I think this type of deer management is getting more and more popular as society continues to develop and encroach further onto the habitat of deer. Suburbian America is having many problems with the rising deer population, and this is how they try to deal with it.
I have always thought it's not a bad idea, and I still think that way. It sounds so simple. Bait the deer and at night, come in with silenced firearms and pick them off.
Problem is you have unethical people performing the job. I happened upon this video on youtube and this really sickened me.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I suppose you're concerned about the fact that not every shot put the deer down for the count immediately. Or maybe you're concerned because it was illegal for the park to remove the deer through the method they used? Or maybe you feel that they were unusually cruel in their treatment of the critically hit deer ... putting the bags over the heads or the dragging before completely dead. I know you were probably not concerned with the human who stroked the dying animal to apparently calm it.
I know there are some parks in Michigan that considered using snipers but I can't recall if they used this method or not. I do know that some parks in Michigan did use archery hunters over the sniper route to remove up to 40 deer in a single Metro Park, but what's the difference? An animal being culled is an animal being culled, there isn't anything particularly pretty about it with bullet or arrow.
BTW the meat from the culled animals (in Mich) was donated to the needy and I would think and hope that this idea was part of Ohio's plan as well.
Was it the bag over the head that bothered you? Ever here of Bovine TB? Chronic Wasting disease? That is an unfortunate reality. I wear gloves everytime I clean or handle dead deer and have for the past 15 years or so. That the deer were not completely dead before the bag was placed is a concern to a point, and I would have rather seen a coup-de-grace to the head before the bag was placed, but in reality they could have also just waited a few more minutes. What do you think happens in the woods to the shot deer that run 100 yards? Of course you know.
I've hunted long enough to be able to be proud of some of my fantastic shots. Similarly I've also hunted long enough to remember vividly some of the not so pretty shots, ... bow and rifle. There have also been deer hit exactly where I wanted that took some time to die, but we as hunters are not always right there to watch the struggle ... nevertheless it happpens. Wild animals are amazingly resilient even with bullets and arrows through their vitals.
I don't think I saw anything in the video to disgust me, infuriate me, or cause me to think that any of the humans in the film were evil or heartless. They were simply removing animals.
If your point is that they did this illegally, well that is another issue.
Death is cruel. Ever come upon a starving deer that was still allive?? I have seen such deer in the deer-yards in the UP of northern Michigan in March. I have been tempted to get a large stick and beat them in the head to death...but I turned away to let Mother Nature finish the task.
Am I therefore inherently evil for considering that method which (would have been illegal and undoubtedly more graphic and cruel that what you linked here)?
I'm encouraged that you are moved to want a quicker and cleaner kill for the animals and I echo your concern for any critically injured animal. I also agree that putting them down as quick as possible is the plan and were I present there would have been several follow-up .22 shorts to the brain pan as soon as I was over the deer. But keep in mind that SHARK would have only characterized such coup-de-grace deliveries as heartless killers offing the bambi's mob-style.
I'm not criticizing your link or your reason because you seem like an ethical hunter with only good intentions. I have seen some of your other 170+ posts and don't feel you are an anti in any way shape or form. But I did want to point out that your concern here could be viewed as adding fuel to the fire or in some ways distributing the SHARK message. I'm realy only pointing out that this post could be misconstrued by some as being SHARK supportive.
No one wants to see deer suffer needlessly, and for that part I agree with promoting only the highest quality trained shooters.
In Michigan the archery hunters selected to be the shooters had to pass accuracy scrutiny before being involved in the cull/hunt. They used normal tree-stands and hunting methods which did include baiting. I'm pretty sure that some deer died in similar manner as viewed in the SHARK video, but perhaps without the bag...but I don't think non-bagged deer necessarily suffer measurably less.
8mm/06, I appreciate your reply. No, I don't support anti's in any way. Hence, I don't support the SHARK message at all. They would have put out that message either way. Just for the record; I'm an avid bow-hunter and yes, I have had some shots that I wish turned out differently, bow and gun. But I guess that is my point. On the shots that put deer down that were not "finishing" shots, I had to take extra steps. But I feel that is my duty since I am the one that caused this scenario. I'm all for humane shots as I know most of us are. That is why I practice. I know some guys out there will shoot at a downed deer like a pin cushion until it expires. That to me is sickening.
