|
Post by hunthard4 on Nov 8, 2021 6:51:28 GMT -5
Tradbow, your post was less than fair to me. And that’s surprising, after our phone call.
I didn’t “make up” a story. I didn’t have a hidden agenda. I didn’t provide faulty information. And I was fair to you and the police dept from the get go. So I wish your post had been as fair to me, as we both were to each other on the phone.
I did the right thing from the beginning, and I’ll hang my hat on that. My goal was for the right thing to be done with the deer, and I believe in the end, that’s what’s happening.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Nov 8, 2021 6:54:12 GMT -5
Tradbow, your post was less than fair to me. And that’s surprising, after our phone call. I didn’t “make up” a story. I didn’t have a hidden agenda. I didn’t provide faulty information. And I was fair to you and the police dept from the get go. So I wish your post had been as fair to me, as we both were to each other on the phone. I did the right thing from the beginning, and I’ll hang my hat on that. My goal was for the right thing to be done with the deer, and I believe in the end, that’s what’s happening. Was hoping we would hear from you !
|
|
|
Post by hunthard4 on Nov 8, 2021 7:07:16 GMT -5
Tradbow, your post was less than fair to me. And that’s surprising, after our phone call. I didn’t “make up” a story. I didn’t have a hidden agenda. I didn’t provide faulty information. And I was fair to you and the police dept from the get go. So I wish your post had been as fair to me, as we both were to each other on the phone. I did the right thing from the beginning, and I’ll hang my hat on that. My goal was for the right thing to be done with the deer, and I believe in the end, that’s what’s happening. Was hoping we would hear from you ! I’m not one for back and fourth. Or making an a** out of myself. At all. So I won’t get into a ing match. But I believe in treating everyone fairly. Go back and read my posts. I was fair, IMO, from the start.
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Nov 8, 2021 8:07:49 GMT -5
Wow how lucky is that guy to end up with that deer after a bad non lethal shot. 1 in a 1000 really
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Nov 8, 2021 8:47:19 GMT -5
Wow how lucky is that guy to end up with that deer after a bad non lethal shot. 1 in a 1000 really With all the twists and turns, this story would make for a heck of an article in North American Whitetail magazine.
|
|
|
Post by jimbob on Nov 8, 2021 9:11:23 GMT -5
Wow how lucky is that guy to end up with that deer after a bad non lethal shot. 1 in a 1000 really With all the twists and turns it would make a heck of an article in North American Whitetail magazine. Definitely a “As the world Turns” for hunters, and my tuning in every day. I hate the ending though. The “what if” that comes to mind… what if the officer, decided to give the deer the the person who reported the suffering deer, then the hunter who put the highly questionable shot wanted it from him? I really don’t know what I’d do, because I don’t feel a poor shot should be rewarded. The pinnacle would be for that hunter to chime into this thread as well. Haha Regardless, I hope the everybody can let cooler heads prevail, after a beer and patch up the difference, because the hunting community needs to stick together and save the drama that draws any negative attention to the outdoors and law enforcement.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Nov 8, 2021 9:19:14 GMT -5
Wow how lucky is that guy to end up with that deer after a bad non lethal shot. 1 in a 1000 really With all the twists and turns, this story would make for a heck of an article in North American Whitetail magazine. When the hunter stopped looking for deer and starting hunting again that ended his chances of putting it in a book as a Kill……found dead maybe! Probably has to many layers for NAW IMO
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 8, 2021 9:53:32 GMT -5
We’ve all made bad or ill advised shots. Unfortunately the animal suffers for it.
I’ve shot and hunted with a crossbow for over 20 years and consider myself a pretty decent shot with it. I would never take a 50 yard shot at a deer. 40 yards us my limit on an unalert, stationary and good angled deer.
Unfortunately way too many new crossbowers are buying into long distance shooting and the results are way too often wounded and lost deer.
Personally I’m not sure the rack should have went to the shooter.
Tradbow,
I hope that you stick around and post often. You won’t find a better group of hunting guys and gals anywhere on the internet.
WW
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Nov 8, 2021 10:11:10 GMT -5
greghopper
I think the layers of the story are what makes it interesting. Throw in the fact that there's a big buck involved, and I think people would like to read about it.
