Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Reaction To Fawn Beating: “Deer Are Not People”

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Whitetail 365
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

July 09, 2009

Reaction To Fawn Beating: “Deer Are Not People”

By Dave Hurteau

(see Elderly Women Charged With Beating Fawn To Death coverage from our Field Notes Blog)

From Don Surber’s blog in West Virginia’s Daily Mail:

A little old lady killed a deer in her garden. Now people on the Internet are demanding that she be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Goodness...

I wonder how many of them are vegans. . .

Richardson apparently defended her garden and now she has hired a lawyer to defend her.

How do we handle deer in the garden in Poca? With a bow and arrow — from the living room.
 
More Whitetail Headlines:

Connecticut Protesters Oppose Suburban Deer Hunt

Idaho Couple Lose Hunting Privileges For Life

Arkansas Plans City Deer Hunts

One Deer Hits Hotel; Another Crashes Pizza Shop

Comments (65)

Top Rated
All Comments
from MB915 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

It does not seem that Don Surber, was taught proper hunting ethics, or how to follow the law. While many of us hunters hunt in our backyards and probably shoot deer that are eating plants in our gardens(I am guilty as charged). We do it during the specified season and in the most humane way possible. I see no problem with that at all. What I do see a problem with is someone seeing a fawn bedded in their garden, going to the garage and getting a shovel and beating it to death. Then putting it in a box on setting it on the curb so the trash service could pick it up. She should be charged as a poacher since the deer(fawn) was out of season and for waste of a game animal if Ohio has that as a law.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

I have to agree with MB915,
I take great pains to minimize animal suffering every time I make a kill (through careful shot placement and practicing with my weapon mostly), and have slept poorly more than once in my life after failing to do so.

Keeping deer out of your garden can be a real pain in the a$$, but that doesn't mean you can kill game animals out of season or beat a fawn to death with a shovel. Good lord...

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Don Surber is out of his mind. I wonder what he'd think if somebody beat his dog to death and left it bleeding on his living room floor. I mean, a dog isn't a human, right? I can't believe there are people out there that think it is okay to hit a baby deer with a shovel until it dies. It's twisted.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

This falls under the description of animal cruelty and unless the woman has some medical/mental issues that we are unaware of, she should be prosecuted just as anyone else would be.

After all, justice is supposed to be blind in this country.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

No, it does not fall under the category of "animal cruelty." It's a woman defending her garden from an animal pest. If it had been a skunk shed nailed, no one would blink. Until all the frigging goody two shoes big nanny state intrusive government "animals are people too" decide that they individually and personally willing to buy Grandma a gun so that she can do it quickly, or else pay for someone to get the fawn out of her garden, they ought to STFU.

All this politically correct baloney over a woman protecting her garden with the only tool she had to hand is absurd.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

O.K., Mike. I did my part on your previous posts to offset the negative ratings. The problem with PC is that it is easy, and it makes people feel good. We don't talk about rights anymore or individual liberties, we talk about feelings. It wasn't that long ago that a man who hurt someone's feeling while acting within the bounds of the law was free to say, "I don't give a rip." I wasn't going to comment on this story, but I agree with what you say. The insidious way PC works is that when something is right but unpopular, it's just too much freaking work to explain it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from vtbluegrass wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

So lets get this woman some damage permits so you people crying about hunting season can calm down. Since when are deer compared to dogs? Deer are not domesticated companion animals. For that matter neither are wild dogs and wild cats, the latter being more prevalent. There is no hunting allowed on Sunday in my state of NC, but guess what happens if a groundhog happens to be in my garden on Sunday. And my goodness I believe I have even killed baby groundhogs and baby rabbits eating my beans.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

vtbluegrass, since when are deer considered less than dogs? The point being made in this article is that you should be able to beat the he%& out of anything as long as it's not a human being and I don't agree with that. There is no difference in beating a dog or a fawn to death.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike,
I couldn't disagree with you more. (And Armchair, I think your equating the shovel-beating of a fawn with P.C. standards gone awry is a stretch at best).

You are right that a deer is not a human, and is therefore not entitled to the same legal rights afforded to humans. With that said, it is still a living creature and should be afforded some amount of respect and consideration. We had some pretty well publicised incidents this last winter here in Wisconsin regarding deer being run down by snowmobiles. By your reasoning, it could be argued those creeps did nothing wrong since a "deer is not a human".

Yes, the deer was eating her garden. Too "effing" bad. The neighbor dog also ran on my lawn last night. Doesn't give me the right to shoot it.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

I agree with most of the things stated above... but i really do not think she should be charged so harshly. I mean I highly doubt that she knew what she was doing was going to be illegal, she probably saw it as defending her garden. Like I said before, maybe give her a fine and some anger management sessions.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"With that said, it is still a living creature and should be afforded some amount of respect and consideration."

There's three ways to do it. One is with a gun or some other firearm like a bow. That'd be pretty quick, but you can bet a dollar to a doughnut that there's a local ordnance preventing her from using one of those, even if she owns one. The second way is with a blunt instrument. In her shoes, I'd have chosen an axe. That's how many livestock are killed. The third way is to pay a buttload of money to a contractor or the local animal control officer. Frankly, I don't agree with the whole pc and big intrusive gov't baloney that says that you need a permit for sneezing, but I suppose there must be some silent crowd of champions like yourself who'd automatically step up and pay some old retiree's animal control bill if you reduced their options to that one narrow choice. Yeah. Sure there are.

"We had some pretty well publicised incidents this last winter here in Wisconsin regarding deer being run down by snowmobiles. By your reasoning, it could be argued those creeps did nothing wrong since a "deer is not a human"."

Nope. If you're dumb enough to equate a group of hooligans going out in snowmobiles into what amounts to deer's normal habitat with someone killing an urban pest in their garden, you're not qualified to serve on a jury.

"Yes, the deer was eating her garden. Too "effing" bad."

That says it all. Political correctness trumping the most basic of elementary property rights.

"The neighbor dog also ran on my lawn last night. Doesn't give me the right to shoot it."

It's a straw man comparison to compare a wild animal that is damaging a person's property with a domestic pet that isn't damaging someone's property. Every time some PC PETA-HSUS type cooks up one of these straw man comparisons it just makes the argument against the old lady look that much weaker.

IMO, if your neighbor's dog was breaking into your chicken coop, you'd have every right to kill it, with an axe, rope, baseball bat, or any other tool you'd care to use to do the job. There's a world of difference between "live and let live" (which is my position) and your position that insists that people must simply accept being a victim of whatever misfortune befalls them, however preventable.

You're probably one of those people who thinks financial criminals don't really harm anyone, and that stiff sentences for poor home burglars are cruel too.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Bob81, replace "shovel beating" with "sticking with an arrow" or "shooting with a rifle that leaves an exit hole the size of a softball" and see if you feel better. For that matter, try "catching in a spiked trap" for moles or "feeding poison" for rats. Again, we ain't talking about hunting here.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"You're probably one of those people who thinks financial criminals don't really harm anyone, and that stiff sentences for poor home burglars are cruel too."

Absolutely not. I think it's a travesty of our justice system that the local low-life who gets caught with a little drugs usually spends 10 times as much time in jail as the banker who steals millions of dollars from the public. As far as robbers, they should consider themselves lucky to not get beaten and shot by the homeowner, and deserve whatever sentance is handed to them. I usually agree with your arguments on this board, but I much appreciate you not making insinuations into my beliefs that you clearly know nothing about.

To get somewhat back on topic, there are limits to property rights for a reason. I cannot use DDT on my property to kill pests. I cannot pour hazardous waste into the ground of my own yard. I cannot hunt ducks and geese that land in my pond in March. I am of the feeling there are very good reasons for these restrictions, and property owners should not be given absolutely unlimited rights to the conduct performed on or to thier property.

A deer is game animal and belongs to the citizens of my state. As Armchair suggests, if I replace "shovel beating" with "stick and arrow" or "shooting with a rifle", and also (and this part is important) put this story in the context of a legal hunting season while following my municipalities regulations, then yes I do feel much better.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

It doesn't matter if a person feels it's a "pest" or not.

The law is the law, and while there a plenty of laws that are stupid (IMHO) that doesn't mean I can ignore them.

So the law say's it's animal cruelty and grandma is gonna have to pay.

Don't like the laws, try to change 'em.

Jim

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

And frankly, I find your position that an animal breaking into the chicken coop can ethically be dispatched in any manner desired, no matter how inhumane is disturbing to say the least.

Go ahead and label me a bleeding-heart, tree-hugger, or PETA type if it makes you feel better, but as a human with reasoning ability, empathy and compassion, I believe we are responsible to minimize suffering whenever possible when dealing with forms of life lower than we are.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"I cannot use DDT on my property to kill pests. I cannot pour hazardous waste into the ground of my own yard."

You can't do that because those actions pose a threat to people and resources NOT on your property. That's why those laws were passed.

"I cannot hunt ducks and geese that land in my pond in March."

