Do some deer just taste bad?

[Red Picqua]

Was trying to stay out of this one, but cant

1 Rib Meat - Fantastic, cut off the whole side of ribs, slow cook an render all the fat off, then grill at high temps an bbq, would never think about throwing away a set of ribs.
2 Neck meat - fantastic stew meat, especially off does, the meat around the windpipe is easy to strip off an really tender, with little to no fat/stringy stuff
3 Forearm, grinder
4 Learn how to shoot better an dont blow apart the shoulders

First off I wanna know who is realistically killing 20 deer in a night, an I know down south in places like South Carolina you can stack up some deer but 20, come on... even for a party hunt, that's a bit overkill. Maybe the unethical part is killing 20 in a night and deciding that pulling the trigger takes priority over respecting the animal an ensuring proper resource utilization.

Second, 180 grain bullet to drop a doe? No wonder you r blowing the shoulders apart. Cause I know your not dropping 20 hard rutting late season bucks in a night so I think you maybe be overcompensating just a wee bit. Every deer I killed with a riffle dropped just fine with a well placed 22-250 round. Again, maybe the unethical part is in the choice of round an weapon an how it is being utilized while in the field.

Your group kinda reminds me of the waterfowl hunters that go out an shoot 50 geese, then lazily cut out only the breasts an then throw away the best part in the legs/thighs which is about 40% of the overall muscle mass, all because it is to much work, an not worth the time.

the DNR issues crop damage permits so we can reduce the deer numbers, this is about saving crops and reducing high deer numbers. When I personally pull the trigger on an animal I want to kill the animal. This is about a well placed shot, the shot is always front shoulder..BANG. The group runs 50 yards and stops. BANG. We use very flat shooting high powered rifles to get at least 3 or 4 from a group. I wouldn't feel comfortable shooting a 50 grain bullet to the front shoulder at 200 yards on a whitetail. But, you can do what you choose, I know what works for me, and it works extremely well. I have a 22-250 and it's a tack driver but so is my 300 weatherby, it comes down to kinetic energy down range. I just looked at my chart.. 3271 pounds of energy at 200 yards for my 300 and on my 22-250 its 950 pounds. I will stick with my 300. I would go on a limb and say that the majority of hunters I know use nothing less than a 30-30 and the majority use a 270 and 30.06. I don't think I know of one person using a 22.250 for a deer rifle, but if it works for you, great. I would say overall the size of the hole with my 300 on a decent doe is softball to smaller beach ball or larger on the exit. We never ever and I mean ever take head or neck shots. always broadside. never quartering away or towards on does. Bucks.. different story.

So I would ask the group. Everyone hear saves the bloody meat that comes off a front shoulder shot?? Funny we have had the DNR at the farm and given them lots of deer for the hunters for the hungry program. NOT once did they say.. "you didn't take the neck meat." there is NOTHING there! The DNR is always so thankful and gracious of our efforts and what we do is LEGAL and ETHICAL. I would say on a 90 pound doe, decent size one. Neck meat is less than a pound. Although we do take the backstraps up to and including the neck, meaning all the way down. I just don't see the issue here. People are acting like we are wasting tons of meat. There is NOTHING there.

 

[Red Picqua]

Never lost a deer, so don't know that side of the argument.
Knock on wood

Choose not to shoot over a certain distance to ensure proper shot placement.
So I will take a double lung or head shot every time on a doe.

But again, when I am only allotted 1 tag every other year, I make the most of it.

Taking a head shot is ethical????????????? I can tell you that I don't know of one person in close knit of friends that takes head shots on does. In my humble opinion that is unethical. You owe it to the animal to kill it humanely. The margin of error, wind, humidity, deer movement, makes it for a recipe for a disaster and wounding an animal. We never take head or neck shots.

 

[Red Picqua]

Just to complicate your argument a bit, I personally like a scapula shot. It does ruin some meat, however, the deer drops in its tracks and a well placed scapula shot ensures recovery. On the other hand, deer shot through the chest are generally killed by hydrostatic shot, but bullets can do funny things going through a chest cavity with no bone contact. On occasion, I've had deer run for quite a distance and live for quite a while. Depending on the shot angle, an exit would, if it occurs can be high. Blood trails can be minimal. Recovery is far from sure.

