What would you have done?

[pcappy08]

Since work was slow today I was able to sneak out today for the majority of the day and figured i would try and take a doe....where i hunt there is a 3pt on a side quality deer management rule in effect by fish game and wildlife


found some great sign around 3pm and at 430 had 8 does assorted ages and a 3pt yearling come in to feed....perfect does at 20yds a slam dunk...well here is the twist....when the does were coming in i noticed the little buck was really laboring badly so i let the does cross past my position to get a better look at him and sure enough his right rear leg was broken badly       ....well over the next 30mins and drawing and letting down several times while arguing with myself nightfall finally made my decision for me...i let him walk ...i still feel guilty for it knowing that winter or the coyotes will get him when i had the ability to prevent his suffering but the fear of the fine from a game warden or losing my hunting privileges kept me from doing what i felt to be the ethically right thing....normally i would never take a young buck like that but it really gets to me when i see a deer suffering...  so i ask in that position what would you do?

[ishiwannabe]

I can understand your dilemma. I make it a habit to try and shoot any badly injured deer I can for the same reasons.
Dont be surprised if he makes it though....they are amazing animals.
Maybe a call to your local F & W officer could answer your question?

[pdk25]

Tough call.  Probably would have shot him in northwest NJ where the winter is a little worse and there are some coyotes.  In the south or along the coast he might make it.  Really depends how much he looked like he was suffering.

[Jedimaster]

I just can't see going against the law in this situation.  Yeah, it sucks but the potential for a significant violation is too great.  I know there are some officers that would see things for what they are but you can't have foresight to know and the law did not grant you discretion.  I would have taken a doe and let him walk no questions asked.  As Ishi said, don't be surprised if he does make it.  They are incredible beasts.  

It would not have been morally wrong to put him down.  On the other hand, it wouldn't have been morally right either.  Judgement call.  Don't second guess or lament, you did fine.

[Bonebuster]

Sometimes the right thing ain`t legal, and sometimes the legal thing ain`t right.

I would have shot him, and made the warden look me in the eye when he wrote the ticket.

[Clay Hayes]

Legal doesn’t always equal ethical, and ethical doesn’t always equal legal.  

That’s a bold statement but, deep down, we all know it’s true.  I wouldn’t hold it against a hunter for going either way.  I think I would have shot the deer then contacted the local warden.  If he’s got a conscience, he should understand.  He probably wouldn’t let you keep the buck though.

[luv2bowhunt]

I think that you did the right thing. Nature is cruel at times, but nothing goes to waste. If he does not survive he will feed other animals in the woods that need food as well.

There are several other animals that suffer in the wild that we never see... sometimes we happen to be in a position to see it, but you still have to do what is legal. Laws are there for a reason and even though we might not agree with them we still need to abide by them.

Just my 2 cents...

[limbow]

Well said Kevin.

[Wannabe1]

"Buzzards got to eat same as the worms" Clint Eastwood in The Outlaw Josey Wales.

You did right! Kevin hit it on the nailhead. It's the fact that you cared that takes you a step above!  

[Eric Krewson]

I have a doe on my place that looks like she was hit by a car. When I first saw her she had a broken back leg and couldn't put any weight on it, she was limping badly. I saw her a couple weeks ago and she still had a baseball sized knot at her leg joint but was walking on the leg, still had a bit of a limp but doing much better.

[Curveman]

"sure enough his right rear leg was broken badly."

I could never watch an animal suffer regardless of the law. It doesn't matter that it happens in nature-this scene is happening in front of you so you have a decision to make. I would've taken him. What is legal and what is ethical are not always the same. If I were a game officer I would let you off if I caught you. Are you sure that the law doesn't allow for you to take injured game? That being said, I wouldn't let it bother you. Wild animals never die peaceful deaths. Things like this happen in nature all the time.

