# Self Sufficiency/Living off the Land or Off the Grid > Hunting & Trapping >  Man shoots fawn while it sleeps.

## klickitat

So 3 years ago I was out on an early morning hunt. I was sneaking through some reprod and spotted a dear in it's bed about 40 yards in front of me. I notice tight away that it is a doe and she is busy looking down at something away from me. I then noticed a fawn that must have been in the early drops, because it had buttons. It was about 20' away from momma sleeping away while she dropped the ball on her watch.

Now in Washington State it is legal to shoot a buck if the horns are broke through the velvet and at least 1" above the hair. Well this little guy was barely legal, but legal he was.

Now the tricky part was that he was curled up asleep under the edge of a fir tree. Really the only shot i had was to the head. I decided to take the shot and put 30-30 round right behind the ear. now the bullet passed through the head and hit the hind quarter. I did loose a little meat but not to bad.

I tell you what, that was some of the best eating meat I have ever had. not a whole lot there, but I do not think I have ever had a better piece in my life.

----------


## BENESSE

Whatever floats your boat klick. I ain't biting.

Oh...the poll is a nice touch. You couldn't care LESS what anyone thought of this "hunt".

----------


## gryffynklm

Ya, not biting. Seems like there is something you are leaving out. Why take the fawn and not the doe. Not being a hunter I have to refrain from comment. Not enough information inconclusive.

----------


## your_comforting_company

I'll bite, even tho it's not real.

Legal as it may be, it's unethical. 

how much meat could have come off that fawn. 20 lbs? minus the ham? 

I would vote the same way if my grandfather, father, or uncle told the same story. Even if one of my kids was telling it...

----------


## mosquitomountainman

> I'll bite, even tho it's not real.
> 
> Legal as it may be, it's unethical. 
> 
> how much meat could have come off that fawn. 20 lbs? minus the ham? 
> 
> I would vote the same way if my grandfather, father, or uncle told the same story. Even if one of my kids was telling it...


Not trying to start a flame war here but why would it be unethical?  What defines ethical vs. unethical?

----------


## your_comforting_company

Because it's a baby sleeping...

----------


## Rick

It's okay, YCC. Some folks will drowned little kittens, too.

----------


## Reverend Greg

Nice hypothetical...Its a baby sleeping...Should have shot the Mama and eaten the whole thing.
(G)

----------


## kyratshooter

Yep, this one is borderline trolling!

bug out/bug in

big knife/little knife

AR/AK

9MM/45

and now the baby killer question.

They are debating wheather one should fee orphans left on the doorstep over on Survivalboards.  Are we stooping that low for conversation?

What's next, the canabilism thread?

----------


## hunter63

I would at least woke him up first.....

----------


## your_comforting_company

Cannibalism.. now theres a conversation I can sink my teeth into..

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Yep, this one is borderline trolling!
> 
> bug out/bug in
> 
> big knife/little knife
> 
> AR/AK
> 
> 9MM/45
> ...


 Well...if you're gonna eat a person, don't you want to eat one with some fat on them? You know....that's where the flavor is.

 Take B, for example. She'd probably be kinda stringy, and taste like lettuce and bean sprouts, soaked in wine. Rick, on the other hand, would taste like twinkies. I'd probably taste like bac..........uh.......never mind. You know I don't know what I'm talking about. Wow...look at the time! :Blush:

----------


## mccaw69

If it had been a survival situation,I might understand,but shooting it while it slept?It's just as bad as baiting,no sport in it,your not even giving the animal a fighting chance.And a firearm on top it all,try a bow next time u hunt it'll make u work for your kill.

----------


## klkak

mm, mmm, mmmm, Tasty!

You really should not have shared this story.

In doing so you are just asking to be criticized.

Folks are starting to questioning your integrity.

----------


## canid

doesn't meet with my idea of sportsman like conduct, or do much to promote sustainable game management.

If a hunter is in a position of seriously needing meat to maintain their health and wellbeing I wouldn't fault it, but otherwise, it's about two horizons from a preferable kill.

----------


## mosquitomountainman

Let me ask it this way, who defines what is ethical or not?

This thread and the "bear in shot in the den" thread point out a dilemma "sportsmen" face regarding ethics and hunting.  Issues such as baiting, food plots, deer/game drives, using dogs and a dozen other practices are divisive subjects that pit groupls of hunters against one-another.  There's nothing wrong with debating the issues but, in my seldom humble opinion, we need to be careful that these things don't divide us.  We (hunters, fishermen, trappers) are all under attack by very well organized groups of people who want to ban hunting, trapping and fishing.  They love it when we fight among ourselves because it brings them one step closer to attaining their goals.

