# Wound a deer...be forced to call it a 'buck' on your seasonal tag?



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

Amazing (at least to me) as I not only read that sentance differently but cannot imagine it meaning anything else if authored/supported by reasonable people.

Why wouldn't you teach your kid how to hunt with that interpretation in mind?

How many bad shots would be eliminated if this were the case? (ethical hunters only)

With doe tags currently a dime a dozen...what negative consequence does even a 'call it a buck' rule have for either the hunter's experience or more importantly mangement's responsibility?

And I suppose most importantly...why are so many 'ethical' hunters rabidly _against_ such a concept? (enforcement?...c'mon now).


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

brookie1 said:


> Quite a few would need to buy the tag first to even burn it after wounding a deer.


I agree, so why doesn't either adding wounded deer to the daily bag limit or calling them bucks effectively _negate_ much of this rogue conduct through 'somebody' taking responsibility for those deer that slip through the cracks? I could really care less whose fault it is as poached deer still count towards the 'real' management figure just as wounded/lost deer do.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Rzr said:


> If this is not the case then the regulation is poorly worded at best and a terrible commentary on the sport at worst.
> 
> I can't believe that we've went 3 pages now before somebody has corrected me with their interpretation vs simply saying that this is false...and I still can't hardly believe that this regulation doesn't mean exactly as it sounds.


I think the reason it went 3 pages was because we were in absolute awe that someone could not know this...:lol:


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

Quit blaming the kids and using them to push your goals. MANY kids have much better shot to kill ratio's then some so called seasoned hunters.

Skinner


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

brookie1 said:


> I'm not against it as much as I see it as unnecessary. Ethical hunters exhaust all attempts to retrieve dead or wounded game. Anyone else wouldn't follow that type of law anyway.


If you're an ethical hunter and you've just spent half the day attempting to locate an animal _you_ _know full well_ that you've wounded...why wouldn't you want to _automatically_ include that animal in your daily bag limit in the first place?

Whether any other hunter would do the same is insignificant in my mind as simply chasing wounded game doesn't qualify one as ethical but simply holding up 'my part of the deal' (the 2nd part being inclusion in your bag limit) should this be the law before one ever got out of his or her vehicle.


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

Skinner 2 said:


> Quit blaming the kids and using them to push your goals. MANY kids have much better shot to kill ratio's then some so called seasoned hunters.
> 
> Skinner


Please post where I blamed a kid for anything or join Mr. Bonney in failing to explain why this policy would be a "disaster" (his words) if implimented.

I frame many of my thoughts in terms of our children's legacy because so many decisions and laws have been crafted without any concern for teaching them anything. I (now) frankly believe that "shoot as many as you want until you can find it" is one of them.


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

William H Bonney said:


> I think the reason it went 3 pages was because we were in absolute awe that someone could not know this...:lol:


I interpreted the sentance differently. If this is a golden opportunity for you to put me down for doing so...happy to make your day.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Many animals that are wounded do not die. If I have spent half a day looking for a deer that I hit and don't find it, I am fairly sure it will recover. Why would I count it as dead?


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Rzr said:


> If you're an ethical hunter and you've just spent half the day attempting to locate an animal _you_ _know full well_ that you've wounded...why wouldn't you want to _automatically_ include that animal in your daily bag limit in the first place?
> 
> Whether any other hunter would do the same is insignificant in my mind as simply chasing wounded game doesn't qualify one as ethical but simply holding up 'my part of the deal' (the 2nd part being inclusion in your bag limit) should this be the law before one ever got out of his or her vehicle.


Man,, you're really "out there"...:lol:

Take a second and think about what you're implying...

If hunters applied your interpretation of the law,,, the animal would have to be counted towards your daily bag limit as soon as the trigger was pulled.


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

Justin said:


> Many animals that are wounded do not die. *If I have spent half a day looking for a deer that I hit and don't find it, I am fairly sure it will recover.* Why would I count it as dead?


Man, I really have to rest my case on that one.

I think that this law needs to be revisited on the strength of just this one post alone along with possibly a larger investigation in to what is being taught in Hunter Safety Courses or in the general public at large.

This thread really has been a case study in a Michigan sportsman's attitude in 2012. It will be interesting to see where the discussion heads next as many obviously can't even get past 'add it to your daily bag limit' to the larger management benefit of calling it a buck regardless.


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

William H Bonney said:


> Man,, you're really "out there"...:lol:
> 
> Take a second and think about what you're implying...
> 
> *If hunters applied your interpretation of the law,,, the animal would have to be counted towards your daily bag limit as soon as the trigger was pulled*.


Wouldn't you tell your own child hunting for the very first time...the exact same thing? If not, what are you teaching him or her exactly?


