In my November 2004 North American Hunter magizine there is an acticile about 2 bull elk that had their antlers locked together. This happen in northeastern Nevada. The story goes on to say that a passing motorist called the Nevada Dept of Wildlife (DOW) to report the 2 bull elk. A crew from DOW was dispatched to the scene and saw the bulls thrashing and flailing behind a fence posted with a "No trespassing" sign. The landowner was located and refused their request to enter the property to free the elk. The biologists tried unsuccessfully to get a court order. They were then allowed access to the property a few hoours after the bulls had already died.

How could someone knowing what the results of the bulls outcome be, if not attended to right away, not allow access? I'm sorry, but this landowner IMO should be fined. He knowingly let those two bull elk die when they could have been saved.

I understand that people having their own land, they paid for it, they can do as they please. But this is wrong. This is not like someone trespassing on your land to go hunting with out your permission. I am a hunter and I believe in no trespassing. I have asked to retrieve game off private land and have been allowed to do so. But to be made to stand there and watch these two wonderful elk suffer because of someones pride of ownership. That just is not right. Why did the landowner have to wait until they were dead?


TOM

 

I don't think that he was right at all to not allow them onto his property. Its too bad that people have to be that way. Unfortunately there is nothing anyone could do about it. But that the way things go these days i guess. Too bad for those elk.

 

So.. if a bear poops in the forest and nobody is around to smell it, did he actually poop? Of course he did, silly. Ergo, what what do bleeding hearts do if two bull elk, deer, pheasants, snakes, bugs, (get the picture?) fight to the death in an area outside the sight of humans? Send Mother Nature a fine? Guess what? It's called the survival of the fittest.

A few years back, there was a tremendous snow storm on Mt. Hood. The elk were starving to death. A big argument ensued within the game and fish; feed them or let them starve. Common sense prevailed, no food drops. Sounds mean, but is this the first or last time this or any other herd has faced these conditions? Nope. What keeps them from becoming extinct is the resilience of some individual animals to deseases that kill other members of the species when exposed to such conditions.

Had humans interferred, the genes responsible for this resilience would have been further regressed.

Maybe the landowner understood some of this. Furthermore, if it makes YOU feel better, write out a nice check to the nearest Pheasants Forever, or Ducks Unlimited.

 

That's quite odd. In most states, the DEP/DNR/Game Wardens have more entry and search and seizure rights than the troopers do. I can't imagine why they wouldn't be able to take action on this even without the property owner's permission.

 

Nevada's funny about a lot of things, property rights, civil rights being one of them.

IMO, in this case, humans shouldn't have interfered with those animals. They didn't lock antlers because of human interference, and they we shouldn't interfere to unlock them. Nature takes its course.

 

I agree, if nature made it then nature should undo it. I have never had problems with property or civil rights here.

 

I have to side with the land owner on this one also.. They got locked together without human help let them get apart without human help. Its called survival of the fittest.

 

1952henry. Your point is taken. However, this was beside a roadway, not back in the woods where it couldn't be seen. Bleeding heart, no. Ethical, yes. There was no need for them to die. If it was during hunting season, somebody should have been allowed to shot them and tag them. I do not believe in letting any thing suffer if I can have control over it. By letting them die, their genes will not be passed on. In my own opinion, the land owner was wrong. Whether he should have been fined or not, I should not have said. Makes a person wonder from your belief that if something were to happen to you, would you want people to stand around and watch you suffer, or would you want them to help. And as far as, "Survuval of the fittest"! They both needlessly died. If they had been allowed to be separated, they could have lived to fight again another day.

