Hunters pissed at shoot-and-run Pawlenty.

[SirNitram]

Link

Gov. Tim Pawlenty has taken a drubbing from hunters for not tracking down a deer he shot on opening day of Minnesota's firearm deer season.

A headline on deerhuntingchat.com calls the possible presidential candidate a "slob hunter" for wounding a deer on Nov. 7 and then leaving for a Republican fundraiser in Iowa before the animal could be found.

One contributor wrote: "What kind of slob hunter goes out opening morning and shoots a deer knowing full well you won't have time to retrieve it or tend to it? One whose presidential ambitions override his hunting ethics, that's what kind."

The-deer-hunting-guide.com says: "A responsible hunter, who is also an ethical hunter, will be prepared to spend hours trailing a wounded deer; even come back the next day if needed. You must make every effort to retrieve a wounded animal. It's the right ethical thing to do."

Mark Johnson, executive director of the Minnesota Deer Hunters Association and an organizer of last weekend's hunt, said Pawlenty and his hunting party did everything they could to find the animal.

After the governor shot the deer at 7 a.m. from more than 200 yards away, he and his brother Dan, an accomplished hunter, went to where they last saw the animal.

Finding blood but no deer, they returned to base camp for breakfast and to consider their next move.

Due in Iowa that night for a fundraiser, Pawlenty left while others took up the search. By dusk they had found nothing and stopped. There has been no sign of the animal since.

Pawlenty has bagged only one deer -- in 2004 -- in his seven years as governor.

Seriously, how hard is it to just finish the thing off? Wounding and wandering off is just cruel.

And is it odd the bleed-heart liberal naturally twigs to these ethical frameworks for hunting?

[The Spartan]

Seriously, how hard is it to just finish the thing off? Wounding and wandering off is just cruel.

If the deer bolts upon being shot, and they will even with a good shot, you may never see it again. Especially if you take a shot at 200 yds. If you don't mortally wound the deer, it may live for quite some time and move more miles than you can track it once the wound stops bleeding heavily.

[Red]

Well, in all fairness, the ethics quoted say to be prepared to spend hours... and it appears an entire team of flunkies spent roughly eight hours (say, 9am after breakfast until 5pm dusk) doing just that. That's several people tending to a job normally only expected to be performed by one. That strikes me as above the ethical call of duty, not deficient.

As to "how hard can it be?", well... if it wasn't a common dilemma facing hunters, I doubt it would be expressly covered in any defined ethical code.

[SirNitram]

I phrased this badly. I'll try and put it better:

If you're going to be hunting, take the time to actually do it. Yes, this can take alot of time. Maybe you shouldn't fucking do it when you're campaigning, just a hint. The rest of the group isn't going to get criticism from me; they honestly put effort into it. SOmetimes you manage, sometimes you don't. And most ethical frameworks recignize honest effort to do the right thing. None, to my knowledge, recignize the 'Ooops, look at the time, this is boring now. Bye!'.

Except maybe Ayn Rand's.

[LapsedPacifist]

It sounds like they spent hours at the site of the deer, and didn't find any blood. At a certain point you chalk it up to he-just-missed.

Now if there was any sign he actually had hit the deer then spending many more hours would definitely be appropriate.

EDIT: I'll add that my experience is almost as a bowhunter where ranges are much less and you can usually recover an arrow after any shot. So it's a lot more difficult to not know if you hit something.

[The Spartan]

Maybe you shouldn't fucking do it when you're campaigning, just a hint.

This, I very much agree with.

[Red]

If you're going to be hunting, take the time to actually do it. Yes, this can take alot of time. Maybe you shouldn't fucking do it when you're campaigning, just a hint. The rest of the group isn't going to get criticism from me; they honestly put effort into it.

If the governor had himself spent 8 hours looking for the deer, then it seems you would be content, whether or not he found it. He would have put in the honest effort recommended by the ethics quoted. However, when a team of other people perform the job after he fires the shot--so it is not one, but several people making an honest effort--then some ethics have been violated?

I can only assume(!) that he had a team with him, in order to cover situations like this. And since preparations were made, and multiple man-hours were spent looking for the deer... what's the problem? The man was taking a break by enjoying a pasttime, and came prepared to deal with necessary consequences. I think it's quite harsh, and judgmental, to say things like "maybe you shouldn't do it when you're campaigning" when you take precautions...

