Another photo of the poor deer with an arrow though the face
Image
29
Tag Archives: deer
N. Minn. hunting guide hit with mountain of charges involving bear, deer kills
by: Paul Walsh PAUL Star Tribune
November 5, 2013
A northern Minnesota bear hunting guide has been charged with using various illegal tactics involving the killing of bear and deer, according to authorities.
A northern Minnesota bear hunting guide has been charged with using various illegal tactics involving the killing of bear and deer, according to authorities.
Keith R. Slick, 32, of Baudette, was charged Friday in Lake of the Woods District Court with a long list of offenses, among them: two counts of possessing an over limit of bear, three counts of unlawful possession of deer, two charges of unlawfully transporting a bear, failure to register a second bear, failure to tag a second bear, illegal possession of a car-killed deer, untagged big game animal (bear), no bear outfitter/guides license, unlawful transfer/lend or borrow of license, failure to register bear bait stations, hunting within 100 yards of an unregistered bear bait station, and placing bait for bear without a license.
There were other violations, according to the state Department of Natural Resources (DNR), but the statute of limitations had expired on them.
Slick was not immediately available to respond to the charges.
According to the DNR:
During the fall bear hunting season, state conservation officer Robert Gorecki located an active bear bait station belonging to Slick. A search of his home uncovered numerous bear capes and skulls, as well as sets of deer antlers.
“There were no possession or registration tags found with any of the bears,” Gorecki said in a statement released by the DNR. “The bears did not have any cuts in their ears that would indicate that a site tag was attached at any time in the past,” Gorecki said.
A check of DNR records indicated that Slick never registered an adult male deer or bear taken in the past 10 years, which is as far back as agency records go.
A cellphone seized in the investigation contained pictures of Slick with a dead bear. Numerous text messages were also found with Slick telling people about the bear he had shot. Other text messages from Slick stated that he had shot seven bears in his life.
Only two of the six antler sets recovered had site tags on them, but from individuals other than Slick.
“Mr. Slick had multiple unexplainable deer racks,” Gorecki added. “A third set of antlers were from an unregistered road-killed deer, and he was unsure where the remaining sets of antlers came from.”
Slick faces nearly $4,500 in fines and restitution. A firearm and bow were also seized during the investigation. If convicted, his hunting privileges could be revoked for three years.
Bow Hunting — A Growing Blood “Sport”
[This is just what the wildlife doesn’t need right now–more people out sending even more stray arrows into the air! Here are just a couple of this year’s recent injuries to target animals as a result of the sport of bow hunting]:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/11/04/bow-hunting-a-growing-sport-in-minnesota/
Bow Hunting — A Growing Sport In Minnesota
November 4, 2013 10:15 AM
MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Minnesotans make that annual trip to the tree stand this weekend. The firearms deer hunting season
kicks off on Saturday. But bow hunters have been searching for that prize buck since September.
Joe Caminati, of Average Joe’s Archery, said he’s seeing a lot more popularity when it comes to bow hunting.
“I think the main thing that’s driving it is accessibility,” he said. “Some of the movies that have come out recently, ‘Hunger Games,’ ‘Brave’ … has put it in front of a lot of kids and with that, the manufacturers have stepped up and made it more accessible.”
Caminati said the equipment is becoming easier to use, as well, which helps younger hunters and families as a whole.
An added bonus for bow hunters – the season is much longer – three and a half months, versus nine days.
For those looking to get into the sport for the first time, Caminati said the first place to start is at your local pro shop.
“First of all, you need to go to a Pro Shop and get fitted for a bow that’s appropriate for you,” he said. “We see it a lot of times where people come in with a bow that doesn’t fit them properly.”
The type of bow to get depends on the user – all will serve similar functions, it’s just a matter of traditional or more high tech. He said things like draw lengths, the amount of draw weight the bow can pull back and other aspects all go into the fitting.
