Lab-Man - Awe, maybe you're right. Next time I see a big buck walking through heavy brush at 35 yards, I'm slinging an arrow towards it. Heck, maybe I'll even hit it, and get lucky and it'll die and I'll find its carcasss a day or two later, and then enter it into the Books, have articles written about me, make a lot of money , and I'll just fall back on the "You wasn't there" or "I made a bad judgement call" lines.

Look, this world needs a lot more stand up and take repsonsibility, and Zaft needs to do the same. He made a poor shot and lost a trophy animal. He's not an example any of us should follow as far as that hunt was concerned. Zaft KNOWS deer, he's killed a couple of P&Y bucks. He knew the size of this animal, he knew he had one shot and a poor one at that and he made the decision to take that poor shot, knowing his chances were NOT good at making it. Boys, thats unethical, thats doing the wrong thing when no ones looking (like the one guy has in his signature). Worst part is, a lot of people are going to give credit where credit is NOT due.

Lab-Man - I always gave Rompolla a benefit of a doubt. This Zaft deer is different, because we know his story, and we all full well know he didn't take a good shot and he didn't recover the deer he wounded. Do I accept this ? I accept that sometimes things happen, but what I don't accept, and won't accept, is a guy getting world recognition for taking a very poor shot when he knew better and wouldn't have on a smaller deer, losing the animal because he took that poor shot and then after a local gives the rack back to him after the meats ruined and the coyotes have eaten it, he tries to pass it off as an ethical kill ? I don't think so, I'm going to teach my kids better than that ....