[Anguirus]

I think it's fair to say that if you're going to shoot animals as a pastime, you should at least do a proper job of it. If he only had a few hours to spare, perhaps he could have golfed, or taken his rifle to the range.

Is it a big deal? No. Is it "harsh" to criticize him? Eh, perhaps (he did have his aides searching above and beyond the call of duty) but frankly I usually perceive an "NRA outreach" agenda when politicians blast an animal with a rifle and then catch a jet to a fundraiser, which makes me a little more sympathetic to the animal and a little less to the hunter than I might normally be.

[SirNitram]

You're right. It is harsh and judgemental. That doesn't make it incorrect. I don't respect people who don't finish their shit, even if they leave it to others. Nor do I respect, in any way, the view that if some people do it, the one whose obviously in a position of power and influence, is off the hook.

[Red]

I don't respect people who don't finish their shit, even if they leave it to others.

Point taken. I guess it's just a question of whether or not the goal of the ethical code is the action itself (he fired the shot, he should accept consequences) or the result (as long as someone follows up, we're good).

[SirNitram]

I don't respect people who don't finish their shit, even if they leave it to others.

Point taken. I guess it's just a question of whether or not the goal of the ethical code is the action itself (he fired the shot, he should accept consequences) or the result (as long as someone follows up, we're good).

The latter strikes me as less an ethical code and more a lazy man's excuse. 'Eh, someone will get it, I can go now.'

[gizmojumpjet]

More man-hours than might usually be expected were spent looking for this deer but you're just shitting on Pawlenty because he didn't live up to some arbitrary honor code bullshit you've conjured up. I am, however, sure that this has everything to do with true righteous rage and nothing whatsoever to do with his political affiliation.

[CmdrWilkens]

I don't respect people who don't finish their shit, even if they leave it to others.

Point taken. I guess it's just a question of whether or not the goal of the ethical code is the action itself (he fired the shot, he should accept consequences) or the result (as long as someone follows up, we're good).

When the ethic itself is applied to the individual then handing responsibility to someone else is, in and of itself, a failure of responsibility. Put another way the idea is that if one has a packed schedule then you must allow that an activity which could require a huge number of aditional hours as a likely result is not the best thing to do. In other words a plane flight might be delayed by a few hours as a relatively routine hour so a good business man gives oneself additional time for all the hassles associated with air travel AND for the likelyhood of delay (and a particularly greater amount of leeway when weather or other actors intervene). If hunting routinely leads to multi hour treks following up ona wounded shot then a good hunter shoudl plan to provide that amoutn of time. Hinting first and THEN putting together a plan to see through the action which doesn't fit within the schedule is irresponsible.

[Red]

Put another way the idea is that if one has a packed schedule then you must allow that an activity which could require a huge number of aditional hours as a likely result is not the best thing to do... If hunting routinely leads to multi hour treks following up ona wounded shot then a good hunter shoudl plan to provide that amoutn of time. Hinting first and THEN putting together a plan to see through the action which doesn't fit within the schedule is irresponsible.

I agree with your last sentence entirely.

If the governor and his team had gone hunting, and said to themselves: "Y'all, ya know how sometimes you can shoot a deer and spend hours chasing it? Well, the plan is that if that event happens, the team is here to cover that responsibility, allowing the governor to meet his schedule"... if that had happened and been agreed upon, would you feel better?

Also: Hi Gizmo!

[Mr. Coffee]

See, guy wouldn't have had this problem in the first place if he had used a cartridge sufficient to drop the animal or at least cause enough trauma that it wouldn't be able to get more than a few dozen yards away. The entire reason why I use oddball overly powerful cartridges when I hunt deer is to ensure the animal dies quickly, either because the round caused enough shock trauma to kill it then and there or it causes so much bleeding the animal bleeds out before it can have a chance to go very far (and lots of bleeding has the added benefit of leaving a much easier to find trail in case the animal makes it into thicker brush). That said, Gov. Pawlenty should have either scheduled enough time to enough time to properly hunt or he should have stayed his prissy ass out of the fucking woods.

[The Spartan]

I'm guessing he also didn't land a very good shot, given that he fired from over 200 yards away.

[Winston Blake]

It sounds like they spent hours at the site of the deer, and didn't find any blood. At a certain point you chalk it up to he-just-missed.

Now if there was any sign he actually had hit the deer then spending many more hours would definitely be appropriate.

Actually, they found blood:

After the governor shot the deer at 7 a.m. from more than 200 yards away, he and his brother Dan, an accomplished hunter, went to where they last saw the animal.