I just don't get the suffocating part. I know that most other methods are not going to be significantly different when measuring the suffering involved. However, I do agree that the only method that should be used is a shot to the head when coming up on a deer that has been shot using the snipe method and hasn"™t expired yet. Why not? It"™s the quickest way. If I shoot a deer that is struggling and suffering I immediately get down from my tree and expedite the kill. Is this different? I tend to think it is. I could go into a whole scientific theory about how quicker it might be for severed lungs and or heart to be the cause of death compared to suffocation after a bad shot, but let"™s just say that is my thinking.
Yes, I"™m all for deer management by the sniper method and supplying the homeless with the harvest. I am simply not sold on suffocating an animal to finish the job.
Why are there best practices in place that are used when disposing of undesirable animals anywhere? For example, a buddy of mine traps animals that have camped out in peoples homes. By law, he has to take certain animals he has trapped to the humane society to be put down. Why not just put a bag over their head and suffocate them? Instead, they euthanize them. Is this practical in the field? Probably not, but I think you get my point.
If it all comes down to economics then I think the snipers should raise there rates!
I also admit I could be off in my thinking, but currently those are my thoughts.
I'm not sure what the bags are for ... and I would hope it's not for suffocation as the final end. I would think, and I'm only theorizing, that it may have to do with keeping their cars or carts clean and maybe trying to keep the park slightly gore-free. Then again it may be for disease control just for keeping the lung and saliva mucous off the participants. I'm realy not sure but I hope the bags weren't for suffocation only. I watched the clip a 2nd time trying to see if the bags were used only on the obvioulsy struggling animals, but it looked like they used the bag on every animal. That doesn't make it any less distasteful when seeing the living but wounded animals struggle even harder for the air they can't get.
Bottom line for me is I don't have a problem with sniper campaigns. But I do agree that this clip shows some poor shooting and even poorer decision making by not delivering a quick coup-de-grace. But I hope that future efforts to keep populations at bay for the safety of the motorists and the herd itself will take better precautions in the future to get 'em down fast and hard ... and maybe take even more precautions to keep SHARK and others from filming what they want to edit.
Good hunting chazpot!
I think they should have to have a special license, training and supervision of a gamewarden to do this. If they are just turned loose becaus they claim to be professionals, then abuse will fallow and make all hunters look bad to the nonhunting public.
I watched the video.As someone already stated - It is what it is - Culling Deer.The commentary was disgusting.
My take on the bag is this.Every deer appeared to be head shot. Instant death.The animals were in an obvious "death throw".They were not alive(brain dead).I've seen this last for 15-20 minutes.I see no other logical purpose for the bag but to cover a massive head wound from public view.That makes sense??
Why in Gods name would they smother a deer with a plastic bag thats brain dead
You can bet you last dollar there were plenty of Anti's in the area.
Obviously or we would not be viewing the video.
This video is such poor quality and there is so much distortion of both animal and everything in it. See everything is moving. There may have been some movement of the first deer. They probably should have put another bullet in the head to be sure or bleed it out in the carotid artery.
All else seems to be hyper charge rhetoric on the part to the video editor.
The bag may have been a precaution in cause of a head or neck shot to avoid contact with spinal fluid or brain matter, which is higher risk of exposure in the case of CWD. Obviously, if it was clear the deer wasn't yet dead or questionably, a quick killing shot or stick should have been the first step.
The problem I have with groups like "SHARK" is their fanaticism to try to stop legally killing deer or other game animals thinking they are "saving" them. Well, what do they thing the hundreds of thousands of deer splattered on the front of and in people's car and trucks feel as they are in their death throes? And are they sympathetic to deer that are hunted down and torn to pieces by wolf packs in a number of north central and western states?
__________________
MinnFinn
"Now there you go again..." "I'm not going to hold your youth and inexperience against you." -- Ronald Reagan
I agree that that would seem to be the main purpose. Even if these officials were handling this in a haphazard way, to be using the bags for the discreet purpose of suffocating seems absolutely ludicrous. I still feel the bags were for sanitation, both from a mess standpoint and also perhaps for a antispeptic purpsoe....i.e. TB or CWD.
Would have still liked to see a double tap .22 at the base of the skull as the finishing stroke.
Sniper deer management