Once that’s completed, it’s time to practice – typically in the woods or at the range. …
[Sure practice is always important. I used to practice with a bow and arrow at a target and a backdrop of straw bales. That’s how I know that bows are notoriously inaccurate–especially on a moving target.
Even William Tell, the best archer of all time, missed the target far more often he hit it. Here’s a short video of him practicing, trying to hit an apple on his son’s head.]:
N.J. woman says deer carries arrow in its head as it wanders suburban backyards
[I make a point not to talk to bowhunters. Like if I knew a guy watching the kids in a school yard is a pedophile, I can’t be held accountable for what I might do if I saw one aiming at a deer! This isn’t some kind of a game, and the animals aren’t your playthings put here for you to do with as you will! Each and every dear, elk, bear, or any other living target you fantasize about is a living being far more deserving of life than you camo-clad bow-toting scumbags who take pleasure in sending arrows into them!
Here’s the statement made by the person who sent me this article about ANOTHER wounded deer:
“I can’t even contain my outrage. Just like what happened here, this woman saw this poor deer who had been injured with an arrow. This is where our reactions differ: the article says ‘I know a lot of hunters and I know that was nothing done intentionally,’ Darrah said by phone this morning, noting her yard attracts deer often since it has a large pear tree and its located near Split Rock Reservoir. ‘I’m sure if any hunter saw him, they would have been kind of enough to put him down,’ she said.
Really? Not intentional? Ok, it was a bad shot. WHICH CONFIRMS THAT BOW HUNTING MUST BE OUTLAWED. But what is even more ironic is her comment about hunters being ‘kind.’ Fuck that. Clearly she is out of her mind and drank the cool aid on hunting. ‘Yes, we shoot them with a gun or an arrow and they quietly go to heaven and give us food.'”]
A Boonton woman saw this deer in her backyard on Friday and Saturday. (Courtesy Susan Darrah)
By Jeff Goldman/The Star-Ledger The Star-Ledger Email the author | Follow on Twitter on November 04, 2013 at 1:32 PM, updated November 04, 2013 at 8:36 PM
ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP — Seeing deer wander through her Boonton backyard is a regular occurrence for Susan Darrah.
But even Darrah admits she was taken aback by what she saw when she looked out her living room window at about noon on Friday: a young deer with an arrow through its head.
As startling a sight as it was, the animal wasn’t bleeding and didn’t appear to be frightened, she said. Darrah immediately contacted animal control in town as well as the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife.
“I know a lot of hunters and I know that was nothing done intentionally,” Darrah said by phone this morning, noting her yard attracts deer often since it has a large pear tree and its located near Split Rock Reservoir. “I’m sure if any hunter saw him, they would have been kind of enough to put him down,” she said.
Darrah spoke to a Fish & Wildlife representative and followed their advice to put out a supply of corn for the deer, which appeared to be traveling in a herd with four others.
The animal re-appeared at 5 p.m. Friday and then again at 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Saturday, but Darrah said she hasn’t seen it since.
The state Division of Fish and Wildlife sent out a crew to the area today looking for the deer, spokesman Bob Considine said. He added that the department would tranquilize the animal in the hopes of removing the arrow.
The state is in the midst of its fall bow hunt season.
SHARK calls for firing of Wisconsin state employees in armed raid that killed “Giggles” the baby deer
|
Devastated hunter kills himself moments after accidentally shooting his friend dead
[Now this is a twofer. It’s from a couple of years back; too bad it doesn’t happen more often, but then a guilty conscience isn’t often a hunter’s strong suit. If only they’d feel some kind of guilt about the deer and bears they killed.]
By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 17:59 EST, 27 November 2011
A hunter who accidentally shot and killed his friend was so devastated he turned his rifle on himself, police believe.
Benjamin Birch, 39, Timothy Bolognani, 49, and Mark Colford were hunting near Readsboro, Vermont, on Saturday afternoon when Birch shot a deer.
The wounded animal managed to escape, and the men began tracking it through the woods.