That also is true. But if you were breeding fish for food and consumption, you probably could get away with killing a few of them. If they were a recurring problem, you could get (probably) a pest control permit.

"I am of the feeling there are very good reasons for these restrictions, and property owners should not be given absolutely unlimited rights to the conduct performed on or to thier property."

And I agree. I also agree that the fawn was public property. But there is plenty of tolerance for the removal of nuisance animals, both publically and privately owned ones. If she'd smashed a publically-owned rat with a shovel, would she be charged with "animal cruelty?" I doubt it. The deer had, as others have noted, crossed over from the point of being a publically owned game animal otherwise of no particular notice to being a pest.

In my view, she implemented a reasonable a pracitical low-cost solution to a legitimate problem. I don't know the local legal code, but I can say that were I on the jury I'd probably acquit. The law requires blindness towards race and class, not blindness to common sense.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kim wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

She probably could have spooked the fawn into leaving but she was scared. The thing is that according to the article she lives in an area that is always frequented by wildlife. Either she should have bought somewhere else or called an agency for help. I don't condone what she did but on the other hand I don't believe she is a criminal either. There are poachers and repeat poachers that have this much publicity. I belive that probation with instructions to call an agency to help remove the animal should do it. Afterall, if it was a bear she would have been burning up the phone lines.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Diehl, if you think your life is constantly harried by regulations, you need to move from whatever hellhole you live in, or relax, have a beer, and get real. Life really does seem bad if you make up all this crap about how bad it is. Quit making all these negative assumptions and stop trying to politicize this by relating it to your big government nightmare. No one regulates sneezing, and you can fire guns in your backyard in OH.

PS - I didn't nail you with negatives, I'm just annoyed at your whining and had to respond.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Would there be all this great wailing and gnashing of teeth if she had killed an adult deer out of season? I watched the CNN clip and apparently the lady is telling two different stories. On camera with the reporter it was "shooing it along with the face of the shovel". Previously it was "kill it and drag it to the edge of her property to send a message to the rest of the local deer herd". Treat her like a poacher and prosecute, as that's what she legally is, and let her take her lumps in the public forum for her shameless treatment. That fearing for her life nonsense sounds like something a politican would say when he gets caught with his pants down (literally).

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pagan_Hunter wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

****from other post******

Mike Diehl, I usually enjoy your posts, but I think this time you are painting a little too widely with your "Liberal nanny state" brush.

I think there are two issues here, legality and morality.

legality,
last I checked, poaching was defined as illegally killing an animal, not just illegally killing an animal for sporting purposes. It was out of season, AND she didn't have a license, sorry folks, that's poaching.

If I used my bow to shoot a 12 point buck out of season because it was bedding in suburban flower garden, would you stand up so strongly and say I wasn't poaching? I was just trying to protect my flowers!

She probably isn't guilty of animal abuse, I doubt there was any Mike Vick style sadistic intent involved.

Morality,
When we take an animal while hunting, we do it to feed our families. The loss in justified because it is necessary for our families to live. The same is true when we harvest lettuce for a salad or pull a trout out of the river to grill.

This is a very different thing, that rose garden is nowhere near necessary for her to live. She wants it. Just like that fawn wants a sheltered place to take a nap. Her want is no important than the fawns, and while she would be justified in shoo-ing it away or putting up a fence, she is by no means justified in slowly bludgeoning it to death.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"And frankly, I find your position that an animal breaking into the chicken coop can ethically be dispatched in any manner desired, no matter how inhumane is disturbing to say the least."

There are plenty of things that disturb me about the things people do. My level of disturbance is triggered by whether or not it's people being harmed and if not how necessary is "that thing which was done that seems to be of concern."

My reaction here has been to a number of people pretty much vilifying an old lady for that which strikes me as really trivial infractions of their sensibilities, and I don't agree that their sensibilities are sensible. When I want to feel outraged about something and be all to arms about it, crime, crappy educational opportunities, or in the sporting arena, REAL poachers (NOT little old ladies offing a garden pest), and REAL animal cruelty types (the kind who make a habit of kidnapping cats &c) are far more likely to trip my radar than a geriatric gardener keeping her yard in order.

As to animals raiding a chicken coop. 1) Those chickens are someone's property. 2) Under the example given they're in imminent danger. 3) Anything a dog (or a coyote or fox) is going to do to those chickens is at least as painful and gruesome than anything I could do to kill the dog. But ultimately, it has to be noted, that people have the RIGHT to defend their property.

I'd acquit the old lady. I'd acquit someone who bludgeoned a dog to death with a spiked board if that dog was raiding their chicken coop.

"I believe we are responsible to minimize suffering whenever possible when dealing with forms of life lower than we are."

I don't think the old lady inflicted unreasonable suffering on the fawn. If she'd roasted it alive you might have a better case in my view. She killed it with what was to hand and she did it in my view for a legitimate reason.

I'm more outraged that there are legions of holier than thou busybodies who'd call her a poacher or a criminal or a maniac for killing a garden pest. I really do think that there is serious doubt about the mental stability of some of the people criticizing her in this forum. And yes, whether it's called PC or Big Government intrusiveness in my view it's symptomatic of a kind of mass psychosis that says that every tom dick or harry should consider intruding into petty events in somone's back yard an opportunity to fatten their egos by looking down on the target of their disaffection.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"Diehl, if you think your life is constantly harried by regulations, you need to move from whatever hellhole you live in, or relax, have a beer, and get real."

This from the fellow who thinks the lady is a psycho because she eliminated a garden pest.

"PS - I didn't nail you with negatives, I'm just annoyed at your whining and had to respond"

You just wanted to whine in order to defend your previous whining. If you weren't a closet radical you wouldn't be here trying to have an old lady jailed for removing a pest from her yard.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Diehl,
We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. The bottom line is I don't think its right to wage war on the local baby deer with "spiked boards" "baseball bats" and "shovels" when they take a nap in my flower bed. If this makes me a hypocrite, since I kill and eat those deer come fall, because I trap mice that get in my basement, or because I smash mosquitos that bite me, so be it; the human brain is a complicated thing.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"last I checked, poaching was defined as illegally killing an animal, not just illegally killing an animal for sporting purposes. It was out of season, AND she didn't have a license, sorry folks, that's poaching."

Where I live, intent almost always matters in consideration as to whether a person is charged with an offense. Yes there are poachers out there. No, the lady doesn't qualify in my view. Our local definition of "poaching" may or may not differ from Ohio's or yours for that matter. The thing is, no law can be applied to consider every possible circumstance; that's the limit of human language for you. I know a poacher when I see one. The old lady doesn't meet any reasonable standard to be charged with poaching.

"If I used my bow to shoot a 12 point buck out of season because it was bedding in suburban flower garden, would you stand up so strongly and say I wasn't poaching? I was just trying to protect my flowers!"

Yes I would. If you did it regularly I'd suggest that you need a pest control permit. Do I expect a little old lady to be as conversant with the legal definition surrounding "illegal take of a game animal" when she isn't demostrably a hunter and likely to even understand that there are game management issues involved? No, I don't.

That's why I think the people here accusing her of being cruel, brutal, nuts, or suggesting that she be thrown in jail or fined to the max have their heads so far up their brown spots they'd need a backhoe to open them up so they could see daylight. I also think that's symptomatic of a society now in which every penny ante ego has to step up and express outrage over the minutia of other people's lives. There's little real difference, in my view, between the closet stasi berating the old lady in this forum, and the kooks who recently sent President Obama a more humane kind of fly trap because he slapped a bug.

There's people here in this forum who need to shut up, have a beer, and get a life, and those people are the ones bawling for the old lady's blood.

"She probably isn't guilty of animal abuse, I doubt there was any Mike Vick style sadistic intent involved."

Exactly. Likewise, there's no heap of trophy racks or recurring phenom here that really warrants a comparison between her and a poacher.

"When we take an animal while hunting, we do it to feed our families. The loss in justified because it is necessary for our families to live. The same is true when we harvest lettuce for a salad or pull a trout out of the river to grill."

One man's morality is another man's joke, often enough. I only hunt that which I can and will eat. But this isn't a moral issue in my view. If she were hunting and wasting meat, it'd be an ethical issue in the arena of outdoorsmanship, and we might think her a poor outdoorsman on account of it. But the case doesn't even rise to that level of concern. It's an old lady doddering around in her garden, protecting it in a way that seemed reasonable and convenient at the time.

Like I said. The day I see all her critics here voluntarily putting up their money to pay for animal control on others' property, I might concede that there was a better alternative available to her. But at the moment I don't see it that way.

"This is a very different thing, that rose garden is nowhere near necessary for her to live."

I know a guy who shoots woodpeckers that peck holes in his wooden house. I happen to know that because I mentioned this topic on a discussion forum full of moderates and conservatives and he piped up that's how he handles birds damaging his home. He doesn't need perfect walls to live, but I'd not charge and if on a jury not convict him of animal cruelty for protecting his property. When I was young, back east and a while ago, I knew people who shot squirrels making holes in their houses for similar reasons. I knew a man who once shot a rat in his driveway with a 16ga shotgun. I know people who poison mice. For a while in Louisville I knew a landlord who poisoned moles attacking his rosebushes.

