BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?

Subject: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:24 PM

So, buddy had a herd of Virgina white tailed deer. A few days ago, he went into the enclosure to feed them and a buck messed him up... he's dead. (Why on God's green earth the RCMP officer interviewed on TV had to descibe it by saying he looked like he was messed up like a rag doll is WAY beyond me. Idiot!))

DNR is investigating why this "dominant" buck killed buddy.

Now, does that seem strange to anybody? It was a full moon in October.

I feel very sorry for buddy and his family. Odd that he didn't take obviously necessary precautions. But, it's VERY odd that the DNR don't know why he should have done so. Seriously, the Dept of Natural Resources doesn't know anything about deer? Anyone else find this odd?

PS.... yes, I am a good ol boy (redneck) from the backwoods of Kent County, so hold your nasty comments unless you know what your are talking about. Been far too much ignorant crap thrown around here lately.

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:35 PM

Why was he keeping a herd of whitetails enclosed? And isn't this the start of the rut?

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:42 PM

Jaysus. Gnu, I don't know what to say. A few words come to mind, but they are too glib for this thread. Even if DNR didn't know (and that boggles the mind), why didn't the 'rancher' know?

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:43 PM

Why? Well, that is being investigated. It's illegal as near as I know.

Rut? Yeah, that's what I meant. DNR doesn't understand what bucks do in the rut? VERY odd indeed! I mean, these people are suppose to know the animals... they got university edjumactaed biologists... who don't know shit about the animals they "represent"? Actually BEYOND odd innit?

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:47 PM

9... maybe the guy thought that since the buck was "docile" in the past (if he was) that he could be "trusted"? Which, of course, is sheer stupidity.

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:47 PM

Some folks--close as they ever come to deer and the habits of deer--learned all they know when they watched Bambi. But these people should have known better.

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 05:59 PM

I hear you, and likely you're right about that, Gnu. But, DNR not knowing? Hell, those initials could come to mean Do Not Resuscitate. Ain't they college/university educated?

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 06:00 PM

Gnu, my sympathy for the loss of your friend.

But, if, as you read the contents of another post, the USA justice system can't tell the difference between an innocent person and an guilty one (over a substantial time period), why would you expect a lowly "backwater" government biologist (if the title was, in fact, earned) to know that this deer may be dangerous?

When someone dies under sudden and violent causes, is it not normal fror authorities to look at why and how (under what circumstances) the person died, or at least publically saying they are doing just that?

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 06:32 PM

Gnu, I suspect that wildlife (conservation) officers (who likely conduct investigation of this nature with regular police) have more training on the law than biology. With that in mind, I would hardly call them "biologists". However, I do expect that departnment would have wildlife biologists on staff. Here is a Nova Scotia example.

Nova Scotia wildlife officer

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 06:40 PM

You might be right Ed. Why, they may just find out this buck had a brain tumour that caused him to go nutsoid. Or maybe a dick tumour?

What the fuck are YOU doing chasing me with shite from another thread that I have already said I would not go back to even if taunted and trolls tried too egg me on? Ya wanna bring that other thread in here? Say so. If ya do, I ask that this thread be closed.

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 06:42 PM

Wild animals are cute.

Wild animals in your own barnyard are incredibly dangerous.

I learned that (via the education system) before I was 9 years old.

Confirmed by knowing (casually*) three people since who've been killed by their "pets" - two of which were deer.

* I avoid having close friends that stupid.

By coincidence, news reports today mention that plans are being made to trap someone's 5-foot long pet alligator that was dumped in the Reservoir in PENNSYLAVANIA!!?? Also recently, a golf course with a water hazard full of sharks (from a recent flood) don't plan to do anything about removing them "because they're cute."

The gene pool has a much larger shallow end than down where the real people come from. Some say the cream comes to the top, but so does the SCUM.

In possible defense of the Can. authorities, what they might have meant is that they needed to investigate whether buddy was attacked because he mistreated/abused the deer. News media don't necessarily headline the stories to include it all. (They'd never mention whether his fly was open, for example.) I doubt that "full information" would affect what happens to the deer, but "putting it down" without investigation might be politically untenable.