Bolognani fired at what he thought was the deer, but instead heard Birch scream in pain.
Bolognani and Colford ran to discover their friend bleeding on the ground, where he died.
Overwhelmed with grief, Bolognani then committed suicide with his own rifle, police believe. Vermont State Police were called just after noon on Saturday.
Benjamin Birch was a keen hunter and uploaded photos of his various catches, including black bears, to Facebook.
He also expressed his discontent that the deer hunting season was not as long as that in other states. He wrote: ‘Vermont is the only state where they worry about the deer getting a rest between seasons!’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066891/Hunter-kills-accidentally-shooting-friend-dead.html#ixzz2jBYjUyqf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Wis. GOP efforts to expand hunting irk opponents
By TODD RICHMOND, Associated Press
Sunday, September 22, 2013
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin outdoorsmen spent most of the last decade chafing at the state Department of Natural Resources, accusing the agency of ruining hunting with overly strict regulations.
Republican Scott Walker told hunters on the campaign trail things would be different if he was elected governor, and two years later, it is. Walker and his fellow Republicans have reshaped Wisconsin’s outdoors scene with an intense drive to expand hunting.
Some fees have been cut, hunting and trapping in state parks is now OK, wolves are now fair game and it’s no longer necessary to shoot a doe before getting a buck. Supporters say the moves are important to shore up the $1.4 billion hunting industry as interest wanes among a younger generation.
“At the heart of it, legislators are truly trying to promote the hunting heritage, hopefully in perpetuity, so it doesn’t die on the vine,” said Sen. Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn, chairman of the Senate’s natural resources committee.
But conservationists and hunting opponents say Republicans and the DNR have tried so hard to please hunters they’ve forgotten non-hunters such as hikers, skiers and birdwatchers.
“I don’t really understand why, instead of promoting all these things, why aren’t they promoting tourism or photography? They’re just not diversifying at all,” said Melissa Smith, organizer of the group Friends of Wisconsin Wolves. “Can’t we encourage people to enjoy the outdoors without killing something?”
Hunting has always been part of the social and economic fabric in Wisconsin. But interest has been waning. According to DNR data, the hunting participation rate for adult males dropped 16 percent between 2000 and 2009. The youth participation rate declined about the same over that span.
DNR hunting officials cite several factors for the dropoff, including aging hunters, a perception that there’s nowhere to hunt and time-consuming video games. Hunter frustration with the DNR was intense over those years, too. They complained about the agency’s earn-a-buck regulations, which required hunters to kill antlerless deer before taking bucks. They also criticized the DNR’s plan to kill as many deer as possible in southwestern Wisconsin to slow the spread of chronic wasting disease.
DNR officials, then under Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration, said they were following science-based approaches to thin a burgeoning deer herd. But hunters said the tactics were leading to anemic hunts and the agency was ignoring them.
Since Walker and his fellow Republicans took control of state government and the DNR, they’ve eliminated earn-a-buck, created a hunter recruitment council, reduced license fees for first-time hunters and hunters who recruit others to the sport, required online hunter education courses and ended the general prohibition on hunting and trapping in state parks.
They also implemented the state’s first wolf hunt and introduced bills to establish sandhill crane, woodchuck and crossbow deer seasons as well as block local governments from restricting bow and crossbow hunting. The DNR has dusted off plans to import elk in hopes of creating a season on them and is studying how to implement mini deer hunts on private land.
GOP lawmakers and DNR officials say preserving hunting traditions ensures that money exists for conservation — license fees and federal taxes on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment helps fund habitat management — and the balance between species continues.
“When your numbers of new outdoors people … continue to go down, the way to increase those numbers is to make it more accessible,” said Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, an avid hunter who wrote the bills for a sandhill crane season and against local restrictions on bow and crossbow hunting.
The movement has political roots, too. Walker courted hunters on the campaign trail and pro-hunting groups, including the Wisconsin Bear Hunters Association and the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, have spent tens of thousands of dollars lobbying lawmakers since the GOP took over the Legislature in 2011.