Those who don't use bait call baiting unethical but what's the difference between baiting and setting up a tree stand on the corner of a cornfield where several deer trails merge before the deer scatter in the field to eat?

_How do we define ethical behavior in hunting?_  If we personally feel that some practices accepted by others are not "ethical" (but they are legal) can we still stand united against those who oppose us?

----------


## canid

that's why i addressed the question with my view, and then made my point about sustainable game management.

one is my subjective position and the other is observable and quantifiable, which is probably the reason we use it to determine hunting and fishing regulations. it's just nice that they often seem to overlap, if not always.

----------


## Sarge47

I say spare the fawn, shoot the hunter & have "long pig" for supper!  :Nono:  Oh, wait, this isn't the cannibalism thread, is it?   :Blush:

----------


## your_comforting_company

> I say spare the fawn, shoot the hunter & have "long pig" for supper!  Oh, wait, this isn't the cannibalism thread, is it?


 
no.. but it's gettin close.

Ethics are decided by our own personal moral compass. period. A persons actions say a lot about how they view the world around them and what direction their compass points.

----------


## randyt

In my opinion killing and eating a fawn is no more or less ethical than killing a calf or lamb and eating it. 

I probably would not have shot the fawn. I'm a pretty successful hunter and usually end up with my limit of full grown deer.

----------


## Ted

And to think just last night Crash said to me, " Ted, you aint right!"

I'll be right back.....CRASH....OH CRAAAASH    LOL!

----------


## BENESSE

> And to think just last night Crash said to me, " *Ted, you aint right!*"
> 
> I'll be right back.....CRASH....OH CRAAAASH    LOL!


I think "ain't right" around here should be graded on a sliding scale.

----------


## canid

> In my opinion killing and eating a fawn is no more or less ethical than  killing a calf or lamb and eating it.


the fallacy here is that fawns are born under uncontrolled conditions at a rate independent of our - at least direct - influence, where calves are bred and calved more or less to suit our demand.

while the subjective morality or ethos of killing and eating an animal on the basis of it's age applies to both situations, other - also relevant - factors do apply to one situation and not to the other which influence both the logistical reality and potentially [as in my own case] the ethical/moral standing. it is still a real situation (now two separate real situations), not merely a dialectic and all things are in actuality not equal.

----------


## Camp10

I posted in the bear in the den thread that it wouldnt bother me to take an old bear in that manner.  Taking an old animal does not impact the species negatively and so, it wouldnt be unethical to take that animal.  Killing a young animal is not the same thing.  I dont care if the deer was sleeping or not, that is the hunter's choice but to knowingly take an animal that hasnt had its chance to imprint its DNA into the population (I'm not sure that is really the term I want) is harmful to the species IMO.  Maybe it was a dumb one destined to be coyote food but it might have been a champion and without letting it get a few years of life (if nature allowed) you may have unknowingly impacted the local population. 

I remember a hunting rule book several years ago with a cover that read "ethics are what you do when no one is looking".  Ethics arent about what others think, hunters are out numbered and there is to much misinformation and emotion to worry about others but ethics are about doing what is right for the species being hunted.

----------


## canid

> ethics are what you do when no one is looking


that's a good way of putting it.

----------


## Rick

I think the humane thing would have been to just take one leg and let the little feller grow up and play. Who knows, that little fawn might have been the Ghandi of deer. If you just take one leg then you still get to eat and the fawn can still grow up to do good things. Of course, it could grow up to be the Ted Bundy of deer. Hmm. Do what you want.

----------


## kid_couteau

Just me but unless I NEEDED the meat for food I would not have shot either one of them.

Shoot the fawn the mother grieves
Shoot the mother the fawn is alone to fend for himself

Just seems wrong somehow

Kid Couteau

----------


## randyt

> the fallacy here is that fawns are born under uncontrolled conditions at a rate independent of our - at least direct - influence, where calves are bred and calved more or less to suit our demand.
> 
> while the subjective morality or ethos of killing and eating an animal on the basis of it's age applies to both situations, other - also relevant - factors do apply to one situation and not to the other which influence both the logistical reality and potentially [as in my own case] the ethical/moral standing. it is still a real situation (now two separate real situations), not merely a dialectic and all things are in actuality not equal.


actually it's probably less ethical to raise a calf and when it's looking the other way putting a bolt gun to it's head to kill it.

