View Full Version : This is a shame
Dog Hunter
10-06-2004, 01:07 PM
:mad: http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservation/news/2004/0928/1890683.html
Dog Hunter
10-06-2004, 01:48 PM
But why let them lay their and die in agony and then tell the wardens to go ahead. That is just Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. Let them cut them loose or put them out of their misery, but they did not need to lay there like that. That just gives PETA and other groups ammo. It may not have been a hunter, but they classify wardens and anyone to do with hunting in the same group. :mad:
Cward
10-06-2004, 03:11 PM
There are some real "winners" in this world aren't they?
People never cease to amaze me with their logic! :rolleyes:
redneck woman
10-06-2004, 03:27 PM
That's just ridiculous. What a jerk!
Georgia
Dixie Dawg
10-06-2004, 03:31 PM
I don't get it... why would the land owner wait until AFTER the bulls are dead to let the wardens on the property?? What kind of sense does that make?? I wish they could fine the land owner for the animals, just as if he were a poacher!! Would serve him right!!! :mad:
Kerri
redneck woman
10-06-2004, 03:34 PM
I'm sure they can't fine him as a poacher, but it would be nice if they could fine him in some way for cruelty to animals since he knew the bulls were there dying but not only did nothing to help them, he even refused those who would help. Some people....!
Georgia
Jim Thompson
10-06-2004, 03:36 PM
Dont make a lotta sense, huh?
Jim
GeauxLSU
10-06-2004, 03:42 PM
Um guys, if you a true 'naturalist', you would let 'nature take it's course'. There's no magic ferry going around freeing wild animals in peril. Perhaps the guy thought they would free themselves and didn't want wardens unnecessarily (in his mind) on his property upsetting the balance? After they are dead, a true 'naturalist' would have left them there to feed the scavengers which obviously he didn't so it does appear inconsistent but still. What's the big deal? Yes they suffered, yes it lasted longer than when we put 180 grain bullets into their chest, but at least it was natural with no intrusion from man.
For the record, I personally would have gladly let the rangers do what they wanted (or tried myself, though probably extremely dangerous) but I'm always intrigued how hunters put GAME animals (and generally only game animals or domestic pets and there generally preference is given to HUNTING dogs) so much higher up the 'respect chain' than others. What if two coyotes would have somehow gotten entangled in some thicket or fell in a well and the wardens would have wanted to free them and the guy said no? Would you still feel like some horrific injustice had been done? NATURE IS CRUEL.
Again, I would have let them be freed but for all we know, this "Bud" guy is more of a pure environmentalist than any of us will ever be. No offense intended just food for thought.... ::huh:
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
Some of you are letting your emotions get in the way of the law. By law, he did not have to let the DNR on his property and the two bulls died of natural causes.
There is probably more to this story than meets the eye. Perhaps the guy was doing something illegal on his property at the time and didn't want the DNR on his land. Perhaps he has a history with the DNR and did it just to spite the DNR, people do strange things sometimes. Perhaps he thought they would untangle themselves and get away or perhaps he just wanted them to die a natural death. Regardless, he it appears he didn't behave very nicely; however, it was within his legal rights to do so and there isn't a darn thing that can be done about it.
Naturalist,legal rights,or whatever you wish to call it.IMO it is a sorry human what would let two dumb brutes die in this fashion.Call it emotions or whatever you like that decision makes no sense.Maybe I was raised wrong,but I sure was taught different from that.What did the landowner gain?I see no point in the whole matter.In my part of the state he might just get some redneck justice for such actions!Sometimes it is better to be forgiven than to get permission!
loouuii
10-06-2004, 05:48 PM
Everything happens for a reason. Those elk died the way nature meant for them to die. What if he had given permission and the DNR attempted to dart them. Maybe they were already stressed out enough that the darting and drugging would have finished the job. :type:
I think some of you guys would be really disturbed if you watched Discovery Channel or Animal Planet. They will often follow an elk (moose, lion, whatever) around with a broken leg and watch him slowly starve then be killed by wolves, hyennas, or whatever predator is in the area.
They will show a fawn impala get seperated from it's mother and be in fear for a couple of hours before it gets it's guts ripped out and eaten alive by a cheetah or a hyenna. In all cases - those guys could have interfered but they didn't? Would some of you like to give them "redneck justice" as well?
gagoosebuster
10-06-2004, 06:26 PM
the land owner had every right in the world to tell em no!!! if i didnt want em on my land then i would have told them the same thing! i dont blame him for anything. after they died i would have gone and sawed the horns off of them and hung em up in my house......... the land owner didnt do anything wrong so just get over it!!!
there were only two possible outcomes of asking the land owner either yes or no. if he said tes then go do your thing with the lk,after he said no everybody shoulda just packed up and went on home! thats the problem with everything today, folks just want to get all emotional and whin and cry about stupid crap. when you can learn to think without all these emotions getting involved then you will be a much more pleasant person.... just get over it.... theres plenty more elk left and nobody had did anything wrong
Craig Knight
10-06-2004, 06:43 PM
I cant see that the land owner did anything wrong,if they had been out in the wilderness where no one was would it have been any different?And besides that if the land owner had said yes and one or both of the elk had stomped and killed one of the people that were trying to help, do you honestly think that their families would not have tried to sue the land owner for not telling them NO and to let nature run its course? Cause if you do I have some news for you some scum bags will try to sue you over anything nowadays,even when you tell them to stay off your property.
BassWorm
10-06-2004, 10:54 PM
Thats right. The family of the injured individual could hire John Edwards to sue for their family member being injured on Ole Bud's property. And his split of the proceeds would probably go to help him and the "poodle" win the election. :whip:
duke13
10-07-2004, 05:19 AM
Um guys, if you a true 'naturalist', you would let 'nature take it's course'. There's no magic ferry going around freeing wild animals in peril. I'm always intrigued how hunters put GAME animals (and generally only game animals or domestic pets and there generally preference is given to HUNTING dogs) so much higher up the 'respect chain' than others. What if two coyotes would have somehow gotten entangled in some thicket or fell in a well and the wardens would have wanted to free them and the guy said no? Would you still feel like some horrific injustice had been done? NATURE IS CRUEL.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
Very good insight Phil! Mother nature IS a cold, hard woman. It would be frustrating to see these animals dying but death is part of life. Mistakes in the wild usually lead there.
JBowers
10-07-2004, 07:45 AM
They still would have suffered if no human had seen it!
Selection of the fittest? Maybe the "right" thing did happen.
Would you have still given a flip if they weren't bulls?
Suffering: You come upon a clearcut on afternoon and standing out in the clearcut are 2 deer, a buck and doe. The doe is obviously in poor health and suffering from an injured leg. The buck is the most magnificent 10 point you have ever seen in your life - definitely a book deer and Truck-Buck winner. You have been spotted by both deer and only have the opportunity to shoot one of them. Which one do you shoot?
duke13
10-07-2004, 08:29 AM
Suffering: You come upon a clearcut on afternoon and standing out in the clearcut are 2 deer, a buck and doe. The doe is obviously in poor health and suffering from an injured leg. The buck is the most magnificent 10 point you have ever seen in your life - definitely a book deer and Truck-Buck winner. You have been spotted by both deer and only have the opportunity to shoot one of them. Which one do you shoot?
BANG!!!!!!! New truck!!!!! :bounce:
Dixie Dawg
10-07-2004, 08:48 AM
What if two coyotes would have somehow gotten entangled in some thicket or fell in a well and the wardens would have wanted to free them and the guy said no? Would you still feel like some horrific injustice had been done?
Yes, I would have. I'm new at all of this, but I still think cruel is cruel. If I kill an animal, it is for a purpose, not just for fun. If I kill a deer, it is to put food in my freezer. If there is a dog coming on my property killing my farm animals, I will try to find out who it belongs to before I kill it, but I will kill it if necessary to protect my animals. If I see a dog on the side of the road that has been hit by a car but isn't dead yet, I'd kill it. I don't care what kind of animal it is, if I see it suffering with no hope of recovery, I would kill it rather than let it continue to suffer before it dies.
Like you said, if the guy had left the animals on his property to decay or feed other animals in the natural chain of life, well, maybe I could see that.... but he didn't. So it makes no sense, and I think it's cruel. I don't know, if that's considered some kind of double standard, maybe people like me shouldn't hunt... ::huh:
Kerri
gagoosebuster
10-07-2004, 09:03 AM
i would shoot the big buck and just wish the doe tha best of luck with that injury..... truck buck shoot out here i come! :D
GeauxLSU
10-07-2004, 09:04 AM
Yes, I would have. I'm new at all of this, but I still think cruel is cruel. If I kill an animal, it is for a purpose, not just for fun. If I kill a deer, it is to put food in my freezer. If there is a dog coming on my property killing my farm animals, I will try to find out who it belongs to before I kill it, but I will kill it if necessary to protect my animals. If I see a dog on the side of the road that has been hit by a car but isn't dead yet, I'd kill it. I don't care what kind of animal it is, if I see it suffering with no hope of recovery, I would kill it rather than let it continue to suffer before it dies.
Like you said, if the guy had left the animals on his property to decay or feed other animals in the natural chain of life, well, maybe I could see that.... but he didn't. So it makes no sense, and I think it's cruel. I don't know, if that's considered some kind of double standard, maybe people like me shouldn't hunt... ::huh:
KerriKerri,
As stated I would have also let them on to release the elk.
The point was the 'outrage' people feel on issues like this is curiously selective. Many people could care less about an animal until it's a 'game animal' and then especially if it's a 'trophy'. Can't tell you how many people 'lament' over seeing a road kill 10 point but could care less about a doe or a spike or a racoon. These two 'trophy Elk' are no more or less 'tragic' than than any other two animals dying a NATURAL death. Again, I personally would have ended their suffering but that's just me. I would have actually been INTERFERING with nature's processes.
I agree with everything you said. However, yes you do have a little bit of a double standard (we ALL do, myself included), but YES you most certainly should still hunt! We need more and it sounds like, we more just like you! :clap:
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
Handgunner
10-07-2004, 10:00 AM
Mother Nature made her decision, and "Bud" made his... I will respect it, but it doesn't mean I have to like it. ;)
Throwback
10-07-2004, 10:00 AM
"You can imagine the conversation that occurred,"
Yeah, but I sure would like to see it in print--I need a good laugh today!
There's no magic ferry going around freeing wild animals in peril.
ROF :bounce:
Would you have still given a flip if they weren't bulls?
JB, The answer across the board is NO!
This is right up there with these little old ladies that "save" a fawn from being killed and then get ticked off when they find out they can't keep it as a pet. Some "evil hunter" will kill Bambi! Boo-Hoo. Things die. In fact, hunters shoot them to death regularly for no reason other than to worship their antlers. It was 2 bulls. big deal. What would the gubment done? shoot them, most likely.
T
the HEED!
10-07-2004, 10:07 AM
Most hunters/conservation rangers unlock bucks or bulls whenever they find them or they shoot them or take them on tags. These bulls could have made someone a fine trophy. Sounds like this landowner needs to bend over so somebody can kick him in the hind end. I'm all for private property but don't be a stubborn jackass :whip:
Dog Hunter
10-07-2004, 10:45 AM
It would not have bothered me one bit if they had killed them and done what every they/he wanted to with them. But to know they are there and suffering is just not right. I know that is nature, but something could have been done in this case to easy the pain and how the general public viewed all this. Sure it happens all the time and no one every knows, but this time everybody knew and knowns now.
Throwback
10-07-2004, 11:52 AM
I wonder how many of those that are cussing this landowner were FOR house bill 1185 (rangers need permission to go on private land) last year in the state legislature. If it had passed, this would have happened here, too.
T
Dixie Dawg
10-08-2004, 10:42 AM
I agree with everything you said. However, yes you do have a little bit of a double standard (we ALL do, myself included), but YES you most certainly should still hunt! We need more and it sounds like, we more just like you! :clap:
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil
Thanks, Phil! :)
You be safe too!
