Unethical Story in Field & Stream?

mtfisher · Jan 2, 2009

Did anyone happen to read the article in the Dec./Jan. issue of Field & Stream about tracking a wounded elk? The story is about
a hard to follow blood trail in difficult conditions and the decisions made by the group. The group tracks the elk by a faint blood trail for a few hours and a few miles and decides that the elk probably isn't wounded badly and the decision is made to a allow the hunter who wounded the elk they're trying to track to shoot another(different) elk if they come across one on the way out. Does anyone else have an issue with this decision ethically? I'm asking because I could be wrong but I believe that if you know you wounded an animal and can't recover it your hunt should be finished. The story ends with the recovery of the wounded elk but I think the decision to give up on the track and essentially start a new hunt is unethical and wrong. Educate me if I'm wrong on this.

sageadvice · Jan 2, 2009

You sound right on the money to me, probably the way it should be but...i've heard of stranger things. Welcome to the site by the way!!

Joey

southslope82 · Jan 2, 2009

Well the fact that they recovered it, is a good thing but if they didn't recover it and put it out for everyone to see and read is not good. Wounding animals is definetley the worst part about our passion but its something that does happen probably alot more than one would think. Its still a terrible thing but as long as you we're as ethical as possible about it and give 110% to recover the animal it makes it a little easier to choke down. I definetley am not saying its okay but It has for me anyway To keep hunting or not is the hunters call each situation is different- Overall I thinks it bad idea to publish a magazine article on it a "POPULAR" magazine at that. just MPO

REDDOG · Jan 2, 2009

well, i guess it would depend, how rough were the miles coverd while tracking, was the hunter phsically capable of tracking more? and other variables. in a perfect world, the hunt would be over. but, seriously, if it were you, and you had a pahvant, ut, 10 az, 111 nv, 15nm, mt breaks, or another great tag, would you say o well, my hunt is over? i am afraid you'd be a better man than i.

mickeyelk · Jan 2, 2009

I agree with you REDDOG. It would be hard. But, if I gave it my honest effort and exhausted all my other resources then I too would continue to hunt. For those people who said its over and going home after wounding an animal, I don't agree. Its like shooting at ducks/pheasants/rabbits, we don't kill them all, we hit and wound, and I bet some of you would continue to hunt anyway. In my opinion there is no difference in type of game animal. When I hunt I make sure I can't find the animal. My 2 cents!!!

ARROWHNTR · Jan 3, 2009

I like the rule that most of the guides that I have hunted with use. And that is if you wound an animal and in there discreation weather right or wrong it is a mortal wound you are done hunting.

I also hunted with one outfiiter there policy was any wound you are done, but if you are willing to pay half again the hunt fee you can go hunting again. In my opinion that is a not right, because it takes it from more of a respect for the wildlife and shot responsibilty issue to a greed and money issue.

mtmuley · Jan 3, 2009

I've punched a tag after wounding a bull. Most of a day was spent chasing him until dark. The next day, 10 inches of fresh snow. There was 6 days left in the season. I'm not proud of losing him, but I didn't kill another one that season. mtmuley

NoBark · Jan 3, 2009

I concur with your statement that, in your eyes, it's unethical.

I have the same ethic in this instince as long as I'm sure it's mortally wounded.

Having said that and despite the unanimous posts so far, I really think most hunters have no ethical problem losing one and shooting another. Seen and heard it happening too many times to know that it is a common ethic among hunters.

I teach Hunter Ed and use that senario to talk about ethics. I do so, in hopes of impressing upon the youngsters and any parents that may be in class, a higher ethical standard.

However, at least in my state, it is not against the law and therefore it is only one's ethics that stop such behavior. I ask our CO about it and he said basically, as long as he can't make it a 'waste of game' crime (because it was found and left) he has no recourse. In fact, I have heard, that game departments plug into thier calculations a percentage to cover such animal loss.

mtfisher · Jan 3, 2009

I should have done more research on the legalities of the question... I guess in some states it does come down to just personal ethics if the law allows you to keep hunting. That concept seems like it opens a whole can of worms though in and of itself though. I'm not trying to force my values on anyone else but it seems to me that any wound inflicted on a animal with a modern weapon would most likely be lethal whether it takes a few minutes for the animal to expire or days because of an infection or gangrene. I know in Germany and other European countries with a strong hunting tradition the idea of lost game is unconscienable. Regardless of whatever we believe and as an earlier poster mentions; I don't think it was wise for Field & Stream to devote an article to the idea because the anti's don't need anymore ammo.

marley · Jan 4, 2009

This is my opinion and mine only because I think it comes down to what you feel is ethical. A few years ago I shot a whitetail in Ohio with my bow and was unable to find it. I had the shot on video and you could see that I hit it pretty high near the spine. I searched all that day, then went back the next two days watching for buzzards to find it. Never found it. Should I continue to hunt or am I done? I decided to continue to hunt with it now being shotgun or muzzleloader season but ONLY FOR THAT SAME DEER. After hunting for two days I found the same buck and shot him with my muzzleloader. I was extremely happy with my decision and I was able to take the same buck after two weeks from the time I hit him with my bow. I also passed up two bucks that were bigger during that time because I had made the decision to not shoot another deer. How many people can say that they shot the same deer with a bow and a muzzleloader?

SMELLYBUCK · Jan 5, 2009

I am more disturbed by my friends who hunt and moan at the idea of eating the meat after they get one. They dump it at some homeless shelter or on anyone else who will take it. If they can't find anyone they let it sit in the freezer until it has sat long enough that they can justify chucking it.

I worked on a crab boat in Alaska one season. My skipper was a very successful hunter. He pulled into the dock one day and his lifelong buddy who grew up to be a guide was docked with some clients and their black bears. He offered my skipper some bear meat. He simply replied "if they are man enough to kill it, they are man enough to eat it."

Well spoken.

SMELLYBUCK · Jan 5, 2009

I think if someone is meat hunting its okay to keep going for another. If you are just there for the kill or the horns, the hunt should be over. If you wound more than one animal, you should make a trip to the range and figure out your limits before venturing off to another hunt. I hear of archers hitting multiple deer in a season with no attempt to fix the problem. I think that is extremely unethical.