Do deer actually worry about what is "fair"?

Do you as a deer feel baiting is "fair"?

  • Yes I love eating free food and I am willing to die for it.

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • No. I feel hunters are tricky predators that don't respect me for anything more than a meat twinky.

    Votes: 9 69.2%

  • Total voters
    13

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
8,704
If you are not a deer, or Dr. Doolittle who talks to deer, then please do not answer the poll question since you obviously can not possibly know what is "fair" to deer.

If you are a deer please do not respond with name calling or bigotry towards certain deer demographics which may oppose your views in this poll.
 
What bugs me is all these guys that want it harder for a hunter to kill a deer with a bunch of restrictions. I wonder what a deer's answer these questions would be:
would you rather die quickly when shot by a hunter or would you rather have the chance of being wounded for who knows how long and then let the birds or coyotes pick at your rotting carcass after you died from a misplaced bullet or arrow, as long as a human doesn't get to eat you?
 
What bugs me is all these guys that want it harder for a hunter to kill a deer with a bunch of restrictions. I wonder what a deer's answer these questions would be:
would you rather die quickly when shot by a hunter or would you rather have the chance of being wounded for who knows how long and then let the birds or coyotes pick at your rotting carcass after you died from a misplaced bullet or arrow, as long as a human doesn't get to eat you?

Why are the only two options:

1- No restrictions; or
2- Wounded game dying a crappy death

It seems there should be a middle ground of some sort. Restricting trail cams during the season isn’t all the sudden going to make me a terrible shot. Just as an example...
 
Of course deer are ok with food sources they don't have to expend a lot of effort for.

Humans are just as opportunistic. Not many would turn down a $350 gift card to Ruth's Chris Steakhouse...
 
Why are the only two options:

1- No restrictions; or
2- Wounded game dying a crappy death

It seems there should be a middle ground of some sort. Restricting trail cams during the season isn’t all the sudden going to make me a terrible shot. Just as an example...
I'm talking more about weapon restrictions.
 
What bugs me is all these guys that want it harder for a hunter to kill a deer with a bunch of restrictions. I wonder what a deer's answer these questions would be:
would you rather die quickly when shot by a hunter or would you rather have the chance of being wounded for who knows how long and then let the birds or coyotes pick at your rotting carcass after you died from a misplaced bullet or arrow, as long as a human doesn't get to eat you?


Sure I mean they stand completely still if you hold the light in their eyes.... easy to make a good shot on them.

Bill
 
No implication on how you hunt. I just think your comment was an oversimplification of what happens with weapon restrictions and the current lack thereof.

Bill
 
No implication on how you hunt. I just think your comment was an oversimplification of what happens with weapon restrictions and the current lack thereof.

Bill
Bill, are you one of those that are saying it's bad that our weapons and style of hunting is just too efficient? We need it harder for people to legally kill a buck. Well, I'm not one of them. It's hard enough to find a mature buck during hunting season. I don't need one hand tied behind my back and risk wounding and lossing a buck, when there's opportunity to kill it in a more efficient manner.
 
A deer in Wyoming..and his point of view..
tundra witness protection.JPG
 
"Why stop at not restricting weapons? All that matters is the deer dies in the easiest way possible."

All that matters is the tag holder gets to hunt with methods which he or she sees fit.
 
"Even if its not fair chase?"

Yep. Fair chase is an idea put forth by a hunting club and hunters who choose to do so. That doesn't mean it should be forced upon all hunters through legislation.

I hunt fair chase. It make my hunt more enjoyable for me. I don't think I should force other people to hunt exactly as I see fit.
 
Some people only care WHAT they kill, and not the HOW. If it takes a posse of guides and a pile of apples they don’t care. I think they’re missing the point but what do I know I only kill dinks.
 
Here in lies the problem. "sportsmen" are mocking what is good for the animals that we hunt. The fact is that if measures aren't taken to protect the wildlife then hunting mule deer is just going to continue to decline. There's More hunters afield today than ever, the equipment gives hunters the opportunity to harvest at a greater success than ever. I fear that if something isn't done and fast the old saying You don't realize what you have until its gone is going to come into play very very soon.
 
You can ban anything you want but no ban will ever improve the habitat. The habitat degradation, fragmentation, and flat out acreage loss is the major component that seems to be missing from all of these threads. Oh and the anti's give absolutely zero F's to us policing ourselves, their ultimate goal is no hunting of anything anywhere. Doesn't matter if you are out there in a burlap sack with a hand napped flint knife they firmly believe there is no such thing as an ethical harvest of a animal in their mind. That is what we are up against. Just keep feeding the alligator so he eats you last.
 
We actually don't have more mule deer hunters today than ever. Hunting is dropping all around the country, and we used to have over double the amount of mule deer hunters in the field just in Utah every year than we do today.