The old lady's conduct is consistent with the way we treat other garden pests. It wasn't cruel, inappropriate, or unwarranted in my view.

"Her want is no important than the fawns,"

Sorry, I disagree. Her want definitely has precedence because she has property rights and the fawn doesn't.

"she is by no means justified in slowly bludgeoning it to death."

We don't know that it was particularly slow. Even so, I think she made a reasonable choice. Say what you will, I think it's stupid that she's being charged.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Are you insane? What whining? That was the first time I commented on this subject, and I said nothing regarding the deer or the lady. There you go again, making up more stuff to fit your grim worldview. I guess saying nothing makes me a closet radical. Makin' good sense...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Every time you pipe up Shane it sounds like whining to me. Apparently you're so intolerant you can't even handle me dissenting with others here.

I have a positive world view that only gets "grim" when I imagine a nation populated by fragile little noisemakers, all peering over each other's hedges and ready to condemn someone for keeping their yard in order, or to condemn someone for expressing defending the old lady's rights.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big C wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

The more I hear about this stoty the sicker I am to my stomach. I agree with most of the posts above. This lady just needs to be reminded that what she did was wrong and I am sure that she will see the error of her ways.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"We don't talk about rights anymore or individual liberties, we talk about feelings."

I agree that is part of the problem. And now, communities of hunters, that used to be the province of men and women with a firm grounding of their place in nature, has been infiltrated by all kinds of SNAGs (*) whose feelings are offended by, well, pretty much anything.

Her critics here are the kinds of people who should wear shirts with embroidered images of a pocketknife because a real pocketknife is probably beyond their ability to safely use.

* SNAG: Sensitive New Age Guy

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hunter Savage wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

i have deer fencing all around my garden seven foot tall and 300 feet long, that i buy every year to guard my garden. i bust my bass to on that garden ,after putting in a 10 - 12 hour work day during the week i come home and work on the garden . and spend hours in it on the week ends , to put food in my freezer for the winter if i catch deer in it they dont come out the same way they went in . they come out quite dead and laying on their sides. and they go in the larder for the winter . i spend to much time and money on my garden to let the deer ,rabbits and any other pest eat what they want. i say more hunters around this sight need a reality check more than i thought . poacher my foot

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big O wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

She killed the D&%$ thing OUT OF SEASON, WITH A NON APPROVED(State/Federal) WEAPON ! As I've said POACHING IS POACHING !

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from LTW wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

For the record, a poacher is someone who intentionally kills a game animal out of season. A deer is, by definition, a big game animal regardless of how old it is. Obviously, the old lady had no clue of this fact, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be reprimanded. I don't think she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law since she was obviously clueless, but at least she should get a citation/warning or a small fine.

This is a perfect opportunity for the wildlife department to make people aware that all she had to do was get a nuisance permit to legally kill the deer.

If the fawn was still young enough to stay bedded and not run from her, chances are it was still on a strictly milk diet from its mother anyway. If she was trying to stop deer from eating her flowers she shoulda killed the momma!

The future of our sport depends on hunters setting good examples and being law-abiding citizens. Its kinda sad how many people on here are advocating that the woman did absolutely nothing wrong, when, in fact, she broke the law. We certainly don't all agree with the letter of the law, but like it or not we have to abide by it.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

She wasn't as hunter, therefore she wasn't setting an example about hunting.

One of the charges is animal cruelty. It's a chickenturd charge. If she'd killed it with an axe would that have been preferable? Axes (I guess these days hydraulic hammers) are used to slaughter beef cattle.

The other charge is possibly some sort of game law violation. My point is that she clearly wasn't poaching. She clearly didn't seek out a deer to kill. And it clearly was a threat to her garden. Any suburban gardener would think so, and if the fawn wasn't it is for sure the doe was. Since the woman doesn't hunt, or at least it would seem that way, a reasonable person dealing with her level of information would conclude that the deer was a pest.

The people calling for her blood over this are idiots. I'd take her for a neighbor over her critics ANY DAY. At the least, she's not a nosy busybody with toxically anthropomorphized view of the natural world.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"Obviously, the old lady had no clue of this fact, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be reprimanded. I don't think she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law since she was obviously clueless, but at least she should get a citation/warning or a small fine."

By the way, in case it's not clear, I agree. The prosecutor in this case missed a good opportunity to exercise the sort of good judgement that lots of people (but not everyone, obviously), develop by the time they're twenty.

This is a case for a LEO to explain to her that she needed a predation permit, and to tell her not to do it again. Charges of ANY kind, criminal, misdemeanor, or civil, are not warranted, IMO.

"If she was trying to stop deer from eating her flowers she shoulda killed the momma!"

I agree. Given the general level of public knowledge of animals, however, it's not surprising that her world view was "a deer is a deer is a pest when it's in my garden."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntcamp wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Poaching is poaching, ignorance is not an excuse. I had a deer eating my hay that I was going to sell. No shovel in sight though. It is a fricken garden, plants grow back. There are preventative measures for keeping deer out. She should be ticketed in some fashion. She committed a crime. Just because she killed a fawn instead of a buck, still poaching. Just take the roadkill buck from WI. He took an already dead deer and got fined and probably has to give the head back. Rodents are a different story, no season. All she needed to do was pick up a phone and call someone. I bet plenty of people would have helped. Fawn probably would have been gone before that anyway.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from BamaHunter wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Are you all forgetting that any fawn young enough to remain bedded while an old lady walked up to it is more than likely too young to have ever consumed a flower in its life? She wasn't defending anything from this deer. This should be handled by convicting the woman of some offense( out of season, wrong weapon, no hunter orange, take your pick) and then fining her twenty bucks along with probation. You then have the idea put out that this is an unacceptable way to deal with deer in the garden and you haven't dealt overly harshly with what is probably the first and last game law violation of her life.
I realize that this won't satisfy combatants on EITHER side of the argument. Most of you seem inclined toward absolute innocence or throwing the book at her.
This incident is also a very strong argument for a legitimate deer harvest in suburban areas.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big O wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Words of wisdom from BammaHunter, so +1 for you sir.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike calls people who object to the lady killing the fawn liberal wimps. I feel compelled to kill a baby animal to prove my manhood.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

I like huntcamp's comment. Mike reckons that she acted reasonably, because of her perceived lack of knowledge about animals. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I contend that there was very little reason in her action, huntcamp quite rightly points out that she could have phoned for help. I think beating a fawn to death with a shovel is an over the top rage induced action. Hunting is not about killing every animal that crosses your path with whatever means, but about skill and respect for your quarry. The skillful hunter uses fieldcraft to close in on his prey, and wisely selects his equipment that he is practised with, to make a clean kill. If the shot is not on, you don't take it. Like so many human endavours, it is the denying of self that elevates ethical hunting to something noble. I realise that no-one called the lady a hunter, but the people on this thread who defend her make us guilty by association.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Shovels are only appropriate weapons for wild boar. Apparently, anything is.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Excuse me, feral hogs too. Especially.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

sjsmarais, not only do i agree with you but I am and have always been conservative. This talk about how if you don't feel the old lady was right in what she did makes you a liberal wimp is the most ignorant statement ever made. Mike apparently has some issues that need dealt with.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from usmcturkey wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

If this were say a teenager who went out and beat his fawn, you know as well as I do they would be getting the book. They would say that he or she is a killer, must be video games. The law in this country like said be for should "be blind to all people." But in reality its not, the lady was scared for her life from something that weighs maybe 20 pounds. I mean come on, I am not saying make an example out of her but the law should apply.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"Mike reckons that she acted reasonably, because of her perceived lack of knowledge about animals."

No. I reckon she acted reasonably because killing an urban garden pest is reasonable conduct.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

That's true. But capricious prosecution betrays an ignorance of the law's intent that is likewise inexcusable.

"I think beating a fawn to death with a shovel is an over the top rage induced action."

This is exactly the sort of thing to which I object. A woman you don't know kills a fawn. By all accounts her neighbors figure her a nice old lady, but all the armchair psychologists in the hook and bullet crowd are calling for her institutionalization.

There's a reason why lots of people in these forums scoff at the other outrageous examples of "zero tolerance" out there. A teenaged girl gets strip-searched in Safford AZ by school officials because some other student accused her of carrying ibuprofen. A kid gets suspened from school for drawing a picture of a ray-gun because of the school's zero tolerance firearms policy. A drill team member in the central US is suspended for having one of those faux rifles that baton twirlers use for similar reasons. A student in Vermont is censured by his teacher and characterized as a kind of lunatic because he mentions that he hunts.

The language here directed at the old lady is the language of PETA. Extreme intolerance for very mild unusual conduct, rife with all the self-appointed nitwit guardians of public virtue calling for the blood of an old lady and concocting profiles wholesale because she removed a pest from her garden. And by extension, low life internet trolls telling me I have issues or must need counseling because I'm defending her.

