Edited

[batten_down]

Easy fix...

Does only in heavily populated areas.

Will do more for limiting populations and folks who hunt for meat can get their fill.

I find it funny that their primary argument for allowing urban hunting is to reduce population, but they pass up 99% of the deer that walk under them.

Same thing for depredation permits...

Sounds good. But what exactly does that fix? Neighborhood karens' will still see "pet" deer being killed. There's still gonna be bad hits. Deer are going to make it onto adjacent properties before expiring. There will be blood trails and blood-spattered porches and garden sheds. Bucks will be dying of disease, or by being hit by cars. In most cases, a much more cruel way to go than versus the quicker, more humane, death from a hunters arrow.

 

[BSK]

You didn't hear about it because it was pre internet. Not because it was pre seek 1.

Absolutely without question the internet, and especially YouTube, is driving much of this. However, I read almost every hunting mag out there - and I was a subscriber to North American Whitetail for many, MANY years - and never heard a word about this stuff.

Everything you see today was happening then. Bad hits, trespassing, poaching, bragging, but because you didn't see it, it was ok. Then there's a simple fix. Ignore it. Don't feed it. It ain't going away no matter how much bellyaching any of us do. Let them city boys do their thing and I promise you it's not the issue you guys are making it out to be.

Actually, when I talk to suburbanites - especially the Karens - about deer, it is THE issue they are most concerned about. You used to be able to get them to admit that deer numbers must be controlled, and legal hunting is one way to do that (although not their preferred way). But now, with all the stories of wounded deer and killed pets (pet deer), they are absolutely 100% against hunting in any manner, shape, or form. It has really turned them against hunting in a BIG way. And I legitimately blame Seek One and his ilk.

 

[batten_down]

Absolutely without question the internet, and especially YouTube, is driving much of this. However, I read almost every hunting mag out there - and I was a subscriber to North American Whitetail for many, MANY years - and never heard a word about this stuff.

Here's one cover story from 1993. There have been numerous others.
Not sure how you missed it.

Actually, when I talk to suburbanites - especially the Karens - about deer, it is THE issue they are most concerned about. You used to be able to get them to admit that deer numbers must be controlled, and legal hunting is one way to do that (although not their preferred way). But now, with all the stories of wounded deer and killed pets (pet deer), they are absolutely 100% against hunting in any manner, shape, or form. It has really turned them against hunting in a BIG way. And I legitimately blame Seek One and his ilk.

Okay.

 

[megalomaniac]

Sounds good. But what exactly does that fix? Neighborhood karens' will still see "pet" deer being killed. There's still gonna be bad hits. Deer are going to make it onto adjacent properties before expiring. There will be blood trails and blood-spattered porches and garden sheds. Bucks will be dying of disease, or by being hit by cars. In most cases, a much more cruel way to go than versus the quicker, more humane, death from a hunters arrow.

Fixes everything.

If doe only, hunting will virtually stop. Still legal if populations need to be reduced, but effectively there won't be any more hunting. Very very few of those types are willing to sit in a stand for only a doe.

 

[batten_down]

Fixes everything.

If doe only, hunting will virtually stop. Still legal if populations need to be reduced, but effectively there won't be any more hunting. Very very few of those types are willing to sit in a stand for only a doe.

So in other words, take away opportunities for local folks who have done the right thing for who knows how long, because of the actions of a few bad apples, and open the door to tax-payer funded population controls?

 

[megalomaniac]

So in other words, take away opportunities for local folks who have done the right thing for who knows how long, because of the actions of a few bad apples, and open the door to tax-payer funded population controls?

I don't object to not being able to shoot elk in Yellowstone, or Deer in Cades Cove. While those urban deer don't 'belong' to the local homeowners, they feed them, name them, and have semi- domesticated them.

 

[batten_down]

I don't object to not being able to shoot elk in Yellowstone, or Deer in Cades Cove. While those urban deer don't 'belong' to the local homeowners, they feed them, name them, and have semi- domesticated them.

So that's a yes? You're tip-toeing around a little bit.

 

[megalomaniac]

So that's a yes? Your tip-toeing around a little bit.

So... going doe only actually INCREASES opportunity... since you can shoot 3 does per day.

As far as 'tax funded population controls'... again not necessary with doe only. Shooting only the top 1% of the gene pool for antlers alone does NOTHING for population control. Still have to have tax funded population controls (if needed) with what is going on currently.

Again, all problems solved by changing regs to doe only in those areas.

 

[batten_down]

So... going doe only actually INCREASES opportunity... since you can shoot 3 does per day.

As far as 'tax funded population controls'... again not necessary with doe only. Shooting only the top 1% of the gene pool for antlers alone does NOTHING for population control. Still have to have tax funded population controls (if needed) with what is going on currently.

Again, all problems solved by changing regs to doe only in those areas.

How does it solve the issue of "pet" deer being killed. And bad hits, and deer expiring where hunters don't have permission to retrieve?

 

[Buzzard Breath]

Easy fix...

Does only in heavily populated areas.

Will do more for limiting populations and folks who hunt for meat can get their fill.

I find it funny that their primary argument for allowing urban hunting is to reduce population, but they pass up 99% of the deer that walk under them.

Same thing for depredation permits...

@AT Hiker had recently sent me the regs for an urban hunt, near his house, where they could shoot anything, but the antlers needed to be cut-off below the burr and forfeited to the game warden, by a certain date. Something like this could always be an option too.

 

[batten_down]

@AT Hiker had recently sent me the regs for an urban hunt, near his house, where they could shoot anything, but the antlers needed to be cut-off below the burr and forfeited to the game warden, by a certain date. Something like this could always be an option too.

I hate that idea, maybe the most. I can't think of a worse way to dishonor a lawfully taken whitetail.

 

[megalomaniac]

How does it solve the issue of "pet" deer being killed. And bad hits, and deer expiring where hunters don't have permission to retrieve?

Solves it by 99%... again because 99% of hunters will choose not to hunt if antlers are off the table. As far as bad hits, and being unable to retrieve deer... well that's still 100% on the hunters. Perhaps choosing better shot selections and avoiding hunting on 1 acre properties should cross their minds.

 

[batten_down]

Solves it by 99%... again because 99% of hunters will choose not to hunt if antlers are off the table. As far as bad hits, and being unable to retrieve deer... well that's still 100% on the hunters. Perhaps choosing better shot selections and avoiding hunting on 1 acre properties should cross their minds.

You're advocating for less opportunity. It's a work around by your own admission, but that's what it is. For obvious reasons, this should always be a last resort for the hunting community.

 

[megalomaniac]

You're advocating for less opportunity. It's a work around by your own admission, but that's what it is. For obvious reasons, this should always be a last resort for the hunting community.

I just am not convinced 'opportunity' should always take precedence. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important.

 

[batten_down]

I just am not convinced 'opportunity' should always take precedence. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important.

There's plenty of guys doing the right thing there for a long time. Once we start limiting opportunities because of the actions of a few bad apples, it's all down hill from there. Our community should always strive for more freedom and more opportunities.

 

[Ski]

To me it's simple. I own land and like most other landowners feel that deed affords me a certain level of personal sovereignty. It's my own personal space I worked hard and earned.

Same thing with urbanite home owners. If I can expect my property sovereignty to be respected then it would be incredibly hypocritical not to afford the same courtesy to them. If they wanted to be around hunting they'd have bought a place in the country. I don't have to understand their hippy liberal ways to respect their rights to have them. If there's a chance that killing a deer will genuinely cause discomfort and inconvenience by dying on their property, then I simply won't hunt. They shouldn't be forced to accept and tolerate it on their own property. Liberty and justice for all, not only the ones our personal beliefs align with.

I'm a hunter and if I were to find someone else's dead deer in my flower garden next to the house, I'd be a bit ticked off. Even though I live in the country when I kill a deer, I back the truck into the barn and hoist the animal out from the bed. My neighbors probably know what's happening but they don't have to see it, nor could they without stepping into my barn. It's a courtesy, being cognizant of others and their feelings. Seems to be a lost trait these days.

 

[AT Hiker]

I hate that idea, maybe the most. I can't think of a worse way to dishonor a lawfully taken whitetail.

Then simply don't shoot a deer with antlers .
I'm the proud holder of a permit that allows me and a handful of other approved hunters to take 50 deer within the city limits. It's purely a population reduction hunt and instead of paying someone to do it, the city had the genius idea to allow us to do it for free. Only stipulation is we cannot keep antlers. If we choose not to keep the meat it goes to a food bank….I can't think of a more honorable way to honor the life of a free ranging animal.

 

[batten_down]

Then simply don't shoot a deer with antlers .
I'm the proud holder of a permit that allows me and a handful of other approved hunters to take 50 deer within the city limits. It's purely a population reduction hunt and instead of paying someone to do it, the city had the genius idea to allow us to do it for free. Only stipulation is we cannot keep antlers. If we choose not to keep the meat it goes to a food bank….I can't think of a more honorable way to honor the life of a free ranging animal.

Still less opportunities for others. And doesn't "fix" the problem of shooting "pet" deer, and having them run onto adjacent properties before expiring.

 

[Iglow]

What was that liberal chick doing snooping around at midnight when she found it? Tripping on mushrooms?

Looking for her girlfriend/wife.

 

[TheLBLman]

AT Hiker said:
Then simply don't shoot a deer with antlers .
I'm the proud holder of a permit that allows me and a handful of other approved hunters to take 50 deer within the city limits. It's purely a population reduction hunt and instead of paying someone to do it, the city had the genius idea to allow us to do it for free. Only stipulation is we cannot keep antlers. If we choose not to keep the meat it goes to a food bank….I can't think of a more honorable way to honor the life of a free ranging animal.

Still less opportunities for others. And doesn't "fix" the problem of shooting "pet" deer, and having them run onto adjacent properties before expiring.

IMO, you both make very valid points.

My point is we hunters are in the minority, and it's in our own best interest to be cognizant of the property rights of non-hunters, even their thoughts about hunters.

My first question to every hunter is, "Just why do you deer hunt?"
And, it there a difference in killing semi-tame deer and hunting truly wild deer?

Is is your "dream hunt" to be "hunting" semi-tame to very tame deer in a subdivision?
Be honest. This is just killing some deer more than it's "hunting"?

Non-hunters generally don't have a problem with deer hunting for the primary purposes of deer population control and obtaining free-range organic meat. Many non-hunters will actually welcome you to hunt their property for these reason.

But the non-hunters' views change dramatically when they believe your primary purpose for deer hunting is about "trophy" antlers. The abuses of urban "trophy buck" hunters is quickly turning many non-hunters into anti-hunters. And more and more, the non-hunters equate poachers & hunters as one of the same.

So please don't take me wrong, as I'm not totally opposed to urban deer hunting, even if your primary purpose is for trophy antlers. Just ask in advance for deer retrieving permission from the adjoining property owners, be super careful to only take the highest probability shots, and maybe just don't do it if you cannot receive that in advance retrieval permission from those adjoining property owners.

We should have a goal of making more non-hunters our friends than our enemies? We should respect their private property rights just as we expect any of them to respect ours? You do that, and you'll actually have many private property owners begging you to come kill some of "their" deer and give them some venison, and even help you get advance retrieval permission from adjoining property owners.

What I'm opposed to is losing more important, higher quality, wild deer hunting privileges when too many non-hunters are transitioned into anti-hunters, and those antis "influence" more voting non-hunters to decrease our more quality hunting opportunities on public lands, as well as adversely effecting statewide hunting regs on private lands.

The general public really cares little if we lose significant hunting opportunities nationwide.
Other forms of "outdoor recreation" have been quickly displacing wild deer hunting.

IMO, glorifying urban "trophy buck" killing puts us on a faster track to losing far more quality hunting opportunities than a few of us ever gain via urban buck killing.