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Rzr said:


> Man, I really have to rest my case on that one.
> 
> I think that this law needs to be revisited on the strength of just this one post alone along with possibly a larger investigation in to what is being taught in Hunter Safety Courses or in the general public at large.
> 
> This thread really has been a case study in a Michigan sportsman's attitude in 2012. It will be interesting to see where the discussion heads next as many obviously can't even get past 'add it to your daily bag limit' to the larger management benefit of calling it a buck regardless.


Are you serious? You asked for opinions and then don't want to hear them. You are out in left field here. Just what is your agenda? Sounds like something PETA would promote.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Rzr said:


> Wouldn't you tell your own child hunting for the very first time...the exact same thing? If not, what are you teaching him or her exactly?


 Hell no, I wouldn't tell my daughter that... :lol:


_"Booom! Wow, hey nice shot,, I sure hope we find that deer, because there goes your buck tag even if we don't"_ 

_"Oh,, and by the way daughter,, since we don't have an anterless permit,,, you're done hunting for the year"...._


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

brookie1 said:


> What are you talking about here? That sentence makes no sense.
> 
> *I don't know why anyone would include in their daily limit wounded game not retrieved. I'm sorry but that just doesn't make sense to me.* I would hope they would make a full effort to find wounded game, but that's about it. The animal may very well recover and live on. *If you would like that law changed, the proper channel would be either the NRC or legislature.* I only joined the discussion to clarify your misinterpretation of the current law.


I would tell my kid to include that wounded animal in his seasonal limit and am sorry that you wouldn't yours...but yes, that suggestion _does_ make sense to me for more reasons than I care to list here or haven't already. 

As far as changing the law, for pete's sakes we evidently can't even discuss _the concept_ here like adults with the goal of moving on to the larger question which is _marking_ that animal as the most conservatively managed gender.

Baby steps....


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

Rzr said:


> If you're an ethical hunter should this be the law before one ever got out of his or her vehicle.


Are you talking about shooting game from a vehicle?


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

Justin said:


> Are you serious? You asked for opinions and then don't want to hear them. You are out in left field here. Just what is your agenda? Sounds like something PETA would promote.


Your opinion is that if you _know_ that you wounded a deer...you (somehow) _know_ it's going to be "OK" because your tracked it for half a day and couldn't find it.

Case closed as to who is out in left field...


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

Rasputin said:


> Are you talking about shooting game from a vehicle?


Here it is again:

"...Whether any other hunter would do the same is insignificant in my mind as simply chasing wounded game doesn't qualify one as ethical but simply holding up 'my part of the deal' (the 2nd part being inclusion in your bag limit) *should this be the law before one ever got out of his or her vehicle*...."

If the law was clear as to counting wounded deer...then simply running down animals which you have shot would be 'part of the deal' (along with tagging them in abstentia) before you ever even left the vehicle to hunt.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Rasputin said:


> Are you talking about shooting game from a vehicle?


:evilsmile


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

This guy is a PETA plant. He doesn't hunt. Don't waste your time.


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

brookie1 said:


> I never said anything about your kids or anyone else's. I can't believe you would even say something like that. I have tried to be nice but *you are clearly one of those judgmental, opinionated, thick headed, pompous tools that make life less pleasant for the rest of us*.


You stated very clearly what you felt.

(brookie1 said):
"..I don't know why anyone would include in their daily limit wounded game not retrieved..." 

I simply responded that I would teach _my_ children to do this and am sorry that you would not do the same.

If responding in such a manner offends you, I certainly apoligize. The fact that you did not simply explain any offense taken and restrain yourself any further (above) is your issue and not mine.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

poz said:


> So you can keep shooting ducks until you find your limit. and the COs have no problem with that.


Waterfowl fall under FEDERAL wanton waste laws.

Other critters do not.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Rzr said:


> My point exactly...hunters obviously can't get past the first concept (or discuss it civily without attacking) let alone grasp or comment on the second without "there just is none" as sufficient commentary.
> 
> As I said, a sad commentary on the state of the sport.


No, I think hunters ignoring irrelevant attempts at social engineering disguised as a "larger management benefit" is a GREAT commentary.

The more folks that understand your concept has absolutely zero to do with any management benefit to the herd, the better.


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

Skinner 2 said:


> Quit using kids as "examples" to obtain your goals is this better?
> 
> Twist away!
> 
> Skinner


This thread is a perfect example of how to teach kids to hunt responsibly. The illustration tends to upset folks because there is absolutely no need for a 'regulation' to do this. 

What gets their goat is that if they teach their kids to not necessarily rely on the state for guiding them in to doing the right thing...well guess who gets to set the example for them in the blind together as well.


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

Lumberman said:


> I have a way to enforce it. How about you have to punch and date your tag before you start following a blood trail. If your on a trail and your tags not punched your in violation.