THAT's why I made the observation about "liberal wimps." Not because killing a fawn makes a person a tough guy, but rather because a whole lot of people who don't know shai hulud about the old lady or for that matter me have coopted all of the P.C. language and "victim outrage" of the sort that we only used to see from left wing radicals.

"Hunting is not about killing every animal that crosses your path with whatever means, but about skill and respect for your quarry."

No one here needs a lecture about hunting. We all agree that the old lady wasn't hunting. We all agree that we'd all have figured out a better approach to her problem.

"I realise that no-one called the lady a hunter, but the people on this thread who defend her make us guilty by association."

Baloney. That's just more left-wing style PC doublespeak. "Guilt by association?" That's what PETA wants you to believe. We don't go for "guilt by association" in the USA, but I understand that sort of thing is common in totalitarian states.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"Mike apparently has some issues that need dealt with."

My issue is a concern with all of the holier than thou types with no understanding of the complexity of the law, no particular knowledge of the problem (did any of you read the article about the deer problem around Cleveland... it seems that some did and rightfully noted that urban pest control is needed), and no particular knowledge of the old lady, are calling to have her tarred and feathered.

My point of view is that such a reaction does not look us, AS A COMMUNITY of sportsmen,look like "reasonable moderate people." It makes us look like we're a bunch of crazies who are ready to throw anyone to the wolves in defiance of common sense just to assuage that element of society who anthropomorphize animals.

And yeah. I started out annoyed but now I'm downright pissed off. Some scumbag in the other thread's only contribution to the discussion is three lines of personal invective and I'm the one who's "instigating?" Anyone who doesn't like my p.o.v. can f.o.a.d.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike,
Walk away from the computer and take a couple deep breaths. Everything is going to be ok...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

That is one of the few sensible things I've heard so far. I think I'll just do that.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike-
We still love ya man!
You keep this place interesting,informed and entertaining ... to say the least!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike, since you love this particular format:

"My issue is a concern with all of the holier than thou types with no understanding of the complexity of the law"

I don't think I'm better than her, I think she did something wrong and needs to be fined for it. I already stated she doesn't deserve to be thrown in jail. And I understand the law just fine -- law says she's not allowed to beat a fawn to death. Period.

"...are calling to have her tarred and feathered."

What? Who said that? She shouldn't be tarred, feathered, stoned or crucified or any of that. Just penalized in some minor way to discipline her for her unjustified actions.

"My point of view is that such a reaction does not look us, AS A COMMUNITY of sportsmen,look like "reasonable moderate people."

Actually, the point of view most of us have expressed is entirely reasonable and in keeping with most other peoples' views, regardless of which demographic they belong to. Why is it unreasonable or shed bad light on us that we think she should pay a fine for this?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Besides mike acting like a rabid fox in a henhouse with all the personal attacks here one could think it was your grandma u where defending. and then your undoubtedly unpopular wiev of all this falls into place much more..
Good thing baby mike didnt crawl into the rosebushes:P
Wouldnt have anyone to fight with:D

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sick STi wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

There are more humane ways to take care of that situation, other than beating it to death with a shovel. That just isn't right.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Good for granny. I think the only thing she did wrong was she should have burried the carcass and shut up. Hence the saying shovel and shutup. If your feelings are hurt because someone kills a pest your a moron. People are people, and animals are animals. A quick shovel to the head is just as humane as an arrow the heart, maybe more humane beings that it was probably out on the first hit and didn't feel anything any more,and a arrow takes awhile to bleed out.
I do think you should hunt legally and all that, but there are times when a pest is a pest nomatter what kind of animal it is. If you don't agree maybe we should have a rat season or a mosquito season.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntcamp wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

An illegal act is an illegal act. Yes animals are animals, but some animals are held with much higher regard than others. There are reason why we have no rodent seasons, they can spread deseases and things. Yes deer populations are too high in places, but doesn't give anyone the right to take the law into their own hands. Most poachers get caught not in the act, but when they brag at a bar. She should be fined a small amount, nothing to harsh. Anyone dumb enough to believe that she feared for her life is almost as ignorant as PETA. Living in the country she has had to come across a few deer in her day. What is a spotted owl going to land in her garden next, will it share the same fate? What is the difference? Animals are animals right? What about a Bald Eagle?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Do bald eagles live in your garden? No. Animals are animals and I think we should have the right as land owners to protect our crops from whatever pests there are whether they are grasshoppers, deer, elk whatever.
Living where I do and farming and ranching, i see the damage done by these animals to our crops. Then the state doesn't put out enough tags or reimburse us for our loses. What do you think we have to do? I know it is a little different when its a garden, but raising crops is my livelyhood and if i can not keep them from damaging them I go broke. Also bald eagles don't eat gardens nor does a spotted owl. They prey on the pests.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from libertyfirst wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

If this person broke a wildlife law than The penalty for breaking that law should be enforced. If a fine is called for than a fine should be paid. Equating the killing of a defenseless young animal by blunt trauma to a well placed bullet during hunting season is a serious misstep. To me this action is the same as pulling a birds nest with 5 young chicks to the ground and crushing them with the heel of your boot, it simply makes no sense and is by every definition a cruel and unusual activity. We hunters don't hunt in the early summer because the killing of immature and unwary animals is beneath our level of ethical behavior. It's not the season that limits us, it is our standards. I sincerely doubt that any hunter I know would have killed this young deer.
I see nothing wrong with hunters distancing ourselves from this type of unethical behavior and condemning it for what it is-STUPIDITY!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntcamp wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Fawns sucking milk from moms teet does not harm gardens either. For protection from crop damage, that is why there are crop damage tags. Just need to call and get some. Gardens in my opinion do not fall under crops and should not be treated as such. I am not saying Bald Eagles or Spotted Owls live in gardens, although they may be in one every once in awhile. Are we saying kill everything that comes into gardens? Just because they might bend a few flowers. Take crop land out, that is a whole different story, that is lively hood at stake. We are in no means dependent on our gardens to survive. That would be one heck of a big garden. Yes I have seen what deer can do to crops and gardens. Turkeys are worse. If a person breaks a law and gets caught breaking that law than they should be punished in some way fitting the crime. The book should notbe thrown at this woman, but there should be a fine of some sort.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

WOW..This has been one hell-a-v-a-topic!
This was a game animal,and not a vermin or "non game" animal. So, I think some kind of punishment needs to be given out. I am not saying lock this gal up with bread & water, but that was a regulated game species so some fine needs to apply-IMO.
Now, a story; In the late 1970's a friend of the family had been hunting in the upper peninsula here in Michigan and shot a deer while "skirting" private land. The deer was literally shot, jumped over a fence, and died. A MDNR officer saw the entire thing, and confiscated our friend's gun, and the deer, and issued him a ticket.
This guy went to court, LOST, and paid a hefty fine and lost his hunting rights for 5 years. Crime? "Shooting a game animal on private land without permission of the owner/trespass" According to our friend, the Officer told the Judge the exact story as it happened and still charged him with the offense.
So, I guess the point I am trying to make is that the LAW can make an example out of anyone they like; Even an elderly lady beating a fawn to death with a shovel, if they like! She chose to kill this animal, so let her pay for that choice.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Skeeb wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

To Mike, and all others saying it's all right,
What would you say if you saw someone beating a child with a shovel? Would you say, "oh little johnny was laying in her flowers, he deserves to be bludgeoned with a shovel"? No a baby is the same thing as a fawn...It is a life being taken in a very inhumane way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

In polite terms, Skeeb, your analogy would be called a straw man argument and also an instance of the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's also the sort of anthropomorphization to which I've referred in these threads. An animal isn't a human being. End of debate.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

All life should be respected! One should have respect enough for a game animal to end its life quickly and with minimum pain! And since it is regulated and protected as a game animal only with publickly approved means! And if we r all equal in the eyes of the law then an old lady breaking it also gets punished..
End of story

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

I wonder what John Wooters would have had to say about all this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 39 weeks ago

Forgive me Mike, but with all the negative ratings your posts have garnered, I don't think F&S are going to send you any gear to test. Unless it's a shovel of course ;-)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 39 weeks ago

Sometimes you run with an unpopular opinion because you know you're in the right and feedback be damned.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntcamp wrote 4 years 39 weeks ago

So, I guess we just pick and choose what laws we want to follow. Consequences be damned.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from cverstrate wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Mike, I agree wholeheartedly with you. The only reason there's such an uproar here is because the pest in this case is not a cockroach or rat, but Bambi.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Far Rider wrote 4 years 36 weeks ago

First of all, Mike, I agree with you and you've done an excellent job of defending your position.