Finding blood but no deer, they returned to base camp for breakfast and to consider their next move.

---

Man-hours are a poor way to measure many things (cf. The Mythical Man-Month). Factory jobs? Sure. Arts? Not so much. I'm guessing that tracking bleeding animals is more of an artful skill than a routine procedure.

Regarding consequentialist ethics, it may be true that his assistants could do the job for him. However you could also consider the consequences of his actions on his character. It sets a precedent for not taking responsibility, like making someone else clean up after a party. All other things equal, that pattern will have negative future consequences. Especially for a 'possible presidential candidate'.

[Mr. Coffee]

I'm guessing he also didn't land a very good shot, given that he fired from over 200 yards away.

Yeah, you'll see that sort of thing a lot during deer season. Right before the season starts locally take a trip to the local gun ranges (anything with a 100 yard bench will do fine) and you'll see the place packed with rednecks, suburban dwelling wannabe outdoorsmen, and Fudds who are there to fire maybe ten round to see if their rifle's shooting somewhere inside of 2 MOA of there the scope says it's pointed. The fun part is that is the totally amount of shooting most of these assholes will do before heading into the woods to go kill Bambi.

There simply isn't any substitute to good marksmanship when it comes to hunting.

[Luzifer's right hand]

There is always the possibility of just injuring an animal and failing to track it down afterwards, that possibility is lower or higher depending on your skill and equipment.
If you fail to track an injured animal or manage to track it down does not really make that much of a difference in my opinion.
It's a hobby which involves the risk of causing animals prolonged suffering and anyone who practices it clearly finds that the recreational value is worth that risk.

I know that some people hunt to get decent meat on their table, but a Governor is hardly poor enough for that reason to apply thus it seems to be something he does as a hobby just for fun.

[Mr. Coffee]

There is always the possibility of just injuring an animal and failing to track it down afterwards, that possibility is lower or higher depending on your skill and equipment.

If you can't afford a reliable weapon in an appropriate caliber for the game your hunting then you should not hunt. If you cannot afford the ammunition to maintain good marksmanship so you can hit to kill what you are hunting then you should not hunt. If you lack decent field craft skills to stalk or ambush what you are hunting then either go out with a more experienced hunter or do not go hunting.

It really is that simple.

If you fail to track an injured animal or manage to track it down does not really make that much of a difference in my opinion. It's a hobby which involves the risk of causing animals prolonged suffering and anyone who practices it clearly finds that the recreational value is worth that risk.

This is why I'm all for much more restrictive hunting laws and revamping the hunter safety courses to require in-field practical exams on marksmanship and fieldcraft before allowing anyone to even go out. If you have good field craft you can maneuver into a favorable position for a good shot on the animal, if you have good marksmanship you can hit the animal precisely enough to guarantee a kill, and if you invest in a good weapon in an appropriate caliber for the job you minimize suffering to the animal.

I know that some people hunt to get decent meat on their table, but a Governor is hardly poor enough for that reason to apply thus it seems to be something he does as a hobby just for fun.

He's the governor of a state that prides itself on it's outdoors activities and has a large population of sport and meat hunters. It was purely a publicity stunt for him, and one that backfired at that.

[LapsedPacifist]

It sounds like they spent hours at the site of the deer, and didn't find any blood. At a certain point you chalk it up to he-just-missed.

Now if there was any sign he actually had hit the deer then spending many more hours would definitely be appropriate.

Actually, they found blood:

After the governor shot the deer at 7 a.m. from more than 200 yards away, he and his brother Dan, an accomplished hunter, went to where they last saw the animal.

Finding blood but no deer, they returned to base camp for breakfast and to consider their next move.

I don't know how I missed that... I read it as finding no blood and no deer.

[SirNitram]

I'm agreeing with all of Mr. Coffee's post.

This is odd to type.

[Elfdart]

My older brother spent the better part of an hour tracking down a buck he shot Saturday. He was pissed off as it was for not dropping the the deer immediately. The idea of leaving a wounded animal to die over several hours or days was unthinkable.

[Mr. Coffee]

I'm agreeing with all of Mr. Coffee's post.

This is odd to type.

Even a broke watch is right sometimes, Nit.

[Pulp Hero]

It's unsporting, but not ethically wrong for the Governor to leave the follow up to a team. This "honor code" crap is dumb so long as the job gets done.