So it's legal to kill the deer but it's illegal to scare them.
I say that in order for hunting to be considered a sport, the deer have to be armed too.![]()
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
So it's legal to kill the deer but it's illegal to scare them.
I say that in order for hunting to be considered a sport, the deer have to be armed too.![]()
intentional interferance with the legal rights of others to hunt.
Hunting is indeed a sport and it certainly beats watching heards starve to death because there are too many animals for the land to support. Only those who have never actually hunted or whose entire familiarity with hunting is being taken by the hand and placed on a stand and likely even had someone else spotting for them would claim it was not a sport.
It is also a sport that puts money directly into forest, land, and animal management and propagation--money that wouldn't be there if anti-gunners/hunters had their way.
private landowners of large tracts (or small farmsteads too!) needing a hunting license to shoot deer on their own private property? Do the deer belong to the state governments? If so, then should state governments be financially and legally responsible for damage done to privately owned land by "their" deer? Should states reimburse those who are hurt by deer on the highways, especially considering they recognize the danger "their" deer cause by placing high fences in certain places. This last trip to Florida I counted about 25-30 deer carcases on I-95 just in the southbound lanes. A few hunting dogs too.
how many human deaths are caused each year by car/deer collisions?
Personally James that is one thing that i advocate leaving up to the state(s) as the deer are definitely not private property although they do feed and live on private property in many states.
Since the state also does not "own" the wildlife the state should not be liable for damage although they should (as indeed they do) allow predation control either through "government hunters" or through permitting petitioning landowners to cull those animals causing damage.
One's insurance should adequately apply to vehicular damage or actual property losses as it does for any other act of nature.
Since the hunters had apparently done everything which was necessary for them to be there, she had no right to scare the game away.
In this, and other, parts of the country, the deer are a real problem, and should be hunted to thin their numbers. This will help insure that the deer population remains healthy and viable. It also augments government income rather than putting more demands on taxpayers' money.
"She got a little carried away didn't she?" The death of a grandchild will do that to you.Maybe not how we would handle it but we all handle grief differently. I'm sure she was not thinking about how good a thing the hunters were doing.
It only keeps the population healthy and viable if the hunters only eliminate the sick, old, and weak. This is not really the goal of hunters wanting to bag that 19 pointer.
Dan
Overpopulation will CAUSE the herd to become weak and sick because they do not have enough space or food. It may also permanently damage their environment. Nature's way of dealing with overpopulation is disease, malnutrition, and death.
had you just stated "natural predators" because the wolf is not the only predator man has forced from their ancestral domains.
By the way, MAN is a natural predator.
regarding game management in general and deer in particular.
Might just want to talk with a F&G biologist next (or first) chance you get.
Hi, MK.
A law that ought to be repealed. Jury nullification, anyone?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
...someone driving up and down your street at 2 or 3 AM, honking their horn loudly with the deliberate intention of disturbing your sleep at night. If someone decides to disturb YOU in that manner, is it time for jury nullification of nightime quiet laws in residential areas? If you can have the latter then why not quiet laws for rural areas during deer hunting season? You looking for a "Bambi" exception?
Hi MK,
Yeah ... I think this comes under prosecutorial discretion because her infraction is not all that serious and IMO her state of mind does mitigate her actions.
However, missing from the article is any reference as to whether this woman actually told the couple they didn't have permission to use the stand or ask them to find/construct another one on the property. Her comments seemed more along the "I hate hunting" line rather than the more sympathy garnering "they ignored my pleas not to use my dead grandson's stand".
Evie ![]()
it was simply one her grandson had used. It belonged to the relatives who had given permission for the hunters to hunt on their property.
Her actions are as deplorable as if she saw some child riding her grandson's old bicycle and dashed over and pushed them down simply because he had "used" the bike and she personnaly had not given anyone else permission to do so even though the bike was not hers either.
And it didn't belong to the hunters either. Unless they had asked permission explicitly, I don't see permission to hunt the land as permission to use the stand.
Permission to hunt the land probably would cover using their own portable or even possibly constructing one.
Maybe they knew whose it was, and so figured no one would care, I'll grant that.
And if she was telling the truth the lady hunter claimed to see a deer when there wasn't one just to upset the first lady, I'd consider that contributory action and mitigating circumstances too.
roger
Generally when permission to hunt is received any exclusions are explained to the hunters.
I note that the OWNER of the land (and thus the stand in question) did not indicate this to be so, and had the owner done so any competant reporter would not have failed to note the fact.
most land owners prefer to have existing stands used because they have a better idea of where the hunters are as well as ending up with fewer damaged trees or shoddily built temporary and abandoned stands.
just speaking from experience...
there's no real story here.
Let's move along folks.
Is the law specifically against "creating an intentional interruption of the hunting process" and worded that way. Or is the application of a more general public nuisance type law.
If that wording is actually a local ordinance or state law, it would indicate to me that some time in the past there had been severe enough problems that the governing body felt the need for the rule. Espcially if it is a state law that had to be passed by the legislature.
Either way, why should it particularly be repealed Dave? I'm not sure of your objection here. Anti-hunting or some other reason?
One good thing about stand hunting, the hunter is aiming down with a high power rifle instead of across the landscape. A miss doesn't go very far.
roger
after all because that is much the same here.
The laws are to protect the rights of a group (hunters pursuing a legitimate activity) from those who hate hunters and hunting and attempt to disrupt their activity.
Your "situational self" doubling up on standards again?