John

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 06:56 PM

The herd has already been put down at the request of the family.

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 07:09 PM

Just read the other thread. Apologies to Ed. Seems it was all cheeky tongue and I didn't quite "get it".

It's my time of the year and I am feeling vulnerable.

Yes, that's a rut joke... that few will "get".

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: Ed T
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 07:17 PM

No offense Gnu.My humour is a bit odd:)
Good time to unwind.

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 07:19 PM

BTW... I just recalled... at uni there was a guy doing a master's in biology named Brian Langille and we had a discussion after I had returned from a Thanksgiving deer hunt. His thesis was on white tails, their territory, feeding and breeding with respect to availability of food resources and he was of the mind that they were monogamous. I could not tell this idiot otherwise. AND... he was from Halifax. Not far from you, Ed.

>;-D

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 07:26 PM

Oops... ahhh... that deer hunt was a November hunt. The Owens family NEVER hunted deer on Thanksgiving weekend after the season was changed. That would be illegal and I have NEVER taken any game out of season. Unless I was hungry.

In the words of Dale, "I like to eat. You like to eat?"

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 07:37 PM

First of all, very sorry to hear about your loss, gn-ze... This sucks...

As others have asked, "Why keeping the deer???" I know people who keep deer but they don't have bucks in with the does...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 08:02 PM

First of all, white tails should not be kept in an enclosure. That is just stunned. Secondly, I am opposed to white tails and any other wild animal being "kept" on "game farms" but it's BIG money for those that provide "big and small game hunts" for the uneducated "sports" that think it's okay to shoot fish in a barrel when they needn't do so to feed themselves.

All that thread drift aside, I think Ed said it best (most wisely?). The DNR will "investigate" as I suppose they should... just for looks.

BUT, my point was always, for anyone that doesn't know, "WHY?"... it ain't obvious??? I mean, it ain't rocket science. It's a full moon in October. Bucks fuck. And bucks fuck over ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that comes near their does. That's just the way it is. If they find out that the buck had a brain tumour and they consider that as a possibility of why he did what he did (went crazy?), then DNR needs an MRI.

I have had cock birch partridge charge me when they were ruffing hens. A course, they are a wee smaller and don't have antlers... good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: D of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 11 - 08:45 PM

My cousin was answering nature's call, having been bow hunting all morning, when a buck appeared behind the log he was "sitting" on. The buck was QUITE interested, especially since my cuz had spilled some of that "doe in heat" stuff on himself. Cuz took off, trying to pull up his pants, as his hunting buddy laughed his fool head off. Of course, they both spent an hour or so up a tree while the buck stomped the crap out of their bows, arrows, and the interior of their truck....

"The animals in these woods ain't tame. Your remains will not be returned to your next of kin."

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 12:34 AM

The buck stops here!

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 01:07 PM

The Queen here in UK has had the same problem with nitwits in Windsor Park. The Scottish Red Deer (huge things, big as a horse) in there have acres and acres of land to roam in, but naturally at this season the bucks are dodgy to approach. She lets anyone walk in her grounds, and folk walk their dogs all over the place. So these bucks have been attacking the public and a man was badly hurt. This was last week. The bucks roar, paw the ground and charge. Don't people have a brain? It's obvious, you keep away!

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 02:55 PM

999... hehehehee

I had a six pointer come at me once. He started with the pawing and whistling so I picked up a stick and just walked behind a tree. Two legs, a tree and a stick beat four legs and antlers.

And NO, I didn't hit him hard... just hard enough for him to get the message. He was only about 160 pounds so I wasn't really scared. Let's just say I was highly aware of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 04:11 PM

A fellow (and his family) I knew about 15 years back raised elk. Whenever he, his missus or kids entered the elk enclosure they took brooms with them and just held them in such a way that they seemed to be taller than any of the elk. From what he said, the elk assumed that the person with the broom looked 'bigger' to the elk and didn't charge them. I don't know if it held true in mating season.