Opposition to the sandhill crane season was so intense Republican leaders never brought the bill up for a floor vote. And hunters’ latitude in state parks won’t be unlimited; the DNR’s board is poised this week to block hunters from firing from and across state park trails and to require trappers to use dog-proof snares in the parks.
But conservationists and animal rights advocates haven’t had much success elsewhere.
A judge this spring let stand the Legislature’s provisions allowing hunters to use dogs to track wolves, a blow to a group of humane societies that argued the practice would lead to bloody wolf-dog fights in the woods. This summer the DNR rejected the Sierra Club’s request to join the committee that crafts wolf hunt policy. DNR Land Division Administrator Kurt Thiede wrote in a letter to the Wisconsin chapter’s executive director, Shahla Werner, that the committee isn’t comprised of groups that oppose wolf management since state law now calls for hunting.
Smith sent a letter to DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp this month complaining non-hunters have nowhere to enjoy nature. She suggested the DNR raise conservation dollars by offering wolf- and bear-watching tours, kayak trips and canoe outings.
“This agency is controlled by a small amount of people with very narrow interests,” she wrote. “That’s why you’re holding onto traditions that are fading away and find yourself in trouble.”
Photo Copyright Jim Robertson
Wisconsin #1 for Deer “Harvest”
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources boasts: “We rank first in the country for the highest single year deer harvest on record and are number one for deer harvest over the past decade. All of us work hard to keep it that way.”
Yet, according to a new article, Limited deer hunt may happen in three area communities, deer populations are doing too well in some parts of Wisconsin. Ironically, the state DNR is also keen to “control” (read: kill off) their wolf population through hunting and trapping, in part because wolves prey on deer. How contradictory is that?
Ashwaubenon, Allouez and De Pere considering deer population control measures
A limited deer hunt could take place in 2014 in parts of Allouez, Ashwaubenon and De Pere if local officials decide the population is too big for the area.
The municipalities hope to survey the deer population this winter in response to complaints from residents, who said the animals are damaging gardens and creating traffic hazards in certain neighborhoods. But they’re working slowly with this issue, which could prompt worries about safety, objections from animal-rights groups and other potential roadblocks.
Meanwhile, officials in the communities say they’re hearing from growing numbers of residents who don’t like deer grazing in their gardens, or having large animals darting across residential streets.
“We’ve certainly had more sightings of larger groups this year,” said Rex Mehlberg, Ashwaubenon’s director of parks, recreation and forestry. “People are seeing six, eight, 10 of them at a time. One group was 14 or 15.”
Local officials stress that no decisions have been made about whether they would allow a hunt, and that hunting would not take place in parts of town where people would be at risk. First, they would have to decide if they want to do a count of deer by helicopter this winter. The survey cost, estimated at $2,000, would be shared between the communities and likely would be funded in part through a grant.
De Pere officials are scheduled Oct. 1 to discuss funding for the study, said Parks, Recreation and Forestry Director Marty Kosobucki. he said the city also has discussed setting aside some money in its 2014 budget to clover part of the cost of a survey.
In Northeastern Wisconsin and elsewhere, complaints about deer have grown as communities have sprawled into areas that were once rural. Two Rivers was set to vote Monday night on allowing a limited bow hunt this fall.
Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson, 2013. All Rights Reserved
Never Trust a Hunter Named “Killer”
It’s nice to hear that the hunter who died in a shooting accident in Tomales, CA had so many friends. However, one of them, going by the name “Killer,” may not have been such a good friend after all. He did the deceased a disservice by trying to post the following comment with details about his alleged friend’s death:
“He already killed a deer before he jumped in his Jeep and ran it over (just to make sure it was dead). The ‘accident’ occurred when he backed up over the (slightly smashed) deer and the firearm slid from the gun rack and discharged, striking the valiant hunter in the hand and throat.”