Sounds like something that even a kid could understand and a good way of teaching them to quickly analyze/take action on whether they truly believe that they wounded an animal or not (regardless of whether blood is even found; they still have to make the call).


----------



## stinky reinke (Dec 13, 2007)

What would happen if I punch both buck tags before muzzleloader and want to shoot a doe in December?


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

too :lol:...

So if I shoot a deer and hit it in the ear should I punch my tag??


----------



## Tom (mich) (Jan 17, 2003)

This thread should be moved to the Lake Erie forum as this is the most successful trolling story of the year so far. Plus, he's managed to reel in some renowned MS heavyweights too.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

sbooy42 said:


> too :lol:...
> 
> So if I shoot a deer and hit it in the ear should I punch my tag??


 
How would you know?


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Rasputin said:


> How would you know?


 there was hair on the ground and I could see the hole as it ran away


----------



## Rzr (Oct 8, 2007)

sbooy42 said:


> too :lol:...
> 
> So if I shoot a deer and hit it in the ear should I punch my tag??





Rasputin said:


> How would you know?


...

I wish we could get back to our own son or daughter in the blind with us and what we'd like to teach them about what just happened (the wounding of an animal that we simply could not find to finish off)... but I am starting to believe that we will be unable to even civily discuss the second part of the thread topic let alone some of the great management/ethical related comments sprinkled in by a few posters so far.

With all the disagreement on the law itself both in this thread and others it is also amazing to me that a DNR employee hasn't jumped in somewhere and settled the matter once and for all (must not be that important of a topic despite all the passion/thousands of views/posts).


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Rzr said:


> ...
> 
> I wish we could get back to our own son or daughter in the blind with us and what we'd like to teach them about what just happened (the wounding of an animal that we simply could not find to finish off)...


If it takes a law to get this point across and make a kid understand what they are attempting to do , there are more issues at hand...IMO

It didnt take a law for my son to feel bad and cry for hitting a chipmunk in the foot with his bb gun and not kill it (it was good lesson)...

They _should_ already feel bad and I dont agree with rubbing salt in the wounds by taking their tag away.....

But I do understand where your coming from.. Too many hunters just flinging things and dont follow through....

its hunting and **** happens


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Rzr said:


> With all the disagreement on the law itself both in this thread and others it is also amazing to me that a DNR employee hasn't jumped in somewhere and settled the matter once and for all (must not be that important of a topic despite all the passion/thousands of views/posts).


Damn dnr. They can't even be bothered to read all the posts in all the forums on the internet looking for potential questions to Michigan fish and wildlife law questions. Where do my license fees go anyway.


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Follow up. I added a question to the law forum in case the resident CO has time to stop by. He will see it there.


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Question concerning wounded game and inclusion in daily limit answered directly from a CO:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=420497


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Rzr said:


> ...
> 
> 
> With all the disagreement on the law itself both in this thread ...


:lol: You and only one other poster "disagrees"... :lol:


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

sbooy42 said:


> there was hair on the ground and I could see the hole as it ran away


 
Good eyes. If this concept becomes law, though, you won't be buying a hunting license, you will be buying the right to take a shot. Go back to the example of the ducks, how many guys think it was a clean miss, but the duck dies a mile away? How would you know? You would have to assume every shot is a kill, so count it on your limit, just in case.


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

Rzr said:


> ...
> 
> I wish we could get back to our own son or daughter in the blind with us and what we'd like to teach them about what just happened (the wounding of an animal that we simply could not find to finish off)... but I am starting to believe that we will be unable to even civily discuss the second part of the thread topic let alone some of the great management/ethical related comments sprinkled in by a few posters so far.
> 
> With all the disagreement on the law itself both in this thread and others it is also amazing to me that a DNR employee hasn't jumped in somewhere and settled the matter once and for all (must not be that important of a topic despite all the passion/thousands of views/posts).


 
The only "disagreement" on this law seems to be coming from those that flunked English class in high school and can't seem to wrap their minds around the difference in meaning between a compound sentence as opposed to a sentence that has a modifying clause linked with a coordinating conjunction. The rule is VERY clear as it is written as long as the reader understands basic English, which apparently is a struggle for some.


----------



## fishdip (Dec 29, 2010)

jatc said:


> the only "disagreement" on this law seems to be coming from those that flunked english class in high school and can't seem to wrap their minds around the difference in meaning between a compound sentence as opposed to a sentence that has a modifying clause linked with a coordinating conjunction. The rule is very clear as it is written as long as the reader understands basic english, which apparently is a struggle for some.


 amen brother.


----------



## weatherby (Mar 26, 2001)

I'd never put a tag on a deer I didn't have a chance to gut. Be better off trying to stop peiople from usin their whole familes tag b4 their own


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

dang ol'boy got banned


----------

