As this is an "ethics" question, for meit basically comes down to a question of whether or not the ethical thing to do changes as the severity of action changes. In other words, if its not "ethical" to steal does it make any difference if you steal the life savings of a poor timidold lady or a penny from a rich arrogantjerk that wouldn't even notice? IMO, In both cases the act is theft and therefore neither act is justified but what is clearly different is the tolerance for it. Mostrational people would want the guy who stole from the old lady hung by his you know whats. They would probably just chuckle a little to think somebody stole a penny from Mr. Penneypacker.

So back to the deer... I would say that the act we are dealing with here is tresspassing and it can't be rationalized away if it's only a few feet vsa mile. In either casetresspassing can not be justified or considered ethical. I think however that going a few feet over the line to retrieve a deer would be a tolerable act by rational people. In other words, I wouldn't argue that its the "right thing to do" but I would argue that it is a reasonable and acceptable thing to do. Once the line is crossed (no pun intended here) however I think peoples tolerance evaporates very quickly.