Tracking deer with dogs
I recieved an e-mail from a reader who took issue with my story about the Texas bow hunter who couldn’t find a downed deer on his own but was aided by an Oklahoma tracker with his dog.
“The article in Sunday’s paper was very disappointing to true sportsman,” he wrote. “The sad reality is this hunter did not deserve the rack of the buck he wounded nor did he deserve the help that he received.
“A dirty little secret that most bow hunters won’t admit to is that they “often” take chance shots at deer either too far or at poor angles and just hope for the best. This man was apparently a novice at best and obviously executed a by not fatally wounding the deer in a manner which would have enabled him to recover it.
“To use this as an example of justification for allowing dogs to be used in the deer fields is absolutely absurd. The burden of trying to discern what the dogs are being used for would wreak havoc for game wardens and all hunters.
“A real significant change that would resolve mose of these unfortunate scenarios would be to require bow hunters to qualify at a target range before being issued licenses and even re-qualify after a few years. That would be a good path of improving skills, enjoyment of the hunting experience and minimizing wasted game.”
I agree that hunters have an ethical responsibility at shot placement, but I also would argue that anyone can miss their mark and lose a deer.
The reader agreed with me, and later suggested that perhaps the state Wildlife Department could manage such a service by means of an 800 number and dispatching from a contact list of willing trackers.
“It might bring in additional revenues,” he wrote.
Thank you for joining our conversation on Outdoors. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
I think you are getting into a hard area. At first things like making sure the qualify is only and beginning. Anytime we invite the government to came into our lives it is a risky business that may never stop. Don’t get me wrong I think government is important when they do there job and not get involved in every little aspect of our lives.
Hunter’s critique of reader’s response to story:
Being the person who was actually there, and who took the shot, I will say that the reader should be cautious to presume that he knows anything about the distance or angle in which the shot was taken. He is allowed to imagine the unethical 70 yard shot, but shouldn’t assume that the shot actually taken was anything but ethical. He states that bowhunters “often take chance shots”. Obviously, he is not a bowhunter. An ethical bowhunter NEVER takes a “chance” shot. In reality, it was a 18-19 yard shot, slightly quartering away- which is an ideal shot scenario for a bowhunter. The fact that the shot caught both lungs makes it “chance”, and makes myself a “novice at best”? Of course I would disagree. I will not argue my marksmanship or proficiency because I do not need to. As long as a hunter is confident in an ethical shot, he is allowed the right to take it. Bystanders can cry “foul” if they choose, but should refrain when they don’t have all the facts, as in this situation.
Furthermore, the suggestion that a “true sportsman” does or does not “deserve” the deer, or “deserve” the help received from the dog and owner is juvenile. First, is it his prerogative to measure one’s “true sportsman” status? What qualifies a person to be a “true sportsman”? Some would argue that using a gun is not sporting. Some would argue shooting does is not sporting. Some would argue hunting at all is not sporting, but senseless murder of innocent animals. So who is right and who is wrong? Is high-fence hunting sporting? We could all argue for years (as has been done) about these issues. Suffice it to say that if you have no ethical dilemma in believing that you are a sportsman, then you are allowed that self-proclamation. If you call yourself a sportsman, one should not call into question another’s sportsmanship on the basis that he disagrees with an aspect of the other’s hunt. Second, what does one need to do to “deserve” a deer? I am curious to say the least.
On another note, the reader is again uninformed when it comes to the actual recovery of the animal. In retrospect, I had looked for the deer in the wrong location. As soon as it was out of sight (about 25 yards from shot), it turned a complete 90 degree angle. Of course I did not know this at the time, so I was looking in the wrong place. In reality, the deer was not more than a couple of hundred yards from the shot, not uncommon or “novice” as he would suppose. A mixture of terrain (very rough canyons and ravines) and the amount of vegetation were the main problem, not shot placement. But I am fully confident that if Carey and Otto would not have been there, the deer would NEVER have been recovered.
As far as using this for the justification of tracking dogs, I would say to the reader- What would you have done in this situation? You look for several hours, call game wardens, friends. Do you just quit? Since I’m a “novice at best, and undeserving of the deer”, I should just call it a day and go home? I would disagree with this as well. Being a “true sportsman”, you would do anything you could to recover the animal. That is the only fair and ethical thing to do. For me to have the option to use a dog, and not utilize that option when all others had been exhausted, would be very dishonorable.
Requiring people to “qualify” at a range before buying a license is nonsensical as well. I have a range at my home, and have shot at competitive shoots. Shooting at a dot exactly 20 yards away does not “qualify” you as a “real sportsman”, and does not replicate field situations. This is like saying that just because you have a driver’s license that automatically makes you a great driver. In fact, people still have wrecks even though they had to pass a test to get the driver’s license. Same goes for the hunting world. Even with a test before you get a license, there will still be missed shots. It will make no difference, it will just cost you and me more money to become licensed. I have seen the best hunters in the world miss shots. Jim Shockey missed a deer the other day. Should we make him take a “refresher course”, and call him a novice? I would be careful in labelling him “not a true sportsman” as well.
In conclusion, the reader failed to make any solid points to argue against another person’s proficiency or sportsmanship without knowing completely the facts of the case. If the reader disagrees with using tracking dogs, he should just come out and say it instead of bashing and name calling another hunter. To say these things distracts from the point of Mr. Godfrey’s article: that tracking dogs may be beneficial to the lifestyle of hunters. Not as a means to hunt deer, but as a means to find deer once they are taken. The burden does not lie on Game Wardens to regulate this, but instead it lies on Sportsmen and Women to follow the law, and to do it ethically. I truly hope that Oklahoma considers a change in this law. The animals that are hunted in both of our great states “deserve” to not be wasted. If the reader disagrees with this, it is his decision, but let us not fall into calling names and pointing fingers.
If you want Bow Hunters to qualify why stop there? We should also make hunters who use guns qualify periodically also. Most Bow Hunters spend many hours practicing for accuracy. Very few who use a gun ever go to a range to practice.