----------


## canid

phrases like 'probably less ethical' are as subjective as the concept of ethics themselves. the point is that however your compass points you, the two situations involve different considerations, and impact reality differently.

you have illustrated it yourself by giving closer consideration and modifying your statement of position.

----------


## Justin Case

> I think the humane thing would have been to just take one leg and let the little feller grow up and play. Who knows, that little fawn might have been the Ghandi of deer. If you just take one leg then you still get to eat and the fawn can still grow up to do good things. Of course, it could grow up to be the Ted Bundy of deer. Hmm. Do what you want.


Oh you are EVIL !!! :Devil2: 



> Just me but unless I NEEDED the meat for food I would not have shot either one of them.
> 
> Shoot the fawn the mother grieves
> Shoot the mother the fawn is alone to fend for himself
> 
> Just seems wrong somehow
> 
> Kid Couteau


I agree !  :Smile:

----------


## klickitat

I am going to make separate posts to address a few issues here.

This is a very true story. I posted for many reasons and each post will explain itself. First many of you have no clue about hunting or regulations or even game management. If you did you would have kept your mouths shut.

In Washington state it is illegal to shoot a doe. Why is that?  Because they are the ones that have the babies. I thought that was too obvious, but not for some apparently. 

In states where they have a population problem then they shoot does.

When I shot this it was the last day of hunting season and I needed to fill my tag. Some meat is better than no meat.

Now professional game managers and state biologists all over the U.S. have in place spike animals only in areas. It little to do with age any everything to do with genetics.

----------


## klickitat

To the comments about age and sleeping. What does age have to do with anything other than your sense of (aahhh)?

Also why would I wake it up and scare it so that I could kill it. Possibly having to take a lung shot and make it suffer before it died. As is it never felt a thing. it was living life happily munching on grass, told momma good night and went to sleep. Pleasant dreams. Seems to me about the most pleasant way to go.

Put things in perspective a little.

----------


## canid

> If you did you would have kept your mouths shut.


this is a subjective statement of opinion.

----------


## klickitat

Last. Why did I post this? Mostly because I am tired of the candy a&&es. The pansies who decry the unscrupulous hunter who kills. I am tired of all the snide remarks questioning a hunters ethics while they know nothing of anything. 

How dare you question my ethics? You pansy ars piles sit on your computers dreaming and typing away while you have no clue, nor will you ever survive. That is the real kicker too, you are so soft that the idea of killing animal turns your stomach, yet you are on a wilderness survival site. Yeah right, what a joke. You couldn't survive with out your credit cards and frapichino's. 


BTW: I did not personally call anyone out so there is no flaming here. Oh and if people want to chastise me on the side then you had better do the same to those who openly post criticisms for things which they nothing of.

----------


## canid

> How dare you question my ethics?


i dare to question all ethics. how dare i; to understand ethics. you'll probably get separate answers from each other member who has posted.

i might just as well ask: how dare you question my actively solicited view of your action. the difference is that i am not insulting your intelligence or the standing of your views.

if you are not personally calling anybody out, yet posting inflammatory personal views of our understanding, who is the pansy? or are you addressing a hypothetical person?

this is little more than troll bait, in my opinion.

take it or leave it, but don't ask for it again.

----------


## Justin Case

> Last. Why did I post this? Mostly because I am tired of the candy a&&es. The pansies who decry the unscrupulous hunter who kills. I am tired of all the snide remarks questioning a hunters ethics while they know nothing of anything. 
> 
> How dare you question my ethics? You pansy ars piles sit on your computers dreaming and typing away while you have no clue, nor will you ever survive. That is the real kicker too, you are so soft that the idea of killing animal turns your stomach, yet you are on a wilderness survival site. Yeah right, what a joke. You couldn't survive with out your credit cards and frapichino's. 
> 
> 
> BTW: I did not personally call anyone out so there is no flaming here. Oh and if people want to chastise me on the side then you had better do the same to those who openly post criticisms for things which they nothing of.


Yeah,  your a real legend in your own mind ,,   BTW,  where are YOU sitting right now and what are YOU doing ?  LOL LOL,,   also,  your little poll should answer all your questions,,

----------


## Rick

Actually, your post was little more than a rant. And just to be honest with you if you had been a troll posting that you would have been gone...just on the post. Actually, it was pretty hateful. The reason you posted it was simply to set the stage so you could rant. But name calling, whether you out an individual or not, is inappropriate on this forum. I've locked the thread.

----------