Now “killer” is back, now cleverly posting under a new handle, “Animal Lover.” This time his comment is just a retraction of his last (unwelcome) comment:
“I am amazed that you people actually believe Mr. Weller drove a vehicle over the deer. I put that non-fact in my comment because the Moderator would not post my original comment. I knew that it would not probably not help the “hunting cause”, but it did provoke the desired result” [Which was what? To make us think hunters have so little regard for the animals they shoot that they’d drive over them afterwards; or to draw out a lot of outraged comments from us for some reason?
How are we supposed to believe him this time? If I believed him that his friend drove over the deer he shot, it’s because I never had the pleasure to make that particular hunter’s acquaintance. But I’ve known plenty of other hunters who routinely pulled similar stunts. When asked if he’d seen any deer that day, one unabashedly announced, “No, but I got off a couple of good ‘sound shots’!” [Meaning, he shot blindly at a sound he heard in the bushes].
I’ve seen hunters standing up in the back of pickup beds, loaded rifles at the ready, in hopes of shooting deer from the road. Working in the woods, I’ve been in the rig while the driver tried to run a deer down. And of course, the truck cab with three cammo-clad, orange-vested hunters sitting abreast, each with a can of malt liquor on their lap, is as common a site as falling yellow leaves in Autumn.
So, do I believe “Killer’s” original story, or his new retraction? Maybe neither; maybe this is something the local Sherriff and county coroner should look into. Who knows, maybe “Killer” himself is responsible for the killing. He sure likes to blow smoke like someone with a guilty conscience.
Anyway, it doesn’t really matter to us; we’re here for the animals. We don’t have time to dwell on the hunters or their apologists (although some sure seem to crave any attention they can get).
Text and Wildlife Photography © Jim Robertson
Saving deer, one step at a time
The tedious trail of animal activism
Photo Jim Robertson
by Barry Kent MacKay,
Senior Program Associate
Born Free USA’s Canadian Representative
Published 08/16/13
Make no mistake; I have been part of many successful efforts to stop, or prevent, lethal culling of deer and other wildlife species. From time to time, self-styled animal activists ask, “How did you do it?,” with the “you” being plural. It is always a co-operative, multi-faceted process. But I – we – have had our share of failures, and long ago learned that “being right” is, while essential, not enough. The deck is stacked against us because legal culls of native wildlife are government-sanctioned, and the government—federal, provincial, or municipal—has more power and resources than do we. And, if they don’t play fair, we have to try other tactics, such as garnering media and subsequent public support for our positions.
But at the provincial level, there is also the Ombudsman, or Ombudsperson: a politically independent “third party” charged by the legislature to assure “fair, reasonable, appropriate and equitable” administrative practices and services by public agencies.
The issue is the culling of deer in Cranbrook, British Columbia (see: http://www.bornfreeusa.org/weblog_canada.php?p=3449&more=1 and http://www.bornfreeusa.org/weblog_canada.php?p=3487&more=1). We had already lost an appeal to British Columbia’s Ombudsperson, Kim Carter, when we documented our concern that the contract to award the grisly job of live-trapping and then killing deer violated conflict-of-interest guidelines. The contractor sat on the committee that made the decision and bid within a few percentage points of the allocated amount. But it was ruled that the information was, if not exactly widely-known, still in the public domain. We lost.
On July 17, we submitted a second concern to the Ombudsperson. This time, our concern was that the residents of Cranbrook had been denied the ability to democratically participate in decisions that concerned them. Again, the issue was that the contract to catch and kill deer in Cranbrook was all done behind closed doors, which seems to violate the rules of the Community Charter. The Charter does allow for a degree of secrecy, and on January 9, 2013, a city administrator wrote, “…I am concerned for the safety of staff, contractor and public in general with respect to this project. Thus I plan to carry out the selection of the contractor and the cull in a confidential matter. Staff will work with the RCMP. We may be criticized by some for not being open with the cull but I believe we have a reasonable position that public safety is more important.”