Many of the demands expressed for the lady's conviction have been made on the basis that "The law is the law and it must apply no matter what." This sort of blind faith in laws is very dangerous. I don't mean that laws are worthless and should be disregarded at your every whim, but a man should consider for himself the meaning and intent of laws, not blindly revere them as infallible simply because some authoritative body decrees such. It may sound as though I'm advocating subjective law, but I'm not and believe that non-objective law is a dangerous evil to be guarded against above all else. The lady's right to property and protection thereof takes precedence over the law that deer may not be killed out of season. This is the basis from which any decision regarding the lady's actions must be made.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from BamaHunter wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Are you all forgetting that any fawn young enough to remain bedded while an old lady walked up to it is more than likely too young to have ever consumed a flower in its life? She wasn't defending anything from this deer. This should be handled by convicting the woman of some offense( out of season, wrong weapon, no hunter orange, take your pick) and then fining her twenty bucks along with probation. You then have the idea put out that this is an unacceptable way to deal with deer in the garden and you haven't dealt overly harshly with what is probably the first and last game law violation of her life.
I realize that this won't satisfy combatants on EITHER side of the argument. Most of you seem inclined toward absolute innocence or throwing the book at her.
This incident is also a very strong argument for a legitimate deer harvest in suburban areas.

+6 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike,
I couldn't disagree with you more. (And Armchair, I think your equating the shovel-beating of a fawn with P.C. standards gone awry is a stretch at best).

You are right that a deer is not a human, and is therefore not entitled to the same legal rights afforded to humans. With that said, it is still a living creature and should be afforded some amount of respect and consideration. We had some pretty well publicised incidents this last winter here in Wisconsin regarding deer being run down by snowmobiles. By your reasoning, it could be argued those creeps did nothing wrong since a "deer is not a human".

Yes, the deer was eating her garden. Too "effing" bad. The neighbor dog also ran on my lawn last night. Doesn't give me the right to shoot it.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from LTW wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

For the record, a poacher is someone who intentionally kills a game animal out of season. A deer is, by definition, a big game animal regardless of how old it is. Obviously, the old lady had no clue of this fact, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be reprimanded. I don't think she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law since she was obviously clueless, but at least she should get a citation/warning or a small fine.

This is a perfect opportunity for the wildlife department to make people aware that all she had to do was get a nuisance permit to legally kill the deer.

If the fawn was still young enough to stay bedded and not run from her, chances are it was still on a strictly milk diet from its mother anyway. If she was trying to stop deer from eating her flowers she shoulda killed the momma!

The future of our sport depends on hunters setting good examples and being law-abiding citizens. Its kinda sad how many people on here are advocating that the woman did absolutely nothing wrong, when, in fact, she broke the law. We certainly don't all agree with the letter of the law, but like it or not we have to abide by it.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntcamp wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Poaching is poaching, ignorance is not an excuse. I had a deer eating my hay that I was going to sell. No shovel in sight though. It is a fricken garden, plants grow back. There are preventative measures for keeping deer out. She should be ticketed in some fashion. She committed a crime. Just because she killed a fawn instead of a buck, still poaching. Just take the roadkill buck from WI. He took an already dead deer and got fined and probably has to give the head back. Rodents are a different story, no season. All she needed to do was pick up a phone and call someone. I bet plenty of people would have helped. Fawn probably would have been gone before that anyway.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

I have to agree with MB915,
I take great pains to minimize animal suffering every time I make a kill (through careful shot placement and practicing with my weapon mostly), and have slept poorly more than once in my life after failing to do so.

Keeping deer out of your garden can be a real pain in the a$$, but that doesn't mean you can kill game animals out of season or beat a fawn to death with a shovel. Good lord...

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Diehl, if you think your life is constantly harried by regulations, you need to move from whatever hellhole you live in, or relax, have a beer, and get real. Life really does seem bad if you make up all this crap about how bad it is. Quit making all these negative assumptions and stop trying to politicize this by relating it to your big government nightmare. No one regulates sneezing, and you can fire guns in your backyard in OH.

PS - I didn't nail you with negatives, I'm just annoyed at your whining and had to respond.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big O wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

She killed the D&%$ thing OUT OF SEASON, WITH A NON APPROVED(State/Federal) WEAPON ! As I've said POACHING IS POACHING !

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from cverstrate wrote 4 years 37 weeks ago

Mike, I agree wholeheartedly with you. The only reason there's such an uproar here is because the pest in this case is not a cockroach or rat, but Bambi.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from MB915 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

It does not seem that Don Surber, was taught proper hunting ethics, or how to follow the law. While many of us hunters hunt in our backyards and probably shoot deer that are eating plants in our gardens(I am guilty as charged). We do it during the specified season and in the most humane way possible. I see no problem with that at all. What I do see a problem with is someone seeing a fawn bedded in their garden, going to the garage and getting a shovel and beating it to death. Then putting it in a box on setting it on the curb so the trash service could pick it up. She should be charged as a poacher since the deer(fawn) was out of season and for waste of a game animal if Ohio has that as a law.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

vtbluegrass, since when are deer considered less than dogs? The point being made in this article is that you should be able to beat the he%& out of anything as long as it's not a human being and I don't agree with that. There is no difference in beating a dog or a fawn to death.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

And frankly, I find your position that an animal breaking into the chicken coop can ethically be dispatched in any manner desired, no matter how inhumane is disturbing to say the least.

Go ahead and label me a bleeding-heart, tree-hugger, or PETA type if it makes you feel better, but as a human with reasoning ability, empathy and compassion, I believe we are responsible to minimize suffering whenever possible when dealing with forms of life lower than we are.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Diehl,
We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. The bottom line is I don't think its right to wage war on the local baby deer with "spiked boards" "baseball bats" and "shovels" when they take a nap in my flower bed. If this makes me a hypocrite, since I kill and eat those deer come fall, because I trap mice that get in my basement, or because I smash mosquitos that bite me, so be it; the human brain is a complicated thing.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

I like huntcamp's comment. Mike reckons that she acted reasonably, because of her perceived lack of knowledge about animals. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I contend that there was very little reason in her action, huntcamp quite rightly points out that she could have phoned for help. I think beating a fawn to death with a shovel is an over the top rage induced action. Hunting is not about killing every animal that crosses your path with whatever means, but about skill and respect for your quarry. The skillful hunter uses fieldcraft to close in on his prey, and wisely selects his equipment that he is practised with, to make a clean kill. If the shot is not on, you don't take it. Like so many human endavours, it is the denying of self that elevates ethical hunting to something noble. I realise that no-one called the lady a hunter, but the people on this thread who defend her make us guilty by association.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike,
Walk away from the computer and take a couple deep breaths. Everything is going to be ok...

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntcamp wrote 4 years 39 weeks ago

So, I guess we just pick and choose what laws we want to follow. Consequences be damned.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

O.K., Mike. I did my part on your previous posts to offset the negative ratings. The problem with PC is that it is easy, and it makes people feel good. We don't talk about rights anymore or individual liberties, we talk about feelings. It wasn't that long ago that a man who hurt someone's feeling while acting within the bounds of the law was free to say, "I don't give a rip." I wasn't going to comment on this story, but I agree with what you say. The insidious way PC works is that when something is right but unpopular, it's just too much freaking work to explain it.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FloridaHunter1226 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

I agree with most of the things stated above... but i really do not think she should be charged so harshly. I mean I highly doubt that she knew what she was doing was going to be illegal, she probably saw it as defending her garden. Like I said before, maybe give her a fine and some anger management sessions.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"With that said, it is still a living creature and should be afforded some amount of respect and consideration."

There's three ways to do it. One is with a gun or some other firearm like a bow. That'd be pretty quick, but you can bet a dollar to a doughnut that there's a local ordnance preventing her from using one of those, even if she owns one. The second way is with a blunt instrument. In her shoes, I'd have chosen an axe. That's how many livestock are killed. The third way is to pay a buttload of money to a contractor or the local animal control officer. Frankly, I don't agree with the whole pc and big intrusive gov't baloney that says that you need a permit for sneezing, but I suppose there must be some silent crowd of champions like yourself who'd automatically step up and pay some old retiree's animal control bill if you reduced their options to that one narrow choice. Yeah. Sure there are.

"We had some pretty well publicised incidents this last winter here in Wisconsin regarding deer being run down by snowmobiles. By your reasoning, it could be argued those creeps did nothing wrong since a "deer is not a human"."

Nope. If you're dumb enough to equate a group of hooligans going out in snowmobiles into what amounts to deer's normal habitat with someone killing an urban pest in their garden, you're not qualified to serve on a jury.

"Yes, the deer was eating her garden. Too "effing" bad."

That says it all. Political correctness trumping the most basic of elementary property rights.

"The neighbor dog also ran on my lawn last night. Doesn't give me the right to shoot it."

It's a straw man comparison to compare a wild animal that is damaging a person's property with a domestic pet that isn't damaging someone's property. Every time some PC PETA-HSUS type cooks up one of these straw man comparisons it just makes the argument against the old lady look that much weaker.

IMO, if your neighbor's dog was breaking into your chicken coop, you'd have every right to kill it, with an axe, rope, baseball bat, or any other tool you'd care to use to do the job. There's a world of difference between "live and let live" (which is my position) and your position that insists that people must simply accept being a victim of whatever misfortune befalls them, however preventable.

