I happened to be spinning the TV channels this weekend when I happened across a hunting show where that comment was made. The guy on the show who made the comment was referring to his inability to see a certain buck that he had been watching for some time. I can think of at least a half dozen discussion angles to take with such a comment. Did the guy really see it as a bad thing if another hunter kills the deer? Did he somehow feel he's entitled to the deer? Is this guy really going to be very disappointed if another hunter kills the deer? Have deer really become that important to some people?

Dan you've seen that said on here way too many times so think you know how a good many on here feel about that one buck they've laid eyes on. To me, it's a simple crapshoot, nothing more, nothing less.

If I'm after a certain deer, yes, it's important to me. And, yes, I'm disappointed if another hunter kills him. It's not because I begrudge the other hunter, it's because I was after him.

The operative word in the quote is "killed". Your whole post makes a wrong turn by assuming the comment is directed with ire at the other hunter. It is almost certainly directed at the fact that the deer is dead. I'm sure he would feel the same way if he died of old age, disease, or car collision.

I was more drawn to his choice of words "or worse" which eludes to his belief that another hunter killing the deer would be the worst outcome.

I agree, anyone would be disappointed to miss the chance at taking a big buck. Still, should it really make the outcome worse if the opportunity to take the deer fell on someone else?

NP I bet you are a good attorney because you certainly have the art of spin. I get what you're saying but sure seems that it's still disappointment that deer was killed dead by someone else and not said hunter, agree?

Hunters hunt with guns and bows and ultimately will kill and harvest animals. A bit of lottery luck and good fortune involved if you think about it.

I believe I said that in the second sentence. No "spin".

What's the context of the quote, Dan? I didn't see the show.

I assumed the "or worse" was most likely a reference back to other non-lethal options (discussed or not)- such as the buck having left the area or gone nocturnal.

I'm sure many of us have also seen cases where someone was more disappointed that a certain individual had killed a deer that they had wanted for themself or someone else, such as a wife or child.

I would bet one or two of you might even recall a time when such a thing came close to creating a physical altercation.

It was the words "or worse" that had been doing a double take because I really wasn't really listening as close before he made the comment. But I suspect you're correct concerning what he viewed as other possible outcomes.

But does the fact that other outcomes were possible negate the hunters belief that another hunter killing the deer was his least preferred outcome? If that wasn't the case, he wouldn't have added the words "or worse".

On the flip side, I've often told neighboring hunters about a nice buck that I've caught on camera. I always ask them to let me know if they kill him, not so that I can be more disappointed, but so that I can share in their success.

Well ,if you're after a certain buck, him being dead kinda stops you down completely. Him going nocturnal or leaving the area does not. It has zero to do with feeling bad/ill will about another hunter's success. It's about the buck being dead.

Groundhog day.

No, I can't relate to that. Only an idiot or mentally defective person would feel actual anger or ill will towards another hunter for legally killing a buck simply because he/she was hoping to kill it also.

That would be the case only if the hunter had not indicated his belief in a hierarchy of outcomes when he included those two little words. Otherwise, he would have ended the list of reasons by saying "Or, that another hunter had killed him."

I suspect we'll read at least one comment from someone who has seen it happen, maybe even more than once. The primal instinct deep within some guys to get meat for family survival can be strong.

I always did sense a bit of a left leaning defense attorney in you NP.

I'm just to the right of Genghis Khan, and I don't see any politics in the counselor's response. I have no idea where you're coming from with the physical altercation stuff. I've fed out several bucks that I know neighbors have killed. That's life with a small place.

Another recent thread on here opened my eyes as to how a lot of "experts" on here have been hunting a very few years and have killed a relatively small number of deer.

You guys are taking this WAY too serious, hunting is a hobby not a life or death matter . If you are out in the woods hunting, you are NOT at work, no one in your immediate FAMILY is in hospital or you wouldn't be in the woods, you are fortunate enough to healthy enough to hunt. Lighten up.

I think the current popularity of trail cameras over summer feeding stations has greatly contributed to some hunters referring to deer they had baited to their feeding stations as "their deer". It is a fairly recent development that i believe is becoming more common. I don't like it either. I have even had them complain to me about their neighbor baiting the deer away from their bait. My reply is always the same. If you don't like the challenge of hunting wild free range deer you should buy a piece of ground and high fence it, and then feed and hunt your deer. I think it speaks more about the times and some people's attitude of entitlement.

If men have been known to fight over a traffic lane which neither person "owns", I have no problem believing some are capable of fighting over a trophy buck that one of them has been watching for months on end.

I’ve knocked a mans teeth out over a $2 pool game bet when honesty was called into question. However there’s no way I’d ever get upset because someone killed a deer I wanted to shoot.

"I've been watching a cute girl over at the bar but haven't seen her in awhile. Maybe she went home, or worse, went home with a guy"

We can all relate to the above scenario. Why would it be different with a deer?

What the he77 are you guys arguing about now?

Anyone that says they feel 'no disappointment' when a buck they really want is killed by someone else is FOS. I LOVE to put others on nice deer, but if I'm attempting to kill a specific buck and, he gets smoked at an adjacent stand, I'll guarantee you I'll feel a bit defeated.

That said, I'm assuming the deer is in his prime. Someone (hopefully family or friend) killing him is better than possibly never seeing him again. Still hurts a little, though.

An imagined slight.