Way I see it the landowner was within his own rights. He wasn't any more 'wrong' or 'cold hearted' than say the camera crews that go out for nature shows and film the same thing happening in the wild. "We are only observers, we cannot interfere with the natural process." While I can't say I would have done the same thing as this landowner, I don't condem him either.

Buzzards are natural and they gotta eat too. Can't deny them a meal 'cause they aren't as cute or majestic as elk. Maybe the owner runs a cyote farm or is part of the project to reintroduce wolves to the wild. The way he sees it, free food for his project.



Now here's another idea, If the landowner had allowed the 'professionals' onto his property to assist the animals, then one of the 'professionals' gets gored for his trouble, is the landowner then responsible or legally liable for injuries that occurred on his property? Could the injured party then hire a slip and fall lawyer to sue this owner for everything he has? Just a thought.

 

Bravo. The land owner was correct.

 

[QUOTE=furball69]Shoot them? didn't you just say there was no need for them to die?

There's a reason it's called 'natural selection'. What if one of them was meant to have survived but now he's got a bullet in his brain.

Yes I did say that. I sorry if I confused that statement. I should have said that there was no need for them to die by suffering. And by this I mean being tangled for such a period of time that they obviously could not get untangled by them self.

I did not start this post to create a fight between FTE members. I was stating what I had read and gave "my opinion" on how I felt. Regardless of if I think the land owner was right or wrong. What I was getting at, is as I stated before. It sounded like many hours had passed and all involed knew that death was going to happen even without help from outside sources. Why make them suffer? To me, there was no need. If the meat could have been saved for someone to use, great. If it was left for the other animals to eat on, great.

As a hunter and I see something like this in an area that I can hunt and I have an unfiled tag. I will chose to shot and tag the animal even if I can't save the meat. And I will go to the local Game Warden and report what I had done. If I were to get a fine, that is my choice.

I know that laws are put in place for a reason, even if some of the reason's are dumb. But I will always stand firm that if an animal does not need to suffer and I can control it, then I will. Even if it's against the law. So far, in my life time, I have had to kill 2 deer that got hit by cars and could not move but where still alive. One, I broke it's neck and the other I cut it's throat. In Montana, that's against the law. You are to wait until law enforcement show's up. It could take them hours depending on where you are and if you can get ahold of them. I chose not to wait.

Everybody has a choice as to what they want to do, and should not be judged by others. I have read every post in here and I may or may not agree with everybody. Thats the nice thing about all of us being different, we can think for our selfs.

Thats my female side coming out. LOL. My male side says, shot them, hang them and eat them. Elk is great food.

Again, I did not mean to start any fights or anger between FTE members. What ever happens, I have to always answer for my actions. If its here on this fourm, or anywhere else.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

If it were my land, I personally don't want a couple elk fighting, getting their horns locked and then having to watch them starve to death in my face. The land owner, in my own opinion, was cruel. What happens out in the forest, plain old happens.No one is there to witness it and have to make a judgement. If it's in my face and there's something I can do to control it, it's going to get controlled. I'm not what some consider to be a Nature ****, but I also think common sense and a median point needs to be reached. There is no black and white in all situations. Man was given dominion over the land and the animals on it. One mans "wise" policy is to another man...a fools errand. This post could go on forever and we would never all agree if the land owner is right or if it's "genetically" right to just let them fight to exhaustion and then lay there and starve to death. Common sense needs to be inserted someplace.

 

For what...so they could possibly lock horns again and someone could see them and start a debate about ethics vs survival of the fittest???

It's regrettable that these things happen, but the landowner shouldn't be held accountable in this case.

 

The land owner was right on one point, however his ethics are lacking. That still does not negate his lawful right.

 

morally obligated maybe but not legally..

 

the coke machine is not nature, thats man made death trap to the terminally dumb who stick their hands in there.

yes there was a fence, which is not nature, so they are animals in captivity but how large is this captivity if they're still wild animals not fenced in a pen or pasture? isn't the govt and (no offense) "tree huggers" or whatever other nicknames these people have in essence doing the same thing as the land owner by creating the wild life conservations? Fenced areas where the wild are protected?

I'd'a said yeah becuz I'd'a felt good about helping the creatures live in the hopes they might not do it again, but I would say only if they don't put tags on them, they don't give them a bunch of innoculations and drugs, just as long as they only knocked them out, untangled them, and let them be. Reality is they probly wld have fought again, one or both might not have made it the nxt time either and noone might have been around. The land owner had every right to say no becuz it's his property and I believe that the land is his, whatever on it is his. (I heard that in an old movie and I agree with it) If he doesn't want those animals on his land, he probly didn't care if they killed themselves, saves him having to get rid of them himself. If he wanted them there, he'd'a probly let them go untangle them.

Whatever his motives are his and his decision. We may not like it, or we may have done it different but it's not our land to force any man to let any person for any reason onto if he doesn't want to. That's one of those rights of a person you gotta respect their decision even if you THINK it's wrong.

 

I'm a hunter (although not a real good one) and think they should have helped the elk, but too each their own... But I think they should have fined the guy for having dead animals on his property, just ot get even. :-)

 

Fining a guy for not letting someone on his property...sounds like a dangerous precedent to me! Of course any land we own in this great country is only ours until the city, county, state, or federal government decide they need it more than we do...something called "imminent domain" I believe. I've seen it in action....SCARY!

 

Enforcing laws "just to get even" is also a very scary thing.

 

76...ditto that!

Flip...I did notice the smile at the end of your post - wasn't implying you were serious with my follow-up.

Scott

 

whats he gonna do with a ton of rotting meat on his property?

ask the state to clean it up?

Mark
____________________________________________
01 F150 Supercab Flareside XLT 4x2 5.4L Auto
Deep Wedgewood Metallic and Silver
Fabtech Lift 285/75/R16 Dominator Sport A/T's

 

78 - No I wasn't serious - I feel that if the guy didn't want to help the elk on his own property then that's fine. Around here people are sick of hitting deer with cars (avg of 3-4 in the local paper a week) So I can see why he might not be inclined to help. I don't believe I could watch them suffer though. There is probably way more to this for the land owner then any of us knows. So I lightened it up with a joke.