So, here is an ethical dilemma for you. Do you take a shot that destroys some meat but ensures recovery of the deer (provided the opportunity presents itself) or do you take a shot that destroys little if any meat but risks the deer expiring unrecovered?

Thanks,

Jack

Front shoulder shot only. only broadside. Based upon the deer I have seen skinned and the front shoulders are generally a bloody clotty mess. never considered a different type of shot. Generally at 200 yards it's front shoulder with the cross hairs and bang. NEXT deer in the sight picture, yardage verified... BANG I called one of my buddies who doesn't have a computer and is marginal on cell phone texting, but is one heck of a hunter and one of the shooters. His only comment was there is nothing to save unless you like blood clots in your fry pan. He shoots the 7mm STW. I love that gun but I tell him it's junk. HEHEHE

 

[Red Picqua]

Agree

I can see Reds end of the deal. Anyone would get sick of butchering 20 deer in a night an would be more than eager to just pitch a whole shoulder if it had globs of blood clot and slim build up on it. I just would not choose to put myself in that position even if we had the tags to fill.

A snow goose hunter is legally allowed to go out an kill his limit of snows. Only to pull up to his legal residence an throw them all straight into the dumpster. Again, to each his own, just not my bag.

totally agree. I don't see the ethics behind throwing away geese in a dumpster. Hence why I don't goose hunt. they taste like crap. Tossing an animal that you kill is unethical. leaving small amounts of meat that are bloody mess is not unethical.

 

[yoderjac]

Red,

Your last several posts illustrate my point about balance. When one takes an animals life my ethics says there needs to be sufficient reason. I've participated in population control archery and shotgun hunts in the suburbs. There are cases where the skills of hunters and sometimes sharpshooters are needed to bring populations back into balance. I don't see this as recreational hunting. In many cases, recreational hunting is used by wildlife managers to keep things from getting this far. In some cases, things have gone too far.

In population control hunts, or damage permit hunts, a whole different set of factors come into play. First, there is much more value in simply removing the animal from the population than is shear recreational hunting. Second, the focus is not on the quality of one's hunt, but successfully removing animals from the population. On some population control archery hunts I've been on in late summer, the biologist instruct us that when we see a doe with fawns, wait for a shot at doe. Once she is down stay in the tree. There is a high likelihood the fawns will return making for an easy shot at them, and if you can't shoot a spotted fawn, this may not be the program for you.

Population control hunts with firearms often result in a large number of harvest in a short period and in many programs the meat is donated to H4H. Here, speed in processing may take precedence over using a higher percentage of the animal. There are practical factors involved as well as potential spoilage factors if meat is not processed quickly enough depending on the climate.

I doubt my ethics and yours are much different. I just draw a different set of lines for myself when I'm hunting recreationally than when I'm part of a population management hunt.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Red Picqua]

Red,

Your last several posts illustrate my point about balance. When one takes an animals life my ethics says there needs to be sufficient reason. I've participated in population control archery and shotgun hunts in the suburbs. There are cases where the skills of hunters and sometimes sharpshooters are needed to bring populations back into balance. I don't see this as recreational hunting. In many cases, recreational hunting is used by wildlife managers to keep things from getting this far. In some cases, things have gone too far.

In population control hunts, or damage permit hunts, a whole different set of factors come into play. First, there is much more value in simply removing the animal from the population than is shear recreational hunting. Second, the focus is not on the quality of one's hunt, but successfully removing animals from the population. On some population control archery hunts I've been on in late summer, the biologist instruct us that when we see a doe with fawns, wait for a shot at doe. Once she is down stay in the tree. There is a high likelihood the fawns will return making for an easy shot at them, and if you can't shoot a spotted fawn, this may not be the program for you.