You're probably one of those people who thinks financial criminals don't really harm anyone, and that stiff sentences for poor home burglars are cruel too.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"You're probably one of those people who thinks financial criminals don't really harm anyone, and that stiff sentences for poor home burglars are cruel too."

Absolutely not. I think it's a travesty of our justice system that the local low-life who gets caught with a little drugs usually spends 10 times as much time in jail as the banker who steals millions of dollars from the public. As far as robbers, they should consider themselves lucky to not get beaten and shot by the homeowner, and deserve whatever sentance is handed to them. I usually agree with your arguments on this board, but I much appreciate you not making insinuations into my beliefs that you clearly know nothing about.

To get somewhat back on topic, there are limits to property rights for a reason. I cannot use DDT on my property to kill pests. I cannot pour hazardous waste into the ground of my own yard. I cannot hunt ducks and geese that land in my pond in March. I am of the feeling there are very good reasons for these restrictions, and property owners should not be given absolutely unlimited rights to the conduct performed on or to thier property.

A deer is game animal and belongs to the citizens of my state. As Armchair suggests, if I replace "shovel beating" with "stick and arrow" or "shooting with a rifle", and also (and this part is important) put this story in the context of a legal hunting season while following my municipalities regulations, then yes I do feel much better.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

It doesn't matter if a person feels it's a "pest" or not.

The law is the law, and while there a plenty of laws that are stupid (IMHO) that doesn't mean I can ignore them.

So the law say's it's animal cruelty and grandma is gonna have to pay.

Don't like the laws, try to change 'em.

Jim

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"I cannot use DDT on my property to kill pests. I cannot pour hazardous waste into the ground of my own yard."

You can't do that because those actions pose a threat to people and resources NOT on your property. That's why those laws were passed.

"I cannot hunt ducks and geese that land in my pond in March."

That also is true. But if you were breeding fish for food and consumption, you probably could get away with killing a few of them. If they were a recurring problem, you could get (probably) a pest control permit.

"I am of the feeling there are very good reasons for these restrictions, and property owners should not be given absolutely unlimited rights to the conduct performed on or to thier property."

And I agree. I also agree that the fawn was public property. But there is plenty of tolerance for the removal of nuisance animals, both publically and privately owned ones. If she'd smashed a publically-owned rat with a shovel, would she be charged with "animal cruelty?" I doubt it. The deer had, as others have noted, crossed over from the point of being a publically owned game animal otherwise of no particular notice to being a pest.

In my view, she implemented a reasonable a pracitical low-cost solution to a legitimate problem. I don't know the local legal code, but I can say that were I on the jury I'd probably acquit. The law requires blindness towards race and class, not blindness to common sense.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Are you insane? What whining? That was the first time I commented on this subject, and I said nothing regarding the deer or the lady. There you go again, making up more stuff to fit your grim worldview. I guess saying nothing makes me a closet radical. Makin' good sense...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Hunter Savage wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

i have deer fencing all around my garden seven foot tall and 300 feet long, that i buy every year to guard my garden. i bust my bass to on that garden ,after putting in a 10 - 12 hour work day during the week i come home and work on the garden . and spend hours in it on the week ends , to put food in my freezer for the winter if i catch deer in it they dont come out the same way they went in . they come out quite dead and laying on their sides. and they go in the larder for the winter . i spend to much time and money on my garden to let the deer ,rabbits and any other pest eat what they want. i say more hunters around this sight need a reality check more than i thought . poacher my foot

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

sjsmarais, not only do i agree with you but I am and have always been conservative. This talk about how if you don't feel the old lady was right in what she did makes you a liberal wimp is the most ignorant statement ever made. Mike apparently has some issues that need dealt with.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from usmcturkey wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

If this were say a teenager who went out and beat his fawn, you know as well as I do they would be getting the book. They would say that he or she is a killer, must be video games. The law in this country like said be for should "be blind to all people." But in reality its not, the lady was scared for her life from something that weighs maybe 20 pounds. I mean come on, I am not saying make an example out of her but the law should apply.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

That is one of the few sensible things I've heard so far. I think I'll just do that.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike, since you love this particular format:

"My issue is a concern with all of the holier than thou types with no understanding of the complexity of the law"

I don't think I'm better than her, I think she did something wrong and needs to be fined for it. I already stated she doesn't deserve to be thrown in jail. And I understand the law just fine -- law says she's not allowed to beat a fawn to death. Period.

"...are calling to have her tarred and feathered."

What? Who said that? She shouldn't be tarred, feathered, stoned or crucified or any of that. Just penalized in some minor way to discipline her for her unjustified actions.

"My point of view is that such a reaction does not look us, AS A COMMUNITY of sportsmen,look like "reasonable moderate people."

Actually, the point of view most of us have expressed is entirely reasonable and in keeping with most other peoples' views, regardless of which demographic they belong to. Why is it unreasonable or shed bad light on us that we think she should pay a fine for this?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sick STi wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

There are more humane ways to take care of that situation, other than beating it to death with a shovel. That just isn't right.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntcamp wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Fawns sucking milk from moms teet does not harm gardens either. For protection from crop damage, that is why there are crop damage tags. Just need to call and get some. Gardens in my opinion do not fall under crops and should not be treated as such. I am not saying Bald Eagles or Spotted Owls live in gardens, although they may be in one every once in awhile. Are we saying kill everything that comes into gardens? Just because they might bend a few flowers. Take crop land out, that is a whole different story, that is lively hood at stake. We are in no means dependent on our gardens to survive. That would be one heck of a big garden. Yes I have seen what deer can do to crops and gardens. Turkeys are worse. If a person breaks a law and gets caught breaking that law than they should be punished in some way fitting the crime. The book should notbe thrown at this woman, but there should be a fine of some sort.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Far Rider wrote 4 years 36 weeks ago

First of all, Mike, I agree with you and you've done an excellent job of defending your position.

Many of the demands expressed for the lady's conviction have been made on the basis that "The law is the law and it must apply no matter what." This sort of blind faith in laws is very dangerous. I don't mean that laws are worthless and should be disregarded at your every whim, but a man should consider for himself the meaning and intent of laws, not blindly revere them as infallible simply because some authoritative body decrees such. It may sound as though I'm advocating subjective law, but I'm not and believe that non-objective law is a dangerous evil to be guarded against above all else. The lady's right to property and protection thereof takes precedence over the law that deer may not be killed out of season. This is the basis from which any decision regarding the lady's actions must be made.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from trophyslayer wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Don Surber is out of his mind. I wonder what he'd think if somebody beat his dog to death and left it bleeding on his living room floor. I mean, a dog isn't a human, right? I can't believe there are people out there that think it is okay to hit a baby deer with a shovel until it dies. It's twisted.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

This falls under the description of animal cruelty and unless the woman has some medical/mental issues that we are unaware of, she should be prosecuted just as anyone else would be.

After all, justice is supposed to be blind in this country.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Armchair Mike wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Bob81, replace "shovel beating" with "sticking with an arrow" or "shooting with a rifle that leaves an exit hole the size of a softball" and see if you feel better. For that matter, try "catching in a spiked trap" for moles or "feeding poison" for rats. Again, we ain't talking about hunting here.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kim wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

She probably could have spooked the fawn into leaving but she was scared. The thing is that according to the article she lives in an area that is always frequented by wildlife. Either she should have bought somewhere else or called an agency for help. I don't condone what she did but on the other hand I don't believe she is a criminal either. There are poachers and repeat poachers that have this much publicity. I belive that probation with instructions to call an agency to help remove the animal should do it. Afterall, if it was a bear she would have been burning up the phone lines.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 007 wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Would there be all this great wailing and gnashing of teeth if she had killed an adult deer out of season? I watched the CNN clip and apparently the lady is telling two different stories. On camera with the reporter it was "shooing it along with the face of the shovel". Previously it was "kill it and drag it to the edge of her property to send a message to the rest of the local deer herd". Treat her like a poacher and prosecute, as that's what she legally is, and let her take her lumps in the public forum for her shameless treatment. That fearing for her life nonsense sounds like something a politican would say when he gets caught with his pants down (literally).

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pagan_Hunter wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

****from other post******

Mike Diehl, I usually enjoy your posts, but I think this time you are painting a little too widely with your "Liberal nanny state" brush.

I think there are two issues here, legality and morality.

legality,
last I checked, poaching was defined as illegally killing an animal, not just illegally killing an animal for sporting purposes. It was out of season, AND she didn't have a license, sorry folks, that's poaching.

If I used my bow to shoot a 12 point buck out of season because it was bedding in suburban flower garden, would you stand up so strongly and say I wasn't poaching? I was just trying to protect my flowers!

She probably isn't guilty of animal abuse, I doubt there was any Mike Vick style sadistic intent involved.

