Guest Cervelo Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 (edited) Maybe after you've killed it and realized what you've killed you wouldn't be so keen on letting everyone one know. All I can tell you as an avid outdoorsman and hunter, I'm not afraid to admit that after the initial excitement of my first deer at age 11 I promptly started crying once I found the deer and we were alone in the woods and I watched him die. Talking smack on the web is one thing having something or "someone" die in your presence and at your hand is a very different gig IMO. Edited June 4, 2011 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Maybe after you've killed it and realized what you've killed you wouldn't be so keen on letting everyone one know. All I can tell you as an avid outdoorsman and hunter, I'm not afraid to admit that after the initial excitement of my first deer at age 11 I promptly started crying once I found the deer and we were alone in the woods and I watched him die. Talking smack on the web is one thing having something or "someone" die in your presence and at your hand is a very different gig IMO. Cervelo, I'd suppose anyone huntin' it would be use ta killin'. Myself, don't hunt, except at the grocery store I'm sure your first deer...well...you're supposed to give thanks, that you cried, I think would be much the same. I know that feelin' you're talkin' bout... Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 Maybe after you've killed it and realized what you've killed you wouldn't be so keen on letting everyone one know. All I can tell you as an avid outdoorsman and hunter, I'm not afraid to admit that after the initial excitement of my first deer at age 11 I promptly started crying once I found the deer and we were alone in the woods and I watched him die. Talking smack on the web is one thing having something or "someone" die in your presence and at your hand is a very different gig IMO. I'd cry also. I never truly thought about the horror of killing something living on purpose. I don't believe that I could kill anything unless a human life was on the line. Thank you. I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful post.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 It's not that big a deal for me hunting is not about killing, and for me there's been little of that in recent years I just like to be out there. If biggie is out there and you had the chance to shoot one could you really pull the trigger? That's really my point, we and I would like to think we could but who knows after you look into ones eyes or after you've done the deed and realized you haven't killed just a monkey, maybe that's when the digging begins.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 taking on hunting isn't for everyone,some folks just cant do it,no stomach for it & thats ok , they can just let it be. However,if someone is hunting something with the intention of killing it , they better get past the tears & sniffles before they set off on a hunt imo. ive hunted for 30 years or so now, put a lot of meat in the freezer & some nice racks on the wall.......point is ive grown up around it & most of my buddies did too.i was very happy at my first deer,turkey etc. & others ive seen(like my kid) also were elated w/ that 1st deer etc. cant say ive ever seen anyone cry over it & ive never cried over an animal ive shot..ever..... but , my dad made d@&* sure i understood it is a deadly proposition and even at a young age then i knew that once you squeeze the trigger you cant press pause or replay & there are no time outs, so you better be prepared to accept the outcome & the responsibilities it brings, that includes what youre going to do with the body.....whether its a squatch or a deer,its too late for tears at that point,imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 If vets can tranq a horse, etc, why not use tranq guns, several of them, then when asleep get pictures, DNA samples and buccal swabs. Then run like the wind..... quickly and quietly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mesabe Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I know you have no rights when it comes to Indian graves etc., but animal finds, even dinosaur finds are yours if found on private property. Not sure Bogger, around here you aren't even allowed to touch empty abandoned bird nests from certain species. This happened back when I was a teen, and I just told the jist of what happened. There was more to the story, but I can't remember all the details. It could be, they expected to find human remains, or were just taking advantage of an old, unsophisticated farmer. I know the laws change too, over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I know you have no rights when it comes to Indian graves etc., but animal finds, even dinosaur finds are yours if found on private property. Not necessarily. Indian graves and human remains are protected. Indian artifacts may also be protected, depending on the State. Ancient animal remains (fossils) are generally considered minerals, and would be owned by whoever has the mineral rights, unless they are on the surface, in loose material. Mineral rights are usually specific, and it would be very rare that the rights to fossils were ever transferred to anyone other than the land owner (except in the case that ALL rights were transferred). What gets even nastier, is that anyone holding a lien or mortgage might also have a claim to the fossils. A lien will prevent the transfer of ownership. A party holding a mortgage would have to approve the sale (it would be just like selling off an acre from a mortgaged 40 acre plot). In the case of the farmer and the buffalo fossils, he probably ran into some socialist twit who thought the State owned everything. Well, the land owner (and/or his bank) could demand the institution return the fossils, have them charged with theft (for removing the fossils after he requested compensation), and the twit charged with impersonating an officer of the State (for threatening him with the authority of the State, when they had no such authority). Of course, he would need to make certain that no other entity owned the fossil mineral rights, as then, the fossils actually belong to that party. The institution could still demand remuneration for digging the things up, but if the owner demanded compensation before they were dug up, then the digging was part of the act of theft, and the institution