[James Wrenn]

Well if it had been legal to take the deer that certainly is the one I would have killed.Since it was not I would have taken a doe and left the buck to his fate.Laws might not cover ever instance as well as we want them to but they are still there for a reason.I hunt within the law as every hunter should.He most likely will survive any way.Deer are a lot tougher than we are.jmo

[wingnut]

You did right by letting him walk.  You gotta draw a line somewhere and the first one is "is it legal?"  If you don't like the law, change it don't break it.  

Secondly; the deer has a good chance to survive and if it doesn't, that's natures way.  

In many of the posts above, ethics and laws are being bantered about like they are different.  I don't believe that's the case.  In all ethical decisions, the law of the land is the first filter.  Then all the other stuff comes to bear.

Let him walk even though he limps.

Mike

[vermonster13]

Legal first. When we start deciding for ourselves we get on the slippery slope. Ethics need to still be within the scope of the law and while the laws are nowhere near perfect, they still need to be a part of any hunting decision. Nature will take care of it's own how it is meant to be, he'll most likely recover but if he doesn't some other animals will survive because of his death.

Few choices are easy ones, but you made the right one IMO.

[joekeith]

You "know" what you should have done......  :(

[MI_Bowhunter]

I think you made the correct choice.

I would have let him walk.   I'm not willing to risk losing my hunting privileges over taking an illegal deer. For better or worse, nature recycles it own.

I'm not saying I wouldn't feel for the animal, but the law is the law whether I agree with it or not. Once we start making those decisions for ourselves, picking and choosing which laws suits our needs at the time,  it opens up a Pandora's Box of issues.

[OkKeith]

Interesting thread...

When I worked for our Dept. of Wildlife Conservation here in Oklahoma I did a LOT of hunter ed. classes (a lot means signing a couple of thousand cards a year). I really enjoyed doing the hunter ethics portion of the 6 hour class. This very scenario was part of the group discussion session.

When I asked this question there were always the few folks on each extreme. Adamant it should have been taken regardless of the law, adamant it should never be taken because of the law. I usually tag-teamed these classes with someone from the Law Enforcement division and they always went for coffee when this came around.

The guys I did these classes with were good guys. All of them had been in conservation law enforcement for at least 10 years. When I had the opportunity to ask them about this... whether or not they would fine an individual who put down an injured game animal that was out of bounds of the regulations, every one of them said, yes. They had no choice.

If a violation was committed, it was there sworn duty to uphold the law as stated in the statutes that defined the game laws. That didn't mean they liked it or agreed with it but that's the job.

Now, a few said that they most likely would not show up in court to press the matter, but the ticket would get written. What the judge did with it afterwards was beyond their control.

What would I do? Most likely let it walk. I have seen a lot of injured deer make it.

OkKeith

[John Scifres]

Deer are injured all the time.  It kinda goes with the territory of being a wild animal.  Many live with what appear to be extreme problems.  But their survival instinct is strong.  I'm pretty sure God would not have made it so if He did not want them to live.  Or to look at it another way, I am sure that if an animal could choose to live or die, most would choose survival.  If they can feed and breed, they are doing what they are meant for.  I don't endow them with that level of sentience.  

Killing an animal because YOU have an emotional empathy for their perceived suffering is about YOU, not the animal.  Empathy for the animal is misplaced since empathy cannot cross the species line.  Animals are not people.

[dirtguy]

I was recently called for jury duty. After we completed all of the paperwork, the judge had a few words for all of us potential jurors.  She said that, if any of us were chosen to sit on a jury, understand that you could and probably would feel sympathy for someone involved in the case.  It could be a vicitm, a witness, or even the accused.  Then she emphasized that feeling sympathy was a normal reaction, BUT you still have to act within the law.

IMO, Same here.

[Clay Hayes]

"empathy cannot cross the species line"

John, how can you say this?  Would you really feel nothing if you witnessed, first hand, an animal dying a slow and agonizing death?  In all honesty, the cruel nature of nature aside, do you really feel no compassion for a suffering critter?

The question I ask is not one of legality, but of basic human nature.