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Nov 9, 2021 9:35:46 GMT -5
Here's the thing, I see this as a great example from a multiple angles. If the OP's original story and what he encountered with the other officers is true, he did absolutely the right thing to prompt some examination of the facts of the "case" or instance. Again whether the smoke leads to a fire that shouldn't have existed or not doesn't matter - suspicious things such as originally described 100% deserve to be reported. If the reply about the full story is true, it also confirms how typically (maybe not always) the true occurrences of an event will come to light, resulting in either the smoke investigated to lead to a lawful fire (to keep using the analogy) or an unlawful one. To the "hunter story". I agree whole heartedly the hunter should not have been rewarded for an ignorant shot selection. Yes, I'll call it that because I truly believe it is. Folks are getting ridiculous with their shot selections assuming their weapon or their broadhead will make up for the "marginal" choice. Dear Lord folks, I get it some crossbows can punch a popcan at 100 yards with ease...that doesn't mean the ethical decision to place a shot on a whitetail just requires a whitetail to exist to be worthy of launching that bolt. Shot selection and tree stand safety are by far my two greatest "topics which just me off". 50 yards quartering away...I'm not taking that shot ever, and I'm fairly confident I could pull it off. Vastly too many believe it is all about getting just A SHOT, not waiting for THE SHOT. I've said it so many times to so many and will keep saying it "SOMETIMES THE BEST SHOT. IS NO SHOT." tradbowguy82 and @hunthard4 I appreciate you both for what you did - neither of you IMO did anything wrong at all, assuming both you told your perspectives accurately.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Nov 9, 2021 10:30:22 GMT -5
Here's the thing, I see this as a great example from a multiple angles. If the OP's original story and what he encountered with the other officers is true, he did absolutely the right thing to prompt some examination of the facts of the "case" or instance. Again whether the smoke leads to a fire that shouldn't have existed or not doesn't matter - suspicious things such as originally described 100% deserve to be reported. If the reply about the full story is true, it also confirms how typically (maybe not always) the true occurrences of an event will come to light, resulting in either the smoke investigated to lead to a lawful fire (to keep using the analogy) or an unlawful one. To the "hunter story". I agree whole heartedly the hunter should not have been rewarded for an ignorant shot selection. Yes, I'll call it that because I truly believe it is. Folks are getting ridiculous with their shot selections assuming their weapon or their broadhead will make up for the "marginal" choice. Dear Lord folks, I get it some crossbows can punch a popcan at 100 yards with ease...that doesn't mean the ethical decision to place a shot on a whitetail just requires a whitetail to exist to be worthy of launching that bolt. Shot selection and tree stand safety are by far my two greatest "topics which just me off". 50 yards quartering away...I'm not taking that shot ever, and I'm fairly confident I could pull it off. Vastly too many believe it is all about getting just A SHOT, not waiting for THE SHOT. I've said it so many times to so many and will keep saying it "SOMETIMES THE BEST SHOT. IS NO SHOT." tradbowguy82 and @hunthard4 I appreciate you both for what you did - neither of you IMO did anything wrong at all, assuming both you told your perspectives accurately. I agree…. I also believe that by thinking it was road hit/kill changed the way many was thinking .
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Nov 9, 2021 10:49:30 GMT -5
I'll also add that if the DNR CO that spoke with tradbowguy82 pressured him into the right thing to do was give it to the 'hunter' I'm sorry that is absolutely just as ignorant as the shot choice IMO. Greg said it best, the moment that hunter continued hunting seeking to use his buck tag elsewhere he forfeited any right to tag that buck which he launched a bolt at.
|
|
|
Post by indianajoe on Nov 10, 2021 18:18:48 GMT -5
tradbowguy. welcome to a great forum. I did comment on the meat. I apologize sincerely. as I read the story there were no external wounds or maggots. I simply made an assumption. I do hope you stick around on the site. sorry you had to put out a fire that seems to be a misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by coyote6974 on Dec 9, 2021 21:20:32 GMT -5
That buck was the property of the people of the State of Indiana. It would have been good to see the CO take possesion of it on behalf of the citizens of Indiana. I think it would have looked great mounted and displayed over a fireplace at one of our many State Park lodges, for the people of Indiana to marvel at.
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Dec 10, 2021 21:27:46 GMT -5
In my opinion hunthard4 should have gotten the head. He tracked the deer, he called the police and what gives the LEO anymore right to the deer head than the person who got this ball rolling? If hunthard4's story is true I believe it was his decision to release the deer head to the hunter who had the bad shot or not. I will say again I am 100% for the boys in blue but I don't think the policeman should have had an advantage in the personal possession of the deer. In my mind either the CO should have decided that the head goes to the state or hunthard4 gets the head.
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Dec 11, 2021 10:09:04 GMT -5
I thought that to have the head there had to be a tag issued by the DNR? Am I incorrect? That is unless someone burned a buck tag on it.
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Dec 11, 2021 10:20:43 GMT -5
I thought that to have the head there had to be a tag issued by the DNR? Am I incorrect? That is unless someone burned a buck tag on it. I may be wrong on this but in hunthard4's case or the policeman's case a special tag can br issued, described above as a salvage tag, where you would not have to give up your buck tag. At the same time, the hunter who wounded the buck would have to give up his buck tag.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 11, 2021 10:28:23 GMT -5
The guy that shot deer originally got the head and used his tag from my understanding.
|
|
|
Post by parkerbow on Dec 11, 2021 10:28:45 GMT -5
That buck was the property of the people of the State of Indiana. It would have been good to see the CO take possesion of it on behalf of the citizens of Indiana. I think it would have looked great mounted and displayed over a fireplace at one of our many State Park lodges, for the people of Indiana to marvel at. 100% agree with this post, just because the hunter shot and wounded the deer does not make it his. That is just like the scenario when a hunter shoots a deer and does not make a killing shot and it runs past someone else the 2nd hunter puts it on the ground and actually makes the killing shot the 2nd hunter should be entitled to the deer not the one that wounded it. I do not think the hunter should have been rewarded and it should be the possession of the DNR, just like in poaching cases. I think Patoka lake has a "Wall of shame" where big deer that were poached are hanging. To me this unethical shot should be right there on the wall of shame. Just my 2 cents.
|
|