 

Unfortunately, landowners and almost all government agencies have had and will always have battles, often ignoring what is common sense. Regardless, Everyone should pull together and think what is right and just. I am not a bleeding heart liberal/save the world person, but a simple solution could be to dart the animals , cut off the antlers, and let them go on their merry way . Could have been a prime chance to run tests on their blood for chronic waste diesease, as well as others. While they had them darted. I don't think an animal suffering has any benefits to anyone period. Survival of the fittest maybe the law of the land, but we have interrupted it in many cases- I feel this is one that we should have taken a simple solution. I am a landowner as well as a hunter, and in no way would I be so stubborn as to deny them access and allow them to fight it out. Our bulls(cattle) fight it out daily, if I see one at the point of kiling the other should I allow it to Happen? No, why because it costs money? or is it because it is just not right? I think this landowner was just ignorant and a person that loves to defy others, the old government versus us theory, unfortunately two animals paid the price for it. This will probably make me more enemies then friends but, ALOT of landowners are hard headed and view everyone against them, they are anti government, and anti- anything but their rural lifestyles. But, they love to accept subsidize payments. If I remember correctly waste and wanton is one of the first lessons in hunting, as well as being a law. I guess it is better to let someone have their way defy people trying to help, so that 2 animals can die and be vulture food- makes alot of sense to me.

 

and what if some gene was the cause of the antlers getting hooked together? maybe the antlers grew in such a way that they hooked easily or the bull's mentallity caused it to fight differently or longer or just wouldnt let him give up. in any case if something like that caused the problem than it is better for that male to die than for him to pass that trait on to how ever many offspring he may father in his life. which is worse, two elk dieing or the eight or ten or how ever many he might father. just let nature take its course. it ensures that the animals that need to be thinned out for the best interest of the species are thinned out. just a thought . . .

they could have stopped the suffering and just shot both elk. the meat could have been utilized. would this have been a better solution???

 

Yes it would have been. Like I said before, no need to suffer. If they could have shot them and used the meat for some family that needed it or another good use. By all means, shoot them, eat them. Enough from me.


Tom

 

i think that is the solution i would have leaned toward. i would never let an animal suffer if i could help it. i have even put down some livestock that i had quite a bit of money in. if they are really suffering it is the right thing to do. and i have never killed a healthy animal and not utilized the meat. if im not gonna eat it i just dont shoot it. i just dont think that it is my place to untangle them and release them.( and sometimes you just gotta be the devil's advocate in these threads. hahaha lol)

 

Yeah, I agree they shouldn't have waste the meat at all. The only thing is, this incident presents a true example of why the bleeding hearts want to outlaw hunting because if you would have put them down- Whew big stink from the left. Allowing them to go to waste-then a Big stink from about everybody but the landowner. Darting, them , untangling them, testing (they have to perform so many anyways) and releasing them- and probably the only person pi$$ed would be poor landowner. Which I can no figure why he had rights over the game management anyways- I didn't read the article ,but private citizens in most states regardless of landownership do not have rights over a wild animal except during hunting season - and large mamamals by permit only-- like I said I would have let the game management take care of it and if they ruled that the animals be destroyed then atleast I am certain the meat would have been used. The way I see it no one benefitted ,but MR. I got to have my way and defy people Landowner, I have know people that actaully have to eat wild game to survive and I have known alot of people that would have loved to use that meat in the proper manner and I am certain that in that county there would have been some of these people greatful to have it as well. Under no circumstances period should hundreds of pounds of meat just go to waste anywhere. I guess stubbornous defeats pride overall. I support hunters rights as well as landowners to a certain extent, but never anyone who lets it battle out to waste.

 

I once hit a bull elk with my truck. dented the side of my truck and really messed up the front of my brand new livestock trailer. this was in new mexico and they let me take the elk. it went into my freezer and tasted great. i just couldnt stand to waste that much meat. and an elk has ALOT!!! of meat.

 

Just a few side thoughts on this issue. I doubt if the meat would have been any good at any point in time after the 'fight' ensued. The amount of adrenaline that would be present in the meat would probably make it at least taste quite bad, if not totally ruin it.

As for killing these elk due to their being tangled. I have mixed feelings. For the most part, I feel let nature take its course. Although allowing the game people to destroy these elk would have been the humane thing to do. I seriously doubt if genetics had a thing to do with the animals getting entwined. If anything, it probably had a negative impact upon the gene pool, assuming at least one of the elk was a dominate male.