But that makes as much sense as holding meetings concerning placement of road signs because some hunters shoot holes in them or teens spray-paint them. In fact, there is no indication of this concern in any of the minutes of meetings preceding the private decision-making meetings. As one councillor put it, “The argument that swayed us to retreat in-camera was because of alleged vandalism and public safety incidents during the Invermere deer cull and the possibility of similar incidents occurring here. There is some merit in this argument, but I have since come to the conclusion that, whether the argument is meritorious or not, vandalism and public safety is an RCMP issue, not a council issue, and it shouldn’t have swayed our judgment in taking the public’s business behind closed doors. Once we retreated into our locked chamber, we lost control of the issue and the rest is history.” Invermere is a separate town where unknown people found and damaged one or more deer traps.
It gets worse. Colleen Bailey, the one citizen on the Urban Deer Management Advisory Committee (UDMAC) opposed to culling in favour of more effective and humane resolution of conflicts with urban deer, was summarily kicked off of the committee: the only member so shabbily treated. Yes, she was a strong advocate for the deer—but she never spoke against culling on behalf of UDMAC. On the other hand, at least one staunch deer cull advocate, Angus Davis—who even placed a trap on his property—remained on the committee, voting in secrecy and getting his way. Apparently, Cranbrook’s idea of “democracy” precludes debate, openness, and dissent. Sad.
So, we were pleased last week that both Bailey’s own submission to the Ombudsperson (concerning her treatment by Council) and our own (concerning the inappropriateness of secrecy in what should be public affairs) will be considered, and it will be determined whether they merit an investigation. It’s not easy. We could lose again. But, we have to try. We have to jump through the hoops. We have to play their game, their way.
Here is the timeline of events:
•In April 2012, Council voted to conduct a cull of up to 50 deer.
•In September 2012, UDMAC members, including Ms. Bailey, were told that Cranbrook would seek the cull permit—but that the 2012 cull was put on hold pending the outcome of a court case in the town of Invermere that challenged the cull in that community (also in south-central British Columbia).
•In October 2012, UDMAC members were reminded to reapply because their membership on the Committee would expire on December 10, 2012.
•On December 6, 2012, the province issued the cull permit.
•At the December 10, 2012 Council meeting, all members who reapplied, with the exception of Ms. Bailey, were reappointed. Bailey was replaced with a non-opponent to the cull.
•On December 12, 2012, the municipal staff notified the “new” UDMAC Committee that Council sought its advice on a “time-sensitive matter.”
•On December 18, 2012, UDMAC recommended that the city implement a cull of up to 30 mule deer.
•On January 7, 2013, Council voted “in camera” to go forward with the cull.
•On January 8, 2013, municipal staff sent out a Quote for Service.
•On January 9, 2013, Councillor Warner expressed a real concern about moving forward with the cull because of the way the decision was reached. He did not oppose culling, per se.
•On February 6, 2013, the contract was signed with CP Trapping.
•On February 14, 2013, the BC Deer Protection Coalition, made up of a fully open and transparent group of provincial citizens working to stop or prevent deer culling in favour of more humane and effective ways to resolve conflicts between deer and people, exposed Cranbrook Council’s decision to move forward with the cull.
•On the same day, that Council finally acknowledged the decision, but only after the Coalition’s ad raised the issue.
•On February 14, 2013, the cull began.
•On February 23, 2013, Councillor Warner published his letter in e-know.
______________
Barry McKay is an artist, both with words and with paint. He has been associated with our organization for nearly three decades and is our go-to guy for any wildlife question. He knows his animals — especially birds — and the issues that affect them. His blogs will give you just the tip of his wildlife-knowledge iceberg, so be sure to stay and delve deeper into his Canadian Project articles. If you like wildlife and reading, Barry’s your man. (And we’re happy to have him as part of our team, too!)
Exposing the Big Game 