Population control hunts with firearms often result in a large number of harvest in a short period and in many programs the meat is donated to H4H. Here, speed in processing may take precedence over using a higher percentage of the animal. There are practical factors involved as well as potential spoilage factors if meat is not processed quickly enough depending on the climate.

I doubt my ethics and yours are much different. I just draw a different set of lines for myself when I'm hunting recreationally than when I'm part of a population management hunt.

Thanks,

Jack

There is nothing recreational about this. its hard work. Sucks sometimes when you shoot a nubby. We really and strive really hard not to shoot one. Very rare when we do. totally agree on the spoilage. Speed is the factor when processing these deer.

I would say a good portion of the meat is donated to hunters hungry program. But, quite a bit of it goes to area families that we know utilize the meat and are living at or near poverty. Good honest people that appreciate what we give them. Plus all the meat we give them is deboned and ready to eat. We are never turned away and always leave the home with hugs. Many of those families are too proud to accept govt assistance so a little venison goes a long ways. I don't feel what is being done is unethical at all. This is a business and the population needs to be reduced. The DNR issues the permits and we abide by the law. We just use high powered belted magnum cartridges on deer for knock down power and quick clean kills at long distances. I would say the majority of the time they drop in their tracks and once in a while you get a sprinter. We don't take running shots, recipe for disaster. Most of the time the sprinter goes 30 yards and it cartwheels. Most of the time its bang and they drop, the group runs about 50 yards and stops and bang again. sometimes they stand there to figure out what just happened and you get a triple. the group all has Leupold scopes which we all swear by and they have served us well. There is NOTHING and repeat NOTHING unethical about what we are doing. It's to the letter of the law.

 

[yoderjac]

There is nothing recreational about this. its hard work. Sucks sometimes when you shoot a nubby. We really and strive really hard not to shoot one. Very rare when we do. totally agree on the spoilage. Speed is the factor when processing these deer.

I would say a good portion of the meat is donated to hunters hungry program. But, quite a bit of it goes to area families that we know utilize the meat and are living at or near poverty. Good honest people that appreciate what we give them. Plus all the meat we give them is deboned and ready to eat. We are never turned away and always leave the home with hugs. Many of those families are too proud to accept govt assistance so a little venison goes a long ways. I don't feel what is being done is unethical at all. This is a business and the population needs to be reduced. The DNR issues the permits and we abide by the law. We just use high powered belted magnum cartridges on deer for knock down power and quick clean kills at long distances. I would say the majority of the time they drop in their tracks and once in a while you get a sprinter. We don't take running shots, recipe for disaster. Most of the time the sprinter goes 30 yards and it cartwheels. Most of the time its bang and they drop, the group runs about 50 yards and stops and bang again. sometimes they stand there to figure out what just happened and you get a triple. the group all has Leupold scopes which we all swear by and they have served us well. There is NOTHING and repeat NOTHING unethical about what we are doing. It's to the letter of the law.

Nothing you are doing goes against my personal set of ethics at all. In a fair chase recreational hunt, we pit our brains, skills, and some level of technology against the senses of the quarry. In this scenario, one needs to be able to justify the kill against his on sense of ethics. Folks need to ask themselves, "was the hunt "fair chase" as I see it?". "Is the harvest being put to good use?" "Was my recreational hunt used by wildlife managers as part of a plan to keep populations in balance?" There are probably only a few of the questions folks my ask.

Population control harvests may or may not be called hunting by some, but they are important when we don't use other means to control populations before the get out of hand. They have an entirely different set of questions associated with them. They can't be evaluated with the same criteria as a recreational hunt. Of course few hunts are purely one or the other. There are some exceptions perhaps like sharp shooters shooting deer over bait with silencers and infrared equipment after dark. I struggle to call that a hunt. In most places these days, we have removed enough of the top end predators so that most recreational hunts are used by game managers as one technique for population management setting quotas and the like accordingly.

This has been a great discussion and learning opportunity for many folks. We are a community of folks with many overlapping interests and similar but not identical values. Respectful discussions of topics like this help build our ranks rather than playing into the hands of the animal rights folks.

Thanks,

Jack