But I do agree that even with those reduced numbers, we have become much more efficient at killing animals. I'm generally a person that believes that people should be allowed to pursue their adventures the way they would like so long as it is within the bounds of the law and it doesn't infringe on others ability to pursue their activities the day they want. With advancement in technology and other things coming out, we are getting to the point where the way people are choosing to pursue their adventures is getting in the way of others. And therein where new laws and regulations come about.

Up until this year I have adamantly opposed restrictions on trail cameras, even though I've never actually used one. Things are starting to get out of hand and the way people are using them is not what most would consider responsible. Particularly with the cameras that send images and video remotely and in real-time. Baiting is another example. When you have baiters running other hunters off of areas on public land, you can expect regulations to come. As with most issues we see, irresponsible and disrespectful use leads to regulation. A few bad apples (no pun intended) will spoil it for the bunch.
 
"Things are starting to get out of hand and the way people are using them is not what most would consider responsible. Particularly with the cameras that send images and video remotely and in real-time. "


SO what is irresponsible about that???
 
I'm not going to spend one second trying to convince someone that is completely okay with illegal killing of animals out of unit or even out of season that the use of a trail camera could even possibly be irresponsible. That is a complete waste of time and breath, and not nearly entertaining enough for me to engage in.
 
You can ban anything you want but no ban will ever improve the habitat. The habitat degradation, fragmentation, and flat out acreage loss is the major component that seems to be missing from all of these threads. Oh and the anti's give absolutely zero F's to us policing ourselves, their ultimate goal is no hunting of anything anywhere. Doesn't matter if you are out there in a burlap sack with a hand napped flint knife they firmly believe there is no such thing as an ethical harvest of a animal in their mind. That is what we are up against. Just keep feeding the alligator so he eats you last.
As has been said elsewhere in these threads you cant convince people to give up their winter range home plans for the hope of growing more deer for you and I told shoot if you and I arent willing to give something up for more deer.

It's not the antis we should try to appease, they wont change but the fence sitters they are the ones who are watching trying to form an opinion and the methods we use and examples we show them DO matter.

Bill
 
As has been said elsewhere in these threads you cant convince people to give up their winter range home plans for the hope of growing more deer for you and I told shoot if you and I arent willing to give something up for more deer.

It's not the antis we should try to appease, they wont change but the fence sitters they are the ones who are watching trying to form an opinion and the methods we use and examples we show them DO matter.

Bill
The fence sitters aren't watching us they are watching TV, they can't tell the difference between a poacher and a hunter been that way since Bambi and hammered home with Cecil. Like I said you can ban anything the majority of whatever state you live in and your elected officials want to. But once you ban baiting and whatever else it is that you are banning and the deer numbers continue to drop then what?
 
The fence sitters aren't watching us they are watching TV, they can't tell the difference between a poacher and a hunter been that way since Bambi and hammered home with Cecil. Like I said you can ban anything the majority of whatever state you live in and your elected officials want to. But once you ban baiting and whatever else it is that you are banning and the deer numbers continue to drop then what?


All the more reason to reduce the things that may reflect negatively upon hunters I suppose.

Besides I think the fence sitters will be watching hunters a bit more and tv a bit less if wildlife groups start screaming that they shouldnt be allowed to live on that nice foothill property that just happens to be winter range.

Bill
 
Best thing we can do for any fence sitter is show them how hunting has fiscal value to other people besides people in the hunting business. LIKE THE EXPO.
 
But once you ban baiting and whatever else it is that you are banning and the deer numbers continue to drop then what?

I don't think anyone believes that baiting is responsible for the mule deer decline all throughout the west. I haven't seen anyone make that argument. Why would you correlate the two?
 
I don't think anyone believes that baiting is responsible for the mule deer decline all throughout the west. I haven't seen anyone make that argument. Why would you correlate the two?
There have been four predominant themes to all of the anti baiting threads, in no particular order: ethical, interpersonal conflict, unnaturally high success rate, disease. Add in the additional side conversations on technological assistance and it certainly doesn't take much of a walk to come up with that correlative response.

Also concerning the original purpose of my first post; there are steak and there are peas, method is a peas conversation. If we took the time energy and passion that these multiple of threads show this community has, translate that to action or fiduciary support we might actually get more deer on the mountain or prairie or whatever type of habitat folks live near.

And everyone here obviously is passionate about conservation and does more then just buy a license and duck stamp and say they do their part so please do not read into this as anyone being thrown under any proverbial buses.
 
A ban on baiting is managing hunters, not deer. If you want to increase deer you have to quit focusing on managing hunters and start managing the mule deer.

