(Un)Ethical Hunting
So on opening day of rifle season, Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota wounded a deer, failed to track it down, and then went off to a fundraiser while his staff attempted to find the animal he shot.
As a hunter, this is one of those things that gets me steamed. To wound an animal and then neglect to track it down is one of the more egregious violations of hunting ethics, and is grossly irresponsible, especially if you are an authority figure. Once you put a bullet in a deer, you have a moral obligation to immediately track that animal down and finish it off – both to end its suffering, and to ensure that the meat isn’t wasted. Pawlenty apparently found blood but no buck at the place he last saw the animal, but rather than immediately begin tracking the wounded animal he returned to camp to “ponder his next move?” No, Governor: you know (or should know) that your “next move” is to, right then, track down that animal and end its suffering. Sending your staff out to beat the brush after breakfast isn’t nearly good enough. He’s not only neglecting his own responsibilities; he’s also setting a bad example for young hunters. If one of my hunting buddies did that, he would never be invited back.
Comments are closed.
Well, not so fast. For example, you said “once you put a bullet in a deer, you have a moral obligation to immediately track the animal down…” This is not always the case. There are times when waiting for hours, or even overnight, before tracking is appropriate. If a deer is gut shot, for example, tracking it immediately could be considered unethical, imo, in that it would only push the deer further off making retrieval less likely. Also, it isn’t as if the governor said “screw it” and left without anyone else attempting to track.
I’m not trying to defend the governor per se, but I have been in similar situations where waiting was appropriate, and I know of failed attempts to track wounded deer which lasted several days. IMO, there are too many unknown components to this story to make a fair judgment.
Yeah, that’s pretty much the lowest thing you can do. If you decide to go hunting, you need to understand the rules. It’s not a game.
There are times when waiting for hours, or even overnight, before tracking is appropriate. If a deer is gut shot, for example, tracking it immediately could be considered unethical, imo, in that it would only push the deer further off making retrieval less likely.
That’s a fair point, and we’re certainly not talking a “wanton waste” violation here, but my reading of the article was that 1. the Gov made the determination of what to do after returning to camp, rather than attempting to track the animal immediately and basing his decision on what he learns during the pursuit, and 2. let his staff take care of tracking the animal.
I’m not reading him feeling personal responsibility for his animal.
We probably shouldn’t read too much into a press report. This incident could just as likely have occurred thus:
The governor shoots the deer and proceeds to the point where he shot/last observed the animal. On finding some spotting of blood but not enough to indicate a kill, instead of tracking the animal and pushing it all over creation he decides to wait; to go back to camp to decide on the best course of action. After a time his companions go back to attempt to track but find nothing. Because of the lack of evidence of a kill shot, the companions, one of which was the governor’s brother, and an “accomplished hunter” according to the report, determine that a kill shot was unlikely and that the deer is probably alive and well.
I’m willing to withhold judgment until I know what really happened.
As a vegetarian, the closest I’ve gotten to hunting was an encounter with a bear in the Oregon national forest. Thankfully, I saw it in time, evaded, and it ran into the passenger side rather than get hit by the car. I did not get out to see how it was doing :-P