Brown & 75 lbs

[Biggie]

Took my new rod out for the first time this afternoon on Clarks Creek. Came upon this fawn. She was shot yesterday with a flintlock and I guess the hunter lost the bood trail and she made it to the creek. The coyotes or bears will eat good for a while.

 

[salvelinus]

Who would shoot a deer that small? Makes me sick.

 

[SBecker]

Why does it make you sick? The point of shooting deer is to keep the population in check and providing food. Meat is tendor.

 

[caveman]

The best eating deer are those young ones.

 

[wildtrout2]

That's a yearling, not to be confused with a fawn, which would still have spots. Yep, that would be some tender meat. The woodland creatures won't waste it though.

 

[sandfly]

being that fresh should have taken her yourself....at least the loins they would be really good.

 

[pcray1231]

umm, if you discriminate between yearlings and fawns, then there are no fawns at this time of year. They lose the spots when they get their first winter coat.

I've had many situations where it's honestly tough to tell. If you get a decent look at the face the fawns/yearlings typically have that short snout which is a giveaway. But running at over 100 yards, which is very common, it can be very difficult to discriminate between adult doe and fawns.

Easy drag and good meat, even if not that much of it.

 

[FiveWeight]

salvelinus wrote:
Who would shoot a deer that small? Makes me sick.

First. It's legal. And second they taste sooooo good. Not veal but close. Besides that, the one pictured may not have been the one the hunter was shooting for. He/she may have put a .50 cal slug through his target and never knew he hit this one pictured. Oh, and they taste sooooo good.

 

[pcray1231]

Yeah, shooting 2 with one shot is not all that uncommon.

I had a period in my life where I had killed 8 deer with my last 7 shots. And that included 2 misses.

 

[OldLefty]

I'm sorry to hear that harvesting a yearling would make anyone sick. I, for one, wouldn't hesitate to do so.

There are some who feel that, in late season, it may be better to harvest the youngest doe. It is less likely that the hunter would be killing more than one deer at a time. Most mature doe are already bred at this time and killing a pregnant doe is like killing more than one.

And, yes, young deer are tender and tasty!

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I just love how Biggie put his fly rod on it, for perspective haha!

 

[Weible1]

It's very difficult to tell the size of a deer sometimes in the woods. The smaller they are, the easier they are to drag lol!

 

[The_Sasquatch]

My dad was 2 miles back this year and shot an 8 pointer that weighed 160lbs AFTER the field dressing hahahaha! Needless to say, dragging that thing out pushed his 66 yr old body to the max!

 

[rrt]

I agree with salvelinis. At one time, it might have been appropriate to kill deer this small, but with today's radically reduced deer population on public lands, it is a crying shame to kill fawns (they are still fawns, even if the spots are gone). To me, killing these little guys is like taking limits of 7- to 9-inch trout; it may be legal, but it is certainly unsporting to the nth degree.

 

[Love2fish]

rrt,
To each his own. And by saying that is only because with some guys it may be the only deer they see, and after taking time off from work, license, fuel, etc that puts the icing on the cake after all thats why we are out there it's not like we can practice catch and release. If you have plenty of time watching deer yes it is possible to determin a yearling, but if you dont and that yearling walks out alone at say 50 yds, game on,
Everyone is intitled to thier own take on it but to say one shouldn't not so sure, also remember it could be a youths first deer, something else to think about.

 

[SBecker]

rrt wrote:
To me, killing these little guys is like taking limits of 7- to 9-inch trout; it may be legal, but it is certainly unsporting to the nth degree.

So what you are saying is that you should never take limits of brook trout, right?

 

[bikerfish]

SBecker wrote:

rrt wrote:
To me, killing these little guys is like taking limits of 7- to 9-inch trout; it may be legal, but it is certainly unsporting to the nth degree.

So what you are saying is that you should never take limits of brook trout, right?

ha ha ha, your gonna get yelled at!!!!

 

[Phish_On]

You can fish without killing. You can't hunt without killing. There is plenty of deer. Thy out number humans in this state. Kill um all!!

 

[SBecker]

bikerfish wrote:

SBecker wrote:

rrt wrote:
To me, killing these little guys is like taking limits of 7- to 9-inch trout; it may be legal, but it is certainly unsporting to the nth degree.

So what you are saying is that you should never take limits of brook trout, right?

ha ha ha, your gonna get yelled at!!!!

;-) you know me. Always love a little pot stirring.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

SBecker wrote:

bikerfish wrote:

SBecker wrote:

rrt wrote:
To me, killing these little guys is like taking limits of 7- to 9-inch trout; it may be legal, but it is certainly unsporting to the nth degree.

So what you are saying is that you should never take limits of brook trout, right?

ha ha ha, your gonna get yelled at!!!!

;-) you know me. Always love a little pot smoking.

Dude you're a father and a teacher! Come on!