find anything at all 'sappy' about taking no more than you need, or realizing that you have nothing left to prove regarding your hunting prowess. JMO, it's a sign of maturity.

Some days it feels right to make meat and some days it doesn't. And when it doesn't, you just count coup.

'Cuz after all; Hunting is a hell of a lot of fun. But after you pull the trigger, it kinda starts looking like work.:rolleyes:

[ncboman]

Glocklist asks: How's that for "sappy"?

I wouldn't call it "sappy" at all!

Without a doubt we humans are predatory animals. The urge to hunt is coded in our genes and it's in our blood. But we're voluntary predators and have the luxury to decide to kill or not kill. No one will go hungry because you didn't want to pull the trigger.

You had a chance to take the birds but chose to let them go. In my opinion your hunts were successful because YOU made the decision to let them live. It is YOU, not the game, that had control over the situation. And it sounds like you were satisfied with the results of the hunt even though you went home empty handed. It's all about personal satisfaction with the experience and there are many ways to be satisfied while hunting. After all, what's not to like about hunting? There's nothing "sappy" about it!

But the decision you made does not necessarily prove that you a "better" or "more ethical" hunter than someone who would have shot the birds under the same conditions.

The simple act of killing has nothing to do with ethics. To say otherwise is to make an argument in favor of animal rights. It is neither ethical nor unethical to kill game as long it exists in plentiful numbers and is taken in compliance with all laws. Likewise giving a game animal or bird a 'pass' is, by itself, neither ethical nor unethical.

I faced an ethical question this past weekend. Saturday marked the opening of our regular deer season. A local farmer lets me hunt on a 2 acre meadow surrounded by woods. This year the meadow was planted in corn that had been harvested several weeks ago. The farmer complains about how the other hunters on his property (all family members) are only interested in shooting bucks and are unwilling to do their part to control the herd. This farmer does not want to participate in the state's damage control program.

I was on my stand (a portable folding blind) for about 4 hours when I noticed a doe sneaking around at the edge of the woods. The wind direction was not exactly in my favor and she knew that something was wrong. Opening morning sounds like a battle zone here in Wisconsin, she'd have to be deaf to not know it was deer season. It wouldn't be long before she bolted but I had plenty of time to take a carefully aimed shot. The distance was about 70 yards and the .270 slug hit home, taking out both lungs. Down she went. A few kicks and it was all over. I tagged the beautiful, sleek and fat doe. She was truly a wonderful piece of Nature's best meat. I decided to donate this deer to a local meat market where it will be made into sausage to be sent to the troops serving in the "sand box."

It was a beautiful morning. The shot was perfect. The deer died quickly and humanely. She was put to good use. What more could a dedicated meat hunter like myself ask for? What could possibly be wrong with this picture?

It's hard to admit but I felt a tinge of sadness as the deer was taken from the back of my truck at the meat market. A tear swelled in my eyes as I watched the carcass being dragged inside. It was as if I was disposing of the deer like a bag of garbage. Nothing could be farther from the truth but that's how it felt at the time.

What was the matter? It came to me after a bit of thought. I shot this deer with no intention of personally using it. There's plenty of elk meat in the freezer, and I'll be heading to New Mexico in a few weeks to get some more so I didn't really need to kill this deer. Even though the meat will be used and enjoyed, was it really the right thing to do?

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Deer_456_3.jpg

:)


What was the matter? It came to me after a bit of thought. I shot this deer with no intention of personally using it. There's plenty of elk meat in the freezer, and I'll be heading to New Mexico in a few weeks to get some more so I didn't really need to kill this deer. Even though the meat will be used and enjoyed, was it really the right thing to do?



some of that grey matter you mentioned earlier? :D

There is a point where we are suppose to take what we need/will use and leave the rest ... and that was your stated intent in the beginning.

I think you should have kept that one for yourself and now hunt down another for worthy donation. :)

fwiw, I know some people that hunt, kill lots of deer, and give them away. Got no problem with that.

But the SOB that cuts the horns off and dumps all the deer (whole) down the road from here needs about six weeks community service at the landfill. :mad:

[swamp]

Marshall,

We, as an agency, have struggled with the definition of a spike elk for years. Ideally we would like to define it as a yearling bull elk. But that does not lend it self to quick decisions by hunters in the field. We need to ask hunters to make decisions based on something they can clearly observe, even at 400 to 500 yards. I have some reservations about asking a hunter to make a decision, based on how an antler became a spike, rather than it is just unbranched.

While we are not completely satisfied with the current definition, the margin of error is within acceptable biological tolerances. We have reported, or questions on, only a half a dozen or so elk harvested as you describe.

Thank you for you inquiry and perspective on this issue and we continue to search to improve the definition.

>>> "Marshall Talbott" <rings@huntamerica.com> 11/19/2009 6:32 PM >>>
Hello... I've heard some comments that your dept would accept a 6 point bull elk with a broken antler below the G-1 to meet the legal definition of a spike elk... Honestly I see it as a bull elk with a broken antler and not as a spike elk... Can you either redefine the legal definition of a spike elk or make it clear that a bull elk with a broken antler doesn't meet the definition of a spike elk..

Please advise..

Best Regards, Marshall

[Glockist]

Like I said, swamp, it was a legal bull.
But for me it just wasn't an ethical bull.

Who knows, though? After a year of eating beef I might not be so "ethical" next year. :D

[swamp]

not ethical if you understand the intent of the law and sneak through a loop hole

[Altjaeger]

Ethics is personal. Our efforts to to impose our ethics on others is called law.

[dave-t.]

We had just the opposite of this happen durring deer season here. My father inlaw was hunting one specific buck this year and the area is under the 4 pt per side antler restriction. He hung in all season, and finally saw the buck making all of the sign on his property on the last Sunday of the season. Big bodied buck, and now a 1 pointer, after breaking off one beam, and 3 points on the remaining side. He obviously held off, but the intent of the law got in the way this time. He was looking at a mature buck with one 22" +/- main beam, and no tines.:confused: This time the point restriction saved a 3+yr old buck that was probably legal points wise last year.

There's always next year.