Morality,
When we take an animal while hunting, we do it to feed our families. The loss in justified because it is necessary for our families to live. The same is true when we harvest lettuce for a salad or pull a trout out of the river to grill.

This is a very different thing, that rose garden is nowhere near necessary for her to live. She wants it. Just like that fawn wants a sheltered place to take a nap. Her want is no important than the fawns, and while she would be justified in shoo-ing it away or putting up a fence, she is by no means justified in slowly bludgeoning it to death.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Every time you pipe up Shane it sounds like whining to me. Apparently you're so intolerant you can't even handle me dissenting with others here.

I have a positive world view that only gets "grim" when I imagine a nation populated by fragile little noisemakers, all peering over each other's hedges and ready to condemn someone for keeping their yard in order, or to condemn someone for expressing defending the old lady's rights.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big C wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

The more I hear about this stoty the sicker I am to my stomach. I agree with most of the posts above. This lady just needs to be reminded that what she did was wrong and I am sure that she will see the error of her ways.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Big O wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Words of wisdom from BammaHunter, so +1 for you sir.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Shovels are only appropriate weapons for wild boar. Apparently, anything is.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from shane wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Excuse me, feral hogs too. Especially.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike-
We still love ya man!
You keep this place interesting,informed and entertaining ... to say the least!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Besides mike acting like a rabid fox in a henhouse with all the personal attacks here one could think it was your grandma u where defending. and then your undoubtedly unpopular wiev of all this falls into place much more..
Good thing baby mike didnt crawl into the rosebushes:P
Wouldnt have anyone to fight with:D

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from huntcamp wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

An illegal act is an illegal act. Yes animals are animals, but some animals are held with much higher regard than others. There are reason why we have no rodent seasons, they can spread deseases and things. Yes deer populations are too high in places, but doesn't give anyone the right to take the law into their own hands. Most poachers get caught not in the act, but when they brag at a bar. She should be fined a small amount, nothing to harsh. Anyone dumb enough to believe that she feared for her life is almost as ignorant as PETA. Living in the country she has had to come across a few deer in her day. What is a spotted owl going to land in her garden next, will it share the same fate? What is the difference? Animals are animals right? What about a Bald Eagle?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Do bald eagles live in your garden? No. Animals are animals and I think we should have the right as land owners to protect our crops from whatever pests there are whether they are grasshoppers, deer, elk whatever.
Living where I do and farming and ranching, i see the damage done by these animals to our crops. Then the state doesn't put out enough tags or reimburse us for our loses. What do you think we have to do? I know it is a little different when its a garden, but raising crops is my livelyhood and if i can not keep them from damaging them I go broke. Also bald eagles don't eat gardens nor does a spotted owl. They prey on the pests.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from libertyfirst wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

If this person broke a wildlife law than The penalty for breaking that law should be enforced. If a fine is called for than a fine should be paid. Equating the killing of a defenseless young animal by blunt trauma to a well placed bullet during hunting season is a serious misstep. To me this action is the same as pulling a birds nest with 5 young chicks to the ground and crushing them with the heel of your boot, it simply makes no sense and is by every definition a cruel and unusual activity. We hunters don't hunt in the early summer because the killing of immature and unwary animals is beneath our level of ethical behavior. It's not the season that limits us, it is our standards. I sincerely doubt that any hunter I know would have killed this young deer.
I see nothing wrong with hunters distancing ourselves from this type of unethical behavior and condemning it for what it is-STUPIDITY!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

WOW..This has been one hell-a-v-a-topic!
This was a game animal,and not a vermin or "non game" animal. So, I think some kind of punishment needs to be given out. I am not saying lock this gal up with bread & water, but that was a regulated game species so some fine needs to apply-IMO.
Now, a story; In the late 1970's a friend of the family had been hunting in the upper peninsula here in Michigan and shot a deer while "skirting" private land. The deer was literally shot, jumped over a fence, and died. A MDNR officer saw the entire thing, and confiscated our friend's gun, and the deer, and issued him a ticket.
This guy went to court, LOST, and paid a hefty fine and lost his hunting rights for 5 years. Crime? "Shooting a game animal on private land without permission of the owner/trespass" According to our friend, the Officer told the Judge the exact story as it happened and still charged him with the offense.
So, I guess the point I am trying to make is that the LAW can make an example out of anyone they like; Even an elderly lady beating a fawn to death with a shovel, if they like! She chose to kill this animal, so let her pay for that choice.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

In polite terms, Skeeb, your analogy would be called a straw man argument and also an instance of the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's also the sort of anthropomorphization to which I've referred in these threads. An animal isn't a human being. End of debate.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ingebrigtsen wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

All life should be respected! One should have respect enough for a game animal to end its life quickly and with minimum pain! And since it is regulated and protected as a game animal only with publickly approved means! And if we r all equal in the eyes of the law then an old lady breaking it also gets punished..
End of story

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

I wonder what John Wooters would have had to say about all this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 39 weeks ago

Forgive me Mike, but with all the negative ratings your posts have garnered, I don't think F&S are going to send you any gear to test. Unless it's a shovel of course ;-)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 39 weeks ago

Sometimes you run with an unpopular opinion because you know you're in the right and feedback be damned.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"We don't talk about rights anymore or individual liberties, we talk about feelings."

I agree that is part of the problem. And now, communities of hunters, that used to be the province of men and women with a firm grounding of their place in nature, has been infiltrated by all kinds of SNAGs (*) whose feelings are offended by, well, pretty much anything.

Her critics here are the kinds of people who should wear shirts with embroidered images of a pocketknife because a real pocketknife is probably beyond their ability to safely use.

* SNAG: Sensitive New Age Guy

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

She wasn't as hunter, therefore she wasn't setting an example about hunting.

One of the charges is animal cruelty. It's a chickenturd charge. If she'd killed it with an axe would that have been preferable? Axes (I guess these days hydraulic hammers) are used to slaughter beef cattle.

The other charge is possibly some sort of game law violation. My point is that she clearly wasn't poaching. She clearly didn't seek out a deer to kill. And it clearly was a threat to her garden. Any suburban gardener would think so, and if the fawn wasn't it is for sure the doe was. Since the woman doesn't hunt, or at least it would seem that way, a reasonable person dealing with her level of information would conclude that the deer was a pest.

The people calling for her blood over this are idiots. I'd take her for a neighbor over her critics ANY DAY. At the least, she's not a nosy busybody with toxically anthropomorphized view of the natural world.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"Obviously, the old lady had no clue of this fact, but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be reprimanded. I don't think she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law since she was obviously clueless, but at least she should get a citation/warning or a small fine."

By the way, in case it's not clear, I agree. The prosecutor in this case missed a good opportunity to exercise the sort of good judgement that lots of people (but not everyone, obviously), develop by the time they're twenty.

This is a case for a LEO to explain to her that she needed a predation permit, and to tell her not to do it again. Charges of ANY kind, criminal, misdemeanor, or civil, are not warranted, IMO.

"If she was trying to stop deer from eating her flowers she shoulda killed the momma!"

I agree. Given the general level of public knowledge of animals, however, it's not surprising that her world view was "a deer is a deer is a pest when it's in my garden."

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from sjsmarais@gmail.com wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Mike calls people who object to the lady killing the fawn liberal wimps. I feel compelled to kill a baby animal to prove my manhood.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"Mike reckons that she acted reasonably, because of her perceived lack of knowledge about animals."

No. I reckon she acted reasonably because killing an urban garden pest is reasonable conduct.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

That's true. But capricious prosecution betrays an ignorance of the law's intent that is likewise inexcusable.

"I think beating a fawn to death with a shovel is an over the top rage induced action."

This is exactly the sort of thing to which I object. A woman you don't know kills a fawn. By all accounts her neighbors figure her a nice old lady, but all the armchair psychologists in the hook and bullet crowd are calling for her institutionalization.

There's a reason why lots of people in these forums scoff at the other outrageous examples of "zero tolerance" out there. A teenaged girl gets strip-searched in Safford AZ by school officials because some other student accused her of carrying ibuprofen. A kid gets suspened from school for drawing a picture of a ray-gun because of the school's zero tolerance firearms policy. A drill team member in the central US is suspended for having one of those faux rifles that baton twirlers use for similar reasons. A student in Vermont is censured by his teacher and characterized as a kind of lunatic because he mentions that he hunts.

The language here directed at the old lady is the language of PETA. Extreme intolerance for very mild unusual conduct, rife with all the self-appointed nitwit guardians of public virtue calling for the blood of an old lady and concocting profiles wholesale because she removed a pest from her garden. And by extension, low life internet trolls telling me I have issues or must need counseling because I'm defending her.

THAT's why I made the observation about "liberal wimps." Not because killing a fawn makes a person a tough guy, but rather because a whole lot of people who don't know shai hulud about the old lady or for that matter me have coopted all of the P.C. language and "victim outrage" of the sort that we only used to see from left wing radicals.

"Hunting is not about killing every animal that crosses your path with whatever means, but about skill and respect for your quarry."