can make no claim. In the case of Sue, the land "owner" sold the rights to the skeleton for $5,000. However, the land "owner" was an NA, whose tribe had surrendered ownership of the land to the Federal government, in exchange for handouts (aid). Sucking from the teat of government has its price, and the price was that the FBI came and collected Sue (from the institution that did the digging), because Uncle Sam owned that land. The land renter and the institution that did the digging were then charged with Federal crimes, essentially for stealing and selling stolen goods. If you are collecting minerals on Federal land, make certain you have leased the rights for the resources you are collecting. Wild animals are the property of the State, while they are living, and able to roam about. Carcasses, as the animal can no longer roam the land, become the property of the land owner. So if a bigfoot ends up dead in your back yard, IT IS YOURS. Moreover, most States require that land owners dispose of animal carcasses on their property, so not only is the carcass yours, but it is also your problem. The ONLY caveat, is that a bigfoot might be considered human. It does not matter whether your lawyer thinks it is human, it matters whether the police think it is human. The DNR only regulates living wild animals, and carcasses on State land, so if the police say, "not human", then it is yours, and you can do with it what you please. BTW, if someone has a lien on your property, you cannot transfer ownership of the carcass, and in the case of a mortgage, the bank must approve the transfer of ownership. Now, if you find that bigfoot carcass on State or local land, things are different. If the police think it is human, then it goes with the coroner. If the police think it is a wild animal, then it is the property of the State (or the local municipality). Depending on the type of land (National park, National forest, State park, County preserve, water reclamation district, etc.) you may be able to claim ownership of the carcass. The DNR will know, just make sure you know what land you found it on. You can ALWAYS poke, prod, and photograph a State owned carcass; you just can't remove it, or pieces of it. After the police don't want it, you should then call up the appropriate government owner. If you are on leased forest land, the carcass is probably yours, but you might want to call the Forest Service to make sure of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajciani Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Not sure Bogger, around here you aren't even allowed to touch empty abandoned bird nests from certain species. Because depending on the species, they might not be abandoned. For example, eagles and osprey will reuse the same nest, but will leave it after their young leave the nest. Damaging the empty nest could cause the birds to not return (or possibly not even mate), or so some people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mesabe Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Because depending on the species, they might not be abandoned. For example, eagles and osprey will reuse the same nest, but will leave it after their young leave the nest. Damaging the empty nest could cause the birds to not return (or possibly not even mate), or so some people think. Wow, thanks for the above 2 posts. They were very enlightening, I think you will definately get a call if someone finds a dead BF. All joking aside, I wonder if what you said above, explains why we frequently see dead wolves (federally protected in Minn.) neatly lined up on the sides of the highway? Usually in front of a farm or feedlot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 This is where my armchair skills shine. I may not be an expert but I read and pay attention to what is the best current method. Stay far away from the body and shoot 9 seconds of blurry video so it looks like a stump. Walk away instead of investigating. Post on Youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Totally off-topic if you tried to take a blurry photo wouldn't it come out crystal clear?? Camera's are so fickle..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 It's not that big a deal for me hunting is not about killing, and for me there's been little of that in recent years I just like to be out there. If biggie is out there and you had the chance to shoot one could you really pull the trigger? That's really my point, we and I would like to think we could but who knows after you look into ones eyes or after you've done the deed and realized you haven't killed just a monkey, maybe that's when the digging begins.... Cervelo, As for myself, I'd never pull the trigger. Be no different than goin' out an shootin' a mountain gorilla or a chimp, I think such killin' is a shame. I've no problem with huntin' in general, but I simply think some animals, well, ought not to be hunted is all. I'm of the opinion sasquatchs are a ape of sorts, more so related to gorillas or chimps than to us, but such a incredible animal still shouldn't be killed just to prove it exists...in my opinion. I wouldn't...but that's just me...at that point...I'd already know they exist(if I had the chance to shoot one that is ). Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest FuriousGeorge Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I agree with that, Pat. I think there are animals that should not be hunted. I'm not anti-hunting in general. What I would really do is (if the body was already dead) call everyone that could possible get there. Send a picture so that they don't just laugh at me. I would also secure samples incase something happened before they got there. I would not move the body from that spot. If it's in grizzly territory, I would be away from the carcass but I would have an eye on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) Well, I must admit, that after acting so big and bad saying that I think shooting one is the only way to verify the creature, the only reason that I would shoot it would be if it was chasing me, and I would probably just fire into the air to try to scare it away. I'm too kind hearted, and too frightened to think about killing something if I could possibly escape from it. Of course, dying from fear could happen on my part... Hopefully I will be with others so someone would know what happened to me... Edited June 5, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts