What would you do, Mr. Deer Hunter?
 

The times they are a changin' - Bob Dylan

NO, absolutely not!!!

Your question is very interesting in the way that it's worded... I don't think you can see what you've done by using the current structure.

The hunter can't take the shot, because the shot was taken by another. Given the fact that it is the same buck and the chance for the shot is now gone, one cannot say whether they would take the shot or not, because it no longer exists. "Given the same conditions" in this sense would mean that the hunter in question already saw the 8x10 of the same dead buck.

But, if you're asking if I would take an illegal shot before shooting hours, then the answer is no. Doesn't matter what size animal it is... if I really wanted that buck badly, I would have watched it's movements very closely, climbed down from the stand quietly and attempted to stalk. Depending on my location, wind direction, etc. etc.

***You better reread what he wrote and what you wrote in response to the OP in your first two paragraphs because IMHO you don't make sense. The guy let the buck walk because he saw it before legal shooting hours and then a couple days later someone else shot it. The question was whether you would have shot it if you were in his shoes and if he had then the other guy wouldn't have had the chance that actually did shoot it legally.

The emphasis here is on "given the same conditions."

The conditions of the "short story" is that the original hunter made the decision not to shoot, then a completely different hunter did shoot (in the future) and showed proof of it being the same buck that "hunter 1" passed on.

The buck has already been killed in the story. So, in the way it's structured above, the OP is asking if you would take a shot at the buck "given the same conditions" after hunter 1 had already seen that hunter 2 had taken the deer.

It's just an anachronism that I felt like pointing out, obviously the OP was trying to insert some creative flare into their question and probably fancies himself/herself as a writer. It could have easily been a thread that just started with, "Hey, would you shoot a monster buck a half hour before legal shooting hours?"

But they didn't... the correct way to ask the final question would have been: Given the same conditions, would you have taken the shot that the first hunter passed on?

CN,
What is your real reason for being on here? Really?
Are you an "anti" waiting for the wrong answer?
Your posts don't seem like their from an outdoorsman?
Please let us know why you are on here?
If I am mistaken I apoligize.
daddus

Given the same conditions. I would cry

It's just an anachronism that I felt like pointing out, obviously the OP was trying to insert some creative flare into their question and probably fancies himself/herself as a writer. It could have easily been a thread that just started with, "Hey, would you shoot a monster buck a half hour before legal shooting hours?"

But they didn't... the correct way to ask the final question would have been: Given the same conditions, would you have taken the shot that the first hunter passed on?


***And obviously you're more than a little anal for pointing out such, LOL!!!

That's a fair assumption, but it really only comes out when it pertains specifically to writing.

Furthermore, I tend to harbor the same skepticism as daddus up there... not sure what CN is getting at, but the OPs other posts tend to be just as puzzling as this one.

"That's a fair assumption, but it really only comes out when it pertains specifically to writing.

Furthermore, I tend to harbor the same skepticism as daddus up there... not sure what CN is getting at, but the OPs other posts tend to be just as puzzling as this one."


***Fair enough!!! Yep, I went in and read the other posts that the OP has written and I'd have to agree with the two of you!!! In fact, just the title of the thread alone sounds like a put down for hunters!

Given the same circumstances, I would have thrown a football back and forth, under the moonlight, with another man from 5:40 until just after 6:00. Then I would get in my stand.

Lmao!

Well put.

Your thinking way too hard, Psylo, but the creative writing lesson did crack me up.

I also would not shoot.

====
and, fwiw, I'm guessin the posts were cut and copied from other sites, and it's a spammer trying to establish a little crediblity

I don't believe any of you that says they wouldn't shoot!!!!!!!! YOU PEOPLE MAKE ME LAUGH!!!!!

Here's a fun exercise in logical reasoning (inferences):

1. People who obey the law make you laugh
2. You think laws are funny or unnecessary
3. You don't follow the letter of the law
4. Bestiality is forbidden by law
5. Therefore, you enjoy engaging in bestiality

Psylocide, I bet you voted for obama... twice, didn't you.

OK just like I suppose you would turn in a bag of money if you found it even though it had no ID with it!!!!!!!You BET

Only because the "Change we can believe in" bumper stickers on your car were so convincing. The fact that you registered under Clinton's endearing nickname is pretty telling as well.

Bags of money come with IDs?

Ever heard of a deposit slip

I am sorry I wasted the time to read it.
 

I am sorry I wasted the time to read it.

Bubba was my dog. We havin fun now???:party0005:

So... what do you write on the slip?



Attachment 26044

Me thinks that gonewest is one sick puppy with the comments he continues to make!

I'm just being honest TOPGUN. Me thinks your full of crap to believe you wouldn't take the shot.

What about Mrs Deer Hunter? Sexist question.

Translation: I would poach an animal and don't care who knows.

Not a great message to send anyone.

Yup, you definitely voted for obama

***Do you really think I care what a violating little pizzant that makes a bunch of stupid posts thinks, LOL! I've probably let more good bucks walk even during legal hours, especially on the places I hunted down in south Texas, than you'll see in your lifetime.

Reading this post, I wonder if CN might be an anti, trolling this site trying to stir us up and get hunters to admit to unethical practices.

if that"s the case he appears to be doing a good job!
daddus

"CRICKETS"
daddus

Yeah... because apparently if you wouldn't poach an animal, you definitely voted for Obama.

That makes a lot of sense... he would rather skirt the laws set forth in the constitution, so it stands to reason that he wouldn't mind skirting hunting laws as well.

I swear... you can't tell where some people start and where they begin because their heads are securely jammed far up their own asses.

:D

You're conversing with simpletons.........

Hey guys,

First of all, this is definitely question from some narrow-minded, anti-hunting, bambi saving, tree hugging type. But I don't care what people like that think because they don't understand what we do and why we do it. They just don't get it and never will. They will never even attempt to try to understand so I choose to not worry one iota what they think...

But on to the question. It is difficult to answer honestly based on the info. It doesn't all add up to me. It is pretty unlikely that 30 minutes before legal shooting a hunter could see well enough to ethically take this shot. Maybe under absolutely perfect conditions though, I suppose. The bigger question to me is, "Is this a safe shot?" Can you see clearly enough to make an effective kill shot? If it is, I guess I don't have a huge issue with it. It would be pretty tough to not take that shot. I'm not saying it's right, but if I'm honest with myself, I don't know that I pass - if it's light enough to take a safe shot. I'd like to say I would pass, but if I can see the animal as clearly as it is described, I might shoot. Again, this might be a pretty far-fetched example, it just doesn't all add up. The description eludes to seeing the antlers clearly and even seeing the steam from it's nose. I hunt in the north and have seen steam from a deers nose. You cannot see it if it is dark. It is unlikely that you see this much detail this early. But with snow on the ground, clear skies, the sun just over the horizon, and a full moon, I guess maybe. But anyway, I draw a big distinction between shooting an animal a few minutes prior to shooting time (or a few minutes after) and poaching an animal. I wouldn't consider this person a poacher.

To those that say this is poaching and claim to stick to the letter of the law to a T - I wonder if it was 5 minutes before shooting, would you take the shot? How about 1 minute? or 30 seconds? Based on the arguments I heard earlier, you would consider yourself a poacher for shooting this animal 10 seconds before legal shooting. What if 1 minute after legal shooting time you see this deer? I've even been hunting under adverse conditions -thick snow (also thick fog), overcast, no moon, and didn't feel right about taking a shot during legal shooting hours. I'm just curious what some thoughts are on this.

Lastly, we need to back off the name calling a bit. Here's same PETA moron coming on here and getting us all riled up at one another. We should be getting on Canadian Newsfairy's case, not each other.

North22---Here are several comments regarding your post:
First---You are putting way too much into the OP question. He asked if you would shoot an animal before legal hours if it was a big buck. The simple answer if you're an ethical hunter and follow ALL the laws is NO!!!
Second---Whether this guy is a true hunter or a PETA supporter, your answer that you might shoot even one minute before legal time if you could see well means that you are a violator, pure and simple, if you did take the shot!
Third---After legal shooting hours start you can shoot IF you can properly see the target and everything in the area based on the conditions to know that you can take an accurate, safe shot.
Fourth---I really have to laugh at your last paragraph telling members to stop the name calling and then you call the OP a moron and Fairy!!!

I would lay the hammer down! Most of you have and would shoot an animal before legal shooting hours as well! I'm not saying go out at night ect but being truthful we all know u can safely and ethically see shortly before and after the legal hours begin or end. Particularly in archery most of you would shoot an animal regardless if u admit it or not!

***Baloney, as to you saying what others would do and have done! However, after reading your thoughts on the turkey thread on the long distances you would shoot, this answer here doesn't surprise me one bit! Sounds to me like you need a hunter safety and ethics course and maybe throw in one on what integrity means. Either that or maybe just plain keeping quiet, rather than openly stating you would violate the law! Some of the comments you make on this website seem to be just to stir up trouble and this may be the worst yet. Also, FYI it's against the rules of this website to openly speak of violating game laws and saying things that are detrimental to hunting and that could be used by the antis. Please See rule #6

Take a few deep breaths top gun and lighten up a little. I'm not going to engage you in your attempt to attack me personally for being honest. I don't see my comments anything but truthful despite your thoughts!

That was not a personal attack of any sort, but rather just saying that you are openly stating you violate the law. Engage you for being honest, LOL! Now you have put up a second post saying you're an outright law violator and I would hope a Moderator reads both of your posts and takes appropriate action for violating website rules---Nuff said and this will be my last post to you to avoid any rules violations myself!!!

Reading comprehension my friend I said I would pull the trigger not I did pull the trigger! If you think the majority of hunters look at a watch phone whatever to determine if its legal to shoot particularly in archery season then you are misled! I represent the majority not the minority and do not feel my post was in any way unethical but simply am man enough to not put on false personas behind computers that I am something I'm not.