No one here needs a lecture about hunting. We all agree that the old lady wasn't hunting. We all agree that we'd all have figured out a better approach to her problem.

"I realise that no-one called the lady a hunter, but the people on this thread who defend her make us guilty by association."

Baloney. That's just more left-wing style PC doublespeak. "Guilt by association?" That's what PETA wants you to believe. We don't go for "guilt by association" in the USA, but I understand that sort of thing is common in totalitarian states.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Skeeb wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

To Mike, and all others saying it's all right,
What would you say if you saw someone beating a child with a shovel? Would you say, "oh little johnny was laying in her flowers, he deserves to be bludgeoned with a shovel"? No a baby is the same thing as a fawn...It is a life being taken in a very inhumane way.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from vtbluegrass wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

So lets get this woman some damage permits so you people crying about hunting season can calm down. Since when are deer compared to dogs? Deer are not domesticated companion animals. For that matter neither are wild dogs and wild cats, the latter being more prevalent. There is no hunting allowed on Sunday in my state of NC, but guess what happens if a groundhog happens to be in my garden on Sunday. And my goodness I believe I have even killed baby groundhogs and baby rabbits eating my beans.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"Diehl, if you think your life is constantly harried by regulations, you need to move from whatever hellhole you live in, or relax, have a beer, and get real."

This from the fellow who thinks the lady is a psycho because she eliminated a garden pest.

"PS - I didn't nail you with negatives, I'm just annoyed at your whining and had to respond"

You just wanted to whine in order to defend your previous whining. If you weren't a closet radical you wouldn't be here trying to have an old lady jailed for removing a pest from her yard.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from logan.vandermay wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

Good for granny. I think the only thing she did wrong was she should have burried the carcass and shut up. Hence the saying shovel and shutup. If your feelings are hurt because someone kills a pest your a moron. People are people, and animals are animals. A quick shovel to the head is just as humane as an arrow the heart, maybe more humane beings that it was probably out on the first hit and didn't feel anything any more,and a arrow takes awhile to bleed out.
I do think you should hunt legally and all that, but there are times when a pest is a pest nomatter what kind of animal it is. If you don't agree maybe we should have a rat season or a mosquito season.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"And frankly, I find your position that an animal breaking into the chicken coop can ethically be dispatched in any manner desired, no matter how inhumane is disturbing to say the least."

There are plenty of things that disturb me about the things people do. My level of disturbance is triggered by whether or not it's people being harmed and if not how necessary is "that thing which was done that seems to be of concern."

My reaction here has been to a number of people pretty much vilifying an old lady for that which strikes me as really trivial infractions of their sensibilities, and I don't agree that their sensibilities are sensible. When I want to feel outraged about something and be all to arms about it, crime, crappy educational opportunities, or in the sporting arena, REAL poachers (NOT little old ladies offing a garden pest), and REAL animal cruelty types (the kind who make a habit of kidnapping cats &c) are far more likely to trip my radar than a geriatric gardener keeping her yard in order.

As to animals raiding a chicken coop. 1) Those chickens are someone's property. 2) Under the example given they're in imminent danger. 3) Anything a dog (or a coyote or fox) is going to do to those chickens is at least as painful and gruesome than anything I could do to kill the dog. But ultimately, it has to be noted, that people have the RIGHT to defend their property.

I'd acquit the old lady. I'd acquit someone who bludgeoned a dog to death with a spiked board if that dog was raiding their chicken coop.

"I believe we are responsible to minimize suffering whenever possible when dealing with forms of life lower than we are."

I don't think the old lady inflicted unreasonable suffering on the fawn. If she'd roasted it alive you might have a better case in my view. She killed it with what was to hand and she did it in my view for a legitimate reason.

I'm more outraged that there are legions of holier than thou busybodies who'd call her a poacher or a criminal or a maniac for killing a garden pest. I really do think that there is serious doubt about the mental stability of some of the people criticizing her in this forum. And yes, whether it's called PC or Big Government intrusiveness in my view it's symptomatic of a kind of mass psychosis that says that every tom dick or harry should consider intruding into petty events in somone's back yard an opportunity to fatten their egos by looking down on the target of their disaffection.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"last I checked, poaching was defined as illegally killing an animal, not just illegally killing an animal for sporting purposes. It was out of season, AND she didn't have a license, sorry folks, that's poaching."

Where I live, intent almost always matters in consideration as to whether a person is charged with an offense. Yes there are poachers out there. No, the lady doesn't qualify in my view. Our local definition of "poaching" may or may not differ from Ohio's or yours for that matter. The thing is, no law can be applied to consider every possible circumstance; that's the limit of human language for you. I know a poacher when I see one. The old lady doesn't meet any reasonable standard to be charged with poaching.

"If I used my bow to shoot a 12 point buck out of season because it was bedding in suburban flower garden, would you stand up so strongly and say I wasn't poaching? I was just trying to protect my flowers!"

Yes I would. If you did it regularly I'd suggest that you need a pest control permit. Do I expect a little old lady to be as conversant with the legal definition surrounding "illegal take of a game animal" when she isn't demostrably a hunter and likely to even understand that there are game management issues involved? No, I don't.

That's why I think the people here accusing her of being cruel, brutal, nuts, or suggesting that she be thrown in jail or fined to the max have their heads so far up their brown spots they'd need a backhoe to open them up so they could see daylight. I also think that's symptomatic of a society now in which every penny ante ego has to step up and express outrage over the minutia of other people's lives. There's little real difference, in my view, between the closet stasi berating the old lady in this forum, and the kooks who recently sent President Obama a more humane kind of fly trap because he slapped a bug.

There's people here in this forum who need to shut up, have a beer, and get a life, and those people are the ones bawling for the old lady's blood.

"She probably isn't guilty of animal abuse, I doubt there was any Mike Vick style sadistic intent involved."

Exactly. Likewise, there's no heap of trophy racks or recurring phenom here that really warrants a comparison between her and a poacher.

"When we take an animal while hunting, we do it to feed our families. The loss in justified because it is necessary for our families to live. The same is true when we harvest lettuce for a salad or pull a trout out of the river to grill."

One man's morality is another man's joke, often enough. I only hunt that which I can and will eat. But this isn't a moral issue in my view. If she were hunting and wasting meat, it'd be an ethical issue in the arena of outdoorsmanship, and we might think her a poor outdoorsman on account of it. But the case doesn't even rise to that level of concern. It's an old lady doddering around in her garden, protecting it in a way that seemed reasonable and convenient at the time.

Like I said. The day I see all her critics here voluntarily putting up their money to pay for animal control on others' property, I might concede that there was a better alternative available to her. But at the moment I don't see it that way.

"This is a very different thing, that rose garden is nowhere near necessary for her to live."

I know a guy who shoots woodpeckers that peck holes in his wooden house. I happen to know that because I mentioned this topic on a discussion forum full of moderates and conservatives and he piped up that's how he handles birds damaging his home. He doesn't need perfect walls to live, but I'd not charge and if on a jury not convict him of animal cruelty for protecting his property. When I was young, back east and a while ago, I knew people who shot squirrels making holes in their houses for similar reasons. I knew a man who once shot a rat in his driveway with a 16ga shotgun. I know people who poison mice. For a while in Louisville I knew a landlord who poisoned moles attacking his rosebushes.

The old lady's conduct is consistent with the way we treat other garden pests. It wasn't cruel, inappropriate, or unwarranted in my view.

"Her want is no important than the fawns,"

Sorry, I disagree. Her want definitely has precedence because she has property rights and the fawn doesn't.

"she is by no means justified in slowly bludgeoning it to death."

We don't know that it was particularly slow. Even so, I think she made a reasonable choice. Say what you will, I think it's stupid that she's being charged.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

"Mike apparently has some issues that need dealt with."

My issue is a concern with all of the holier than thou types with no understanding of the complexity of the law, no particular knowledge of the problem (did any of you read the article about the deer problem around Cleveland... it seems that some did and rightfully noted that urban pest control is needed), and no particular knowledge of the old lady, are calling to have her tarred and feathered.

My point of view is that such a reaction does not look us, AS A COMMUNITY of sportsmen,look like "reasonable moderate people." It makes us look like we're a bunch of crazies who are ready to throw anyone to the wolves in defiance of common sense just to assuage that element of society who anthropomorphize animals.

And yeah. I started out annoyed but now I'm downright pissed off. Some scumbag in the other thread's only contribution to the discussion is three lines of personal invective and I'm the one who's "instigating?" Anyone who doesn't like my p.o.v. can f.o.a.d.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 40 weeks ago

No, it does not fall under the category of "animal cruelty." It's a woman defending her garden from an animal pest. If it had been a skunk shed nailed, no one would blink. Until all the frigging goody two shoes big nanny state intrusive government "animals are people too" decide that they individually and personally willing to buy Grandma a gun so that she can do it quickly, or else pay for someone to get the fawn out of her garden, they ought to STFU.

All this politically correct baloney over a woman protecting her garden with the only tool she had to hand is absurd.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment