- Joined
- Jun 4, 2020
- Messages
- 4,507
VA boy drove over and shot your Knox county big buck!
-
Help Support TNDeer:
Knox county velvet buck
- Thread starter Antler Daddy
- Start date
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Watched it, and the story reinforced much of what I think about the TN velvet hunt (as well as "trophy" urban buck hunting).
I can only congratulate the young Virginian for his persistence in finding a place to hunt in TN, and then actually killing an old velvet buck. His persistence paid off for him.
I can only congratulate the young Virginian for his persistence in finding a place to hunt in TN, and then actually killing an old velvet buck. His persistence paid off for him.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
However, the creation of the "trophy" velvet buck hunt was mostly in fact created for the purpose of bringing in non-resident hunters, and quite possibly does more to turn non-hunters against deer hunters, as opposed to winning those non-hunters over via the usual reasons non-hunters agree to deer hunting (especially on property owned by non-hunters).
I do not blame anyone for taking advantage of participating in the "trophy" velvet buck hunt, and have done so myself. Interestingly, seems only a tiny percentage of TN resident deer hunters ever showed any interest, and most of them who participated, no longer participate. Personally wish TWRA would eliminate this season segment, thinking its existence does more overall harm than good to TN resident hunters as well as the future of deer hunting.
I'm also not a fan of the glorification of trophy buck hunting on small urban tracks, although glorification (of urban buck hunting) was not what this Virginian hunter was doing, rather, the only place he gained hunting access was a small urban track.
So not at all saying urban hunting needs outlawing, just saying there are sometimes fine lines between how we do it being of either benefit or detriment to the future of hunting. Will be interesting to see if the non-hunter landowner, who allowed this young man to hunt his 5 acres, will do so again next year. The landowner had already reneged on allowing the young man to do the velvet hunt, but then re-agreed for the implied primary purpose of allowing this out-of-state hunter to come retrieve his trail cams.
Talk about luck to the hunter: The landowner states he changed his mind, then later agrees to let the non-resident hunter come hunt for 1 day, but 1 day only, on the same day he's allowed to come retrieve his trail cams. In the end, sounded like the landowner didn't really have any problems with hunting, but his wife did, and the surrounding property owners did. Was good that the buck died without crossing a property line where it's presumed it couldn't have been legally retrieved.
I do not blame anyone for taking advantage of participating in the "trophy" velvet buck hunt, and have done so myself. Interestingly, seems only a tiny percentage of TN resident deer hunters ever showed any interest, and most of them who participated, no longer participate. Personally wish TWRA would eliminate this season segment, thinking its existence does more overall harm than good to TN resident hunters as well as the future of deer hunting.
I'm also not a fan of the glorification of trophy buck hunting on small urban tracks, although glorification (of urban buck hunting) was not what this Virginian hunter was doing, rather, the only place he gained hunting access was a small urban track.
So not at all saying urban hunting needs outlawing, just saying there are sometimes fine lines between how we do it being of either benefit or detriment to the future of hunting. Will be interesting to see if the non-hunter landowner, who allowed this young man to hunt his 5 acres, will do so again next year. The landowner had already reneged on allowing the young man to do the velvet hunt, but then re-agreed for the implied primary purpose of allowing this out-of-state hunter to come retrieve his trail cams.
Talk about luck to the hunter: The landowner states he changed his mind, then later agrees to let the non-resident hunter come hunt for 1 day, but 1 day only, on the same day he's allowed to come retrieve his trail cams. In the end, sounded like the landowner didn't really have any problems with hunting, but his wife did, and the surrounding property owners did. Was good that the buck died without crossing a property line where it's presumed it couldn't have been legally retrieved.
Last edited:
IIRC, he seized the opportunity. Ol' Man said he could hunt, wife was not crazy about it, so he sealed the deal in the 6 hour window he had access to the farm. Kudos to him!
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
We're on the same page, Andy.
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
Sorry, this doesn't sit well with me.
Dude was given permission to hunt the lot by the man, but when the wife finds out she doesn't want anyone hunting their property. The man tells him he will be in trouble with the wife and he can't hunt.
He guilt trips the man that he had already given permission and that has to drive 4 hours to retrieve his cell cams, he should at least let him hunt since he already gave permission. Man feels bad and says you can hunt ONLY while wife is away at work so I don't get in trouble as you get your cameras. Be gone by 330 when wife comes home.
He killed a great buck! Congrats! But now man who gave permission is gonna catch hell from the wife when she finds out.
A deer isn't worth putting the man who gave permission then rescinded because of wife into that situation IMO. Poor man is collateral damage in this story.
Dude was given permission to hunt the lot by the man, but when the wife finds out she doesn't want anyone hunting their property. The man tells him he will be in trouble with the wife and he can't hunt.
He guilt trips the man that he had already given permission and that has to drive 4 hours to retrieve his cell cams, he should at least let him hunt since he already gave permission. Man feels bad and says you can hunt ONLY while wife is away at work so I don't get in trouble as you get your cameras. Be gone by 330 when wife comes home.
He killed a great buck! Congrats! But now man who gave permission is gonna catch hell from the wife when she finds out.
A deer isn't worth putting the man who gave permission then rescinded because of wife into that situation IMO. Poor man is collateral damage in this story.
Landowner knew good and well when he gave permission his wife would pitch a fit , but he is collateral damage for being whipped?
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
I guess noone should ever change their mind...
He let him stay, so, no he isnt"collateral " damage
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
Hey it's all good, the hunter got what he wanted, the landowner who changed his mind gets what he deserves for being pu$$y whipped.
As a landowner, makes me want to grant permission to fishers, frog giggers, and coyote hunters on my land less likely since I can't change my mind and refuse future permission to someone I've already granted permission to.
Has nothing to do with "changing" his mind(or his wife changing his mind", has to do with the stupid collateral damge comment. Of course a man can change his mind, its his land, but to say he changed his mind when he didnt, all he did was snuck him in when his wife wasnt home. So he deserves anything the wife dishes out to him, collateral damage
, he just scared of the missesBoll Weevil
Well-Known Member
Looks like he was using a medieval broadaxe.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
It's a shame all our "issues" aren't just cut & dry between the pros & the cons, but are instead often damned if you do, damned if you don't, all clouded in some gray areas.
My take is the young man is a very good salesman, and the property owner too quickly agreed to let him hunt his 5 acres. Later, the young man himself stated the adjoining neighbors would not, and he made it sound like he did not have any advance permission to search or retrieve a deer off the adjoining property.
Anytime someone is bowhunting a tiny urban property, advance permission to both track & retrieve a deer may be as important as the initial permission to hunt. I'll give the young hunter credit for making a good hit, and the deer expiring within the boundaries of the property he had permission to hunt. But this easily could have been a different outcome.
Lastly, the excuse(s) used in guilting the landowner into letting him hunt, even if for only a few hours, were a bit disingenuous? I will say, in the end, the landowner man himself seemed to have no hard feelings towards the young hunter, and seemed proud for him. Of course, this was before his wife found out about all that had transpired.
After his wife & neighbors have heard what happened, wonder if this particular landowner would now ever again give a stranger permission to hunt on his 5 acres?
My take is the young man is a very good salesman, and the property owner too quickly agreed to let him hunt his 5 acres. Later, the young man himself stated the adjoining neighbors would not, and he made it sound like he did not have any advance permission to search or retrieve a deer off the adjoining property.
Anytime someone is bowhunting a tiny urban property, advance permission to both track & retrieve a deer may be as important as the initial permission to hunt. I'll give the young hunter credit for making a good hit, and the deer expiring within the boundaries of the property he had permission to hunt. But this easily could have been a different outcome.
Lastly, the excuse(s) used in guilting the landowner into letting him hunt, even if for only a few hours, were a bit disingenuous? I will say, in the end, the landowner man himself seemed to have no hard feelings towards the young hunter, and seemed proud for him. Of course, this was before his wife found out about all that had transpired.
After his wife & neighbors have heard what happened, wonder if this particular landowner would now ever again give a stranger permission to hunt on his 5 acres?
Buzzard Breath
Well-Known Member
Is the video made by the same Buckmasters that used to scam hunters? Owned by Jackie Bush man? If so, there no chance in heal will I watch that and give them the view on youtube.
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
The landowner guy was just a nice guy... a 'people pleaser'. While the hunter didn't intentionally take advantage of him, he still did. That's why I feel sorry for the guy who originally gave permission, then withdrew it, then was talked into limited permission.Has nothing to do with "changing" his mind(or his wife changing his mind", has to do with the stupid collateral damge comment. Of course a man can change his mind, its his land, but to say he changed his mind when he didnt, all he did was snuck him in when his wife wasnt home. So he deserves anything the wife dishes out to him, collateral damage
I guess that's where the saying 'nice guys finish last' comes from. The hunter got what he wanted, good for him. He finished First. Killed the deer legally.
If the landowner catches hell, its his own fault for granting permission, withdrawing it, then allowing limited permission.
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
I'm sure the landowner had a TN Vols flag in his yard and the hunter told him how much he loved the Vols so they could make that special connection. (Inference from the video)
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
The hunter seems like a genuinely nice guy. I'm not even sure he realizes how deceptive he comes across in gaining permission.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
I'm also not sure whether he even considered what could happen if he gut shot a buck, or for whatever reasons, the buck just happened to expire across the property line (which couldn't have been many yards away). Seems we heard a similar story recently around East Nashville, where the buck died on adjoining property?
Serious question that I've never thought of before seeing this…. In a typical situation of joint ownership (husband and wife on the deed) do you have legal permission if you have permission from one and not the other?
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
Im.not a lawyer, but if one grants permission, you have the legal right to hunt. If one grants permission, but the other officially denies permission (either directly or in writing), then I have no idea.
In this case he had verbal permission, verbal retraction of permission, then verbal limited permission because wife denied permission (but not directly or in writing to the hunter.. so heresay). It would seem the nonlandowner rights supercede the joint landowner rights. Which is scary as hell to a landowner.