Kerri
hnter270
10-08-2004, 10:54 AM
I think the landowner is dumb what was he thinking>?? ::huh:
After I have had time "to get over it " as someone posted.There is probably more to the story than any of us know.Nothing was posted about the landowner as why he did what he did.I sure he had a reason for his actions.
To me though,a true sportsman would have done something to ease the two animals pain.
Sure this happens every where there are animals with horns as such.It is something different to know it happens and have to stand by and watch it happen.
If the animals had been released most likely someone would have been hurt had the elk
been strong.A 700 lb.elk can do more than just hurt you too.
Someone posted about the liability, and they are correct also about people suing.
Had this happened on my property I would have done something if it meant killing both of them!I couldn't have sit ideally by and watch them die a death as such.
I am not in Africa either,nor do I have to live by their standards.No one in my family watches shows about animals killing other animals although we all know it happens and is the law of survival.We just don't find that very entertaining.
Joe Anderson
10-08-2004, 08:37 PM
I would have never let the elk die like that. But has anyone here seen the shows where they have filmed animals kill other animals & say it's natures way. This case is along the same lines, mother natures way.
Toliver
10-09-2004, 05:23 PM
I can understand someone wanting to let nature take its course. Every nature documentary you see has a person behind a camera watching something die. Usually in a very painful way. They don't intervene because "nature happens". But what I don't understand is why the property owner allowed the biologists access after they were dead. Did he just want free removal to keep them from smelling up his property or what?
sr.corndog
10-09-2004, 07:29 PM
Wardens should have had access regardless of the land owners opinion! :flag:
Whoa, there, now. "Wardens should have access regardless of the landowner's opinion"?????????????????
No Sir, not as long as America is still a Republic.
Unfortunately, some feel as if the government should have control over our lives. Thankfully, private ownership still carries some weight, regardless of the wishes of the Democratic National Convention and the American Communist Party. :banginghe
No offense to anyone, just feel strongly about privacy issues. :type:
Throwback
10-11-2004, 09:15 AM
Erifle,
Have you seen my other thread?
http://www.woodystaxidermy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2617
I would enjoy hearing your opinion, cause I STILL haven't found an answer!
T
The only answer I have is that they:
have way too much input/control over our lives!
When I found out that law officers could go onto anyone's property under the "open fields" rule...I 'bout went off the deep end. I've been in law enforcement all of my aduld life and never even heard of that. Then I researched it, and viola-there is was.
I am for no more laws. Let's just enforce the several thousand laws we already have on the books.
One more question:
Why did the "officials" remove the heads and put them in their office?
They died on the the man's land....
Throwback
10-11-2004, 12:51 PM
Why did the "officials" remove the heads and put them in their office?
To show everybody what the "evil private landowner" cost them? :eek:
It's a different world in the western states.
T
cfbutler31
10-11-2004, 01:44 PM
whatabout that cruelty to animals business they come up with evertime someone kicks a cat, seems like this fella knowingly killed two elks by not allowing access, seems like a likely candidate for some jail time, or i could just go kick his cat, see how he likes that.
Handgunner
10-11-2004, 01:55 PM
whatabout that cruelty to animals business they come up with evertime someone kicks a cat, seems like this fella knowingly killed two elks by not allowing access, seems like a likely candidate for some jail time, or i could just go kick his cat, see how he likes that.
Now that's funny. :D :bounce:
Dog Hunter
10-11-2004, 02:12 PM
:eek: :speechles
PAPALAPIN
10-11-2004, 04:10 PM
What does the law say in Georgia, or in your state. I may be wrong, but I think that here in Georgia DNR has the authority to enter private property without a warranty. On one Sunday of an opening weekend in Jasper County. Two Game wardens came in on our lease unannounced and proceeded to run around checking our hunters. They busted two for not wearing Orange. If this is the case, then I don't see where the DNR would have to get permission to enter the property (in Georgia).
These guys have a job to do, and I am sure that they have to walk a thin line in what they can and cannot do.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.