If true, that's a shame. Nothing like shooting a tame deer.
How are they tame there? Serious question because I have no clue...
How does "the law" read? That is what I truly want to know. I will research it in due time, but thought you or someone here may know. I for one do not take an officer/park ranger's word/interpretation for how "the law reads".
Assuming these are facts (I have no reason to doubt Pilchard), these are the details that tell THE REST OF THE STORY. On another note, my buddy lives near Radnor and mentions it in our conversations a fair amount. He too describes the "wildlife" as "not so wild", with some being more tame than others. That is a whole other discussion.
I don't know how the law reads, but if hunting was closed, or it was a quota hunt that he didn't draw on, that area is off limits to him. No different than private property.
Thanks!
radnorlake.org
That's the best you have? I do know if I hunt in a state park, while season is closed I'm in violation. And tracking a deer onto that state land, closed or not, is apart of the hunt. So you can try to spin it anyway you want, but the ranger followed the law. Simple as that.
My point is not all TN State parks are created equal. We have State Park land in my neck of the woods that allows hunting and would allow game retrieval if the warden/ranger was contacted, many times no contact required when open hunting. The verbiage "he followed the law" is painting "the law" with a broad brush IMO, thus why I asked if you or someone knew how "the law" read in this particular case (Radnor Lake). That is it in a nutshell.
I'll agree it's up to the wma manager. Some managers don't care if you leave your stand all year, others might. The law says not to leave them for 24 hours if I'm not mistaken. I have no idea what wma this is but I have hunted a local wma. One side of the logging road was a safety zone. The other side was open for hunting. No way should I expect a manager, or officer, or ranger to allow me to retrieve an animal if it ended up in the safety zone, regardless of how legal everything had been up to when it crossed into the safety zone. I agree, it was a bs move for them not to retrieve the deer, since it was state property. But I'm also not hurt over it since had the park been private property, it coulda went either way. So many of us here want things to be a certain way. I'll hunt the line, and if I shoot an animal on my side and it goes across the fence, I'm waiting till dark to get it. At the same time you got people willing to hold someone captive because they retrieved an animal. So which way is it?
Im willing to risk it are you? While i have 911 on the line you aint leaving
how do you expect to hold them there
I'm with you on doing everything you possibly can to retrieve the animal. The issue here is exhausted the avenues he had at the moment. Unfortunately, if the law is changed it's too late for this case but hopefully not the next. The ranger/officer done what I would consider to be the minimum of the law. Absolutely they could have allowed him to recover it as well. I personally think on state ground it should be a case by case situation, but also how many times could this potential situation tie up a ranger when they honestly need to be doing something else. I do think we both have the same thoughts, I'm just looking at it from why they did what they did.
If I had access to hunt right beside this place or around somewhere like this I for sure wouldn't turn it down and I doubt anyone would. I live at the bottom of a mtn where they are protected up top. I mtn bike up there almost daily and have one really good buck I see a lot. If he ever slips off the mtn onto my property I wouldn't think twice about killing him. A mature buck lives that long for a reason and I doubt they are easy to kill even when they venture off this Radnor Lake place.