I don't correlate the two things here between baiting discussions and the health of the herd, but you are free to do so.
 
Other members who are against baiting being legal have correlated the declining deer herds to baiting. I believe the term used was "abuse".
 
If deer numbers are low. Then lack of hunter management is abuse of the resource.

There are obviously numerous schools of thought on how to manage hunters. One is to limit hunter numbers to the point one has little opportunity to hunt but when you do you can do it how you want to. Another is to manage success through restrictions on methods thereby allowing more opportunity.

Another which seems to be the current model in most places of allowing a little too much opportunity and barely restricting methods of hunting an already hurting resource. I guess we can keep trying it......seems to work for some.

My problem is tell people you're gonna restrict their methods OR THEIR opportunity and they freak but tell them if we keep going their kids will have far less opportunity and ho hum...

Bill
 
The damage is done. Our kids will have far less opportunity.

The discussions we are arguing about now should have been delt with and solved 2 decades ago.
 
The damage is done. Our kids will have far less opportunity.

The discussions we are arguing about now should have been delt with and solved 2 decades ago.
That's what we'll be saying in 2 more decades is the problem. I just don't understand the problem with making the hunt a little more challenging so that we have hunting to look forward to in the future. Every year it gets more difficult to draw tags, and that shouldn't be. Let people hunt and manage method to allow it. We're probably never going to grow herds larger, so make the best of what we have for everyone.
 
That's what we'll be saying in 2 more decades is the problem. I just don't understand the problem with making the hunt a little more challenging so that we have hunting to look forward to in the future. Every year it gets more difficult to draw tags, and that shouldn't be. Let people hunt and manage method to allow it. We're probably never going to grow herds larger, so make the best of what we have for everyone.

This is EXACTLY how I feel.

Bill
 
That's what we'll be saying in 2 more decades is the problem. I just don't understand the problem with making the hunt a little more challenging so that we have hunting to look forward to in the future. Every year it gets more difficult to draw tags, and that shouldn't be. Let people hunt and manage method to allow it. We're probably never going to grow herds larger, so make the best of what we have for everyone.
Founder, I respectfully disagree with your comment on probably not increasing the herds. Elk, bison, whitetail deer, and turkey have all increased in numbers over the last 20 years and significantly over the last 50 plus years. Increasing the population represent the greatest way to increase opportunity and should be a primary objective. Again I don't care if Utah allows baiting for cervids or not, the entire reason I commented to begin with was just pointing out that I think we should focus there rather then focus so strongly on our differences within the hunting community.
 
A ban on baiting is managing hunters, not deer. If you want to increase deer you have to quit focusing on managing hunters and start managing the mule deer.

I don't correlate the two things here between baiting discussions and the health of the herd, but you are free to do so.

Wow, just wow. Gee thanks.
 
That's what we'll be saying in 2 more decades is the problem. I just don't understand the problem with making the hunt a little more challenging so that we have hunting to look forward to in the future. Every year it gets more difficult to draw tags, and that shouldn't be. Let people hunt and manage method to allow it. We're probably never going to grow herds larger, so make the best of what we have for everyone.


In my eyes that's still just kicking the can down the road and magnifying the problem.

One of the problems with our harvest management is betting on hunter failure. We haven't been able to do it successfully in the past and we won't be able to do it in the future and the deer will suffer.

The time has come to manage each deer tag as a dead deer. That's the only chance any kids have at a future as big game hunters. I don't like it either but that's where we are at.
 
That's what we'll be saying in 2 more decades is the problem. I just don't understand the problem with making the hunt a little more challenging so that we have hunting to look forward to in the future. Every year it gets more difficult to draw tags, and that shouldn't be. Let people hunt and manage method to allow it. We're probably never going to grow herds larger, so make the best of what we have for everyone.
My biggest fear is a lot more game will be wounded and lost if we make it harder for people to kill one. I'd rather see more clean kills myself.
 
My biggest fear is a lot more game will be wounded and lost if we make it harder for people to kill one. I'd rather see more clean kills myself.
Exactly how we've became what we are today.
Everyone pleaded to the RAC's that "we need to kill better and more effectively" and here we are.....zero restrictions Utah.
 
My biggest fear is a lot more game will be wounded and lost if we make it harder for people to kill one. I'd rather see more clean kills myself.

It sucks to have loss. No good in it.

The only thing that I would say is the people who hunt like that and take a risky shot for their equipment are probably doing so out of desperation and are not likely to have another opportunity to kill. Still not ok but probably not gonna kill 2 for one tag....

I think the overall harvest including loss would go down.

I like you struggle with lost critters and would hope that if it was apparent that it was too high they could make changes to the restrictions on method of take.

I think any of this would have to be a short term take a proactive approach program.

Bill
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom