Like to hear what some of you think......

[Kmagers]

So i was out on the winter 40 mile hunt this weekend and as i was leaving, with 2 bou in tow, we were fueling up and someone pulled up and asked a question. "Hey did you guys shoot a caribou in that drainage and leave it?" i replied no. He continued to explain to me that there was a caribou wounded and not moving on a hillside about a mile away. I stated well it looks like your empty handed today why dont you take advantage of the situation and put him out of his misery. He chuckled and didnt say anything. I didnt know what that meant till later. Then a couple other people show up and he asks them the same thing. They reply no as well. he then tells them they should go shoot it. They say maybe and he shows them where its at. They ended up not going to get it cuz they didnt have much fuel left and one of their snowmachines was acting funny. Come to find out the reason was stated later on that the reason he didnt want to go get it was because he was out to get his grandson his first caribou.

I totally understand wanting your grandson the thrill of the hunt and stalking and shooting his own, but what better hunt to have with him than a ethics learning hunt.

How would some of you handled this if you were said individual. Would you have let the animal go to waste or taught your grandkid a lesson or heck maybe two.

[hodgeman]

Wow... a lot going on in that thread.

I find it interesting that he's trying to enlist a bunch of folks to do the deed he's not willing to let the grandson do, just makes me wonder if there's not more to the story there.

Bottom line- for me, the explanation to the grandson that we have to do right by the animal first is easy. If you want to be the hunter- time to man up and do what needs doing. Don't think I could rest easy knowing I left one laying wounded that I could legally harvest.

[limon32]

So i was out on the winter 40 mile hunt this weekend and as i was leaving, with 2 bou in tow, we were fueling up and someone pulled up and asked a question. "Hey did you guys shoot a caribou in that drainage and leave it?" i replied no. He continued to explain to me that there was a caribou wounded and not moving on a hillside about a mile away. I stated well it looks like your empty handed today why dont you take advantage of the situation and put him out of his misery. He chuckled and didnt say anything. I didnt know what that meant till later. Then a couple other people show up and he asks them the same thing. They reply no as well. he then tells them they should go shoot it. They say maybe and he shows them where its at. They ended up not going to get it cuz they didnt have much fuel left and one of their snowmachines was acting funny. Come to find out the reason was stated later on that the reason he didnt want to go get it was because he was out to get his grandson his first caribou.

I totally understand wanting your grandson the thrill of the hunt and stalking and shooting his own, but what better hunt to have with him than a ethics learning hunt.

How would some of you handled this if you were said individual. Would you have let the animal go to waste or taught your grandkid a lesson or heck maybe two.

I don't understand the reasoning portion of your story?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[twodux]

I know some guys who were accused/turned in by a guide of shooting a cow moose and letting it go to waste. (The guide's clients were the only other people in the area that they knew of) Was a mile or more from where my friends were hunting, but they still had to spend a bunch of money fighting the charges. Could this have been somebody looking to get you in trouble? Sounds mighty fishy.

[iofthetaiga]

If it was a legal animal, in a legal area, and I had a tag to fill...done deal, Grandson or not.

[BRWNBR]

Sounds like someone felt some sort of guilt at that wounded animal being there....but for some reason was unwilling or unable to finish the job. Just a theory.
One of my favorite trophies was a gut shot elk on afognak island, no shame
In taking a wounded animal!

[Frostbitten]

If it were me out there with a young hunter, if it's the youngsters hunt, then it's the youngsters call. If he wants to harvest the wounded critter, good on him...and if he doesn't want to take it, good on him there too.

[Kmagers]

[QUOTE=limon32;1443418]I don't understand the reasoning portion of your story?


I dont know what you dont understand. Me and my buddy couldnt take the animal legally we had each of ours already. They had none. There were a total of 6 legal hunters with no animals yet that could have taken it but did not. I understand that they dont have to. But if they chose to leave it and take another then the morals and ethics is what im questioning. I dont think they had anything to do with the injuring of the critter. I just dont think they wanted to finish off a animal that someone else already wounded. Sort of like a tainted trophy type of thing i guess.

[limon32]

[QUOTE=Kmagers;1443654]

I don't understand the reasoning portion of your story?


I dont know what you dont understand. Me and my buddy couldnt take the animal legally we had each of ours already. They had none. There were a total of 6 legal hunters with no animals yet that could have taken it but did not. I understand that they dont have to. But if they chose to leave it and take another then the morals and ethics is what im questioning. I dont think they had anything to do with the injuring of the critter. I just dont think they wanted to finish off a animal that someone else already wounded. Sort of like a tainted trophy type of thing i guess.

Huh, glad I didn't reply to your first post because I certainly didn't understand what you were trying to say. In fact I'm impressed the other respondents did.

As for your story, sad deal, not sure what I would have done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[willphish4food]

[QUOTE=Kmagers;1443654]

I don't understand the reasoning portion of your story?


I dont know what you dont understand. Me and my buddy couldnt take the animal legally we had each of ours already. They had none. There were a total of 6 legal hunters with no animals yet that could have taken it but did not. I understand that they dont have to. But if they chose to leave it and take another then the morals and ethics is what im questioning. I dont think they had anything to do with the injuring of the critter. I just dont think they wanted to finish off a animal that someone else already wounded. Sort of like a tainted trophy type of thing i guess.

There are reasons to not take a wounded animal other than lack of ethics. To stand in judgement of another in this case, IMO, is to put yourself on a pretty high pedestal. The biggest thing here is that the animal is found wounded; none of the people involved caused the injury. It may not have been injured by a hunter. In the wild, animals suffer and die horrible deaths all the time; and other animals benefit from that death. A few possible reasons a hunter would choose not to pass; the wounded animal is stressed, adrenalized, and the meat will be tainted, perhaps completely inedible. There are very valid health concerns in taking animals that appear to be unhealthy. A hunter may wish to take his own game under fair chase conditions, and feels that taking this animal doesn't meet his definition of fair chase. Maybe he is looking for a trophy, and as this animal doesn't meet his criterion, decides not to take it.

As none of the hunters you saw were involved in any way with the animal, and chose not to become involved, I don't think there's even an "ethical" debate.

[Kmagers]

willphish, im not saying that he shouldve shot it or made his grandson shoot it. Also i totally understand that animals die natural deaths all the time. falling through ice being ripped apart by bears and wolves. yes not his problem. But if it wasnt his problem then why was he trying to convice others to shoot it. I think you misunderstood what i was saying slighty like limon.

[willphish4food]

willphish, im not saying that he shouldve shot it or made his grandson shoot it. Also i totally understand that animals die natural deaths all the time. falling through ice being ripped apart by bears and wolves. yes not his problem. But if it wasnt his problem then why was he trying to convice others to shoot it. I think you misunderstood what i was saying slighty like limon.

"But if they chose to leave it and take another then the morals and ethics is what im questioning. I dont think they had anything to do with the injuring of the critter."

I'm sorry If I misunderstood you. As you stated you were questioning their morals and ethics, I responded to that question. But in regards to this gentleman, and the animal he pointed out to you, there could be many reasons for him doing so. This is one possible scenario: I'd like to think that he was doing it in the hopes that he'd help an unsuccessful hunter fill a tag, and end an animal's suffering at the same time. Even though he may not have wanted the animal for his grandson's first, he thought another hunter would like the chance at an easy harvest. It may have bothered his conscience, and he hoped to see the animal killed so he wouldn't have it on his conscience during the rest of his hunt with his grandson. Someone else shooting the animal would certainly take any pressure off him, and make the decision to leave the animal to die or recover on its own an easier one to live with.

I don't see anything ethically wrong with how he handled the situation, from what you described.

[mike h]

^ yeah.

I couldn't understand the original post either.

Man, you can't judge anyone for not taking a wounded/dying animal. You're looking at it all backwards somehow. I doubt you would have taken it either.

Edit:

Call F&G if you're that worried. I personally probably wouldn't call them because I'd be worried that they blame me, charge me with a crime, take my rifle and truck, and ride off with my wife.