to kill or not to kill?

[smitty]

In regards to a post by another user, I got to thinking. Just because I purchase a hunting license, does that give me the right to kill an animal? Or does it allow me the opportunity to hunt animals with the end result hoping that I can kill one?

What if I shoot one, can't find it, shoot and kill another, and then later find the one I hit first? Do I get to keep both?

Obviously, not everyone is going to agree on what is the right thing to do. I for one believe that in all fairness to the animals we hunt and to other hunters, if you draw blood, you're done. End of story. There are not enough game animals in todays world for us as hunters to be shooting and killing more than what our tag allows.

If you walk into a store, buy a shirt, lose it in the parking lot, walk back into the store and grab another shirt, they will arrest you for stealing. I don't see how shooting multiple animals is any different.

 

[BuckSnort]

Jeezus, how many of these post's do we need?

Disclaimer:
The poster does not take any responsibility for any hurt or bad feelings. Reading threads poses inherent risks. The poster would like to remind readers to make sure they have a functional sense of humor before they visit any discussion board.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

IMO, hunting is a privelage not a right. However, if the government agency issues the tag in your name after you have paid for it, I think it then becomes your right to kill an animal with that tag. It has also been an ongoing "ethical dilema" as to when you punch your tag. Personally, if I know I have hit an animal, regardless of whether I recover that animal or not, I consider my tag punched. That's just me. That's how I live with myself if I wound an animal. I'm not saying that pursuing another animal, after a non-recovery, is wrong. It's just not something I would do myself.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

Come on Buck! Humor us with some of your philisophcal beliefs on the subject matter listed above.


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[nickman]

You can shoot and keep as many as you want.......but you should probably have a tag for each of them.

I don't get the shirt comparison......if you had it in your possesion when you left the store, you and the store are done.

"If God did not intend for man to hunt animals, he would have made broccoli more fun to shoot"

 

[BuckSnort]

>Come on Buck! Humor us
>with some of your philisophcal
>beliefs on the subject matter
>listed above.
>
>
>It's always an adventure!!!

Hell I can't even spell philosophical...lol

Disclaimer:
The poster does not take any responsibility for any hurt or bad feelings. Reading threads poses inherent risks. The poster would like to remind readers to make sure they have a functional sense of humor before they visit any discussion board.

 

[AWHOLELOTTABULL]

Sure, make fun of the rednecks spelling why don't ya!


It's always an adventure!!!

 

[Gator]

+1 Nickman. LOL
You have the shirt and a tag is on it so you're done.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".

 

[208JBB]

what if you lose the shirt before you leave the store, then go back and get another one? I think that would be a better analogy. Then if another person finds your original shirt then that person might buy it. Or the shirt might be just fine and find its way back on the shelf....

Does this topic come up this much every year, or is it a 2011 thing? Wounding an animal and not recovering it is an accident.

 

[RisingSun]

I would punch my tag and be done. It is an ethical issue, and it's interesting to me that those who have the most to say about the "quality" or "quantity" of animals are also the ones who would shoot another animal. I agree that these animals can live through being shot, even multiple times, but the question is more about stewardship. Maybe the difference is Sportsman vs. Steward? Either way I understand the argument that if you purchased your tag legally you have permission to kill an animal and take it home. Personally, I believe that I purchased a tag to shoot one animal and that's it. Whichever side you choose you are in the right according to the law, and I would argue for either.

 

[newbeestl]

"if you draw blood, you're done. End of story"

That's how I hunt. Happened to me twice before. Although the first time I continued to hunt the same animal and get it the next day.

 

[nickman]

He didn't say if he shot the shirt in the store or in the parking lot.......it coild make a difference. LOL!

"If God did not intend for man to hunt animals, he would have made broccoli more fun to shoot"

 

[Tagalong173]

LAST EDITED ON Sep-15-11 AT 01:43PM (MST)[p].

 

[Tagalong173]

Wait... What color is the shirt?

 

[overton]

But did the shirt go 190"?

 

[Packout]

The State sells you the opportunity to HUNT. They have a good idea how many tags it takes to kill the desired number of animals. Some hunts run 100% success, while others might only see a 10% success rate.

As far as shooting more than one, as of now that is a person's choice. I just NEVER want to hear anyone whine about how poor the hunting is in their neck of the woods IF they are ok with a hunter wounding animals until he recovers one.

For example, Utah is cutting deer tag numbers to grow more bucks. If they cut 10,000 tags then around 2,500-3,000 bucks are saved. What if guys only killed/hit/wounded 1, then how many bucks would that save? Judging from the stories on this site and through the grape-vine, I'd wager we'd saved 2-3 times more bucks with a "Hit One, You're Done" policy, rather than cutting tags.

For now, it is personal choice.

 

[whitwell_56]

I don't know how you would enforce the hit one and done policy...a conservation officer/game warden would have to witness the shot and prove the animal was wounded.

I would like to believe that if the laws were changed everyone would obey the law, but I highly doubt it.

As for right or wrong, that is an ethics question and everyone has their own idea on what is acceptable.