"Deer (singular and plural) are the ruminant mammals forming the family Cervidae. Species in the Cervidae family include white-tailed deer, elk, moose, red deer, reindeer, fallow deer, roe deer and chital. Male deer of all species (except the Chinese water deer) and female reindeer grow and shed new antlers each year. In this they differ from permanently horned animals such as antelope; these are in the same order as deer and may bear a superficial resemblance. The musk deer of Asia and water chevrotain (or mouse deer) of tropical African and Asian forests are not usually regarded as true deer and form their own families, Moschidae and Tragulidae, respectively."

The above is from Wikipedia.

Years back we were called to a MVC-with-injuries scene. Car and moose. It was rutting season, and we found out from the motorist that as he tried to edge by a bull moose on that section of highway the moose got pissed off at the vehicle and proceeded to destroy it. That type of encounter was fairly common out west. Was at a scene of pickup truck meets elk--a dangerous encounter. The elk was hit broadside and it rolled to the hood of the vehicle. The antlered head snapped around and the antlers broke through the driver side window. One of the tines went through the driver's head and killed him. The passenger was banged up a bit. I was one of the guys who entered the vehicle to free the passenger and the odor of elk guts and feces was bad. Took three washings to get my gear smelling reasonable again.

I read somewhere that 'deer'/vehicle encounters accounted for thousands of insurance claims in both Saskatchewan and Alberta. I'd expect it's the same in BC, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Don't know about the Maritimes. I expect it's similar in the NWT and Nunavut, but because of sparse human population and subsequently fewer vehicles, the carnage isn't as bad.

The two times of the year anyone best take extra care are mating season and the period when the cows have their young. We got nothing they want, and that includes our company.

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 04:23 PM

In Newfoundland, they call moose Newfie Speed Bumps. There are MANY collisions. But, if you are educated as to WHY and WHEN such happen you can drive "more" defensively.

I have a number of driving tips about moose as I have observed them hundreds of times. Edging past a moose slowly is actually a good thing to do but ya gotta gun it when yer clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: Ed T
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 05:23 PM

""I have a number of driving tips about moose""
Any more of these Gnu. I am interested?

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 07:23 PM

Most of the roughly 1,000 annual deer collisions here appear to involve drivers who are just "oblivious" and driving at excessive speed. There are few "attacks" and mostly just deer trying to get across the road.

Those who are not among the oblivious frequently notice that the deer do appear to look for traffic, and almost never are hit by the first car that passes. They wait until it passes and then bolt across, so that the second car is the one that hits them.

The "oblivious ones" probably should have "following too closely" added to their list of accomplishments, but the rest of us may profit from doubling our distance from the car ahead when the deer are most active.

We do have a fair number of "dumb deer" who don't look before crossing, so if you're not in convoy with other traffic it's a very good idea to slow down so that you can safely stop within headlight range. Most posted speed limits on the back roads here are higher than is really safe at dusk in deer country, especially during mating times when they're more likely to move farther to new areas.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 08:28 PM

Where is the YouTube?

If your family is from Virgina ... and a cold, hard, miserable Canadianwinter is forecast ... what Mudcater, here would not do the same thing

Idjet - trying to fence in wild-life..

I do not beleive your friend was a a "nice man." Animals know.

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 08:43 PM

Speaking of the need for a Dept of Common Sense . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Oct 11 - 09:14 PM

A prior comment about "only about 160 lb so I wasn't worried" (or something like that) is cause for some concern.

The deer that killed on of the acquaintances I mentioned somewhere "up there" was about that size or a little smaller, with no antlers, little more than a yearling. He reared up on his hind legs and drove both tiny pointed front hooves into the guy's chest.

There's no such thing as "too small to worry about" - at least enough to respect them and their territory.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 04:14 PM

JiK... yeah, I suppose you have a point. If ya don't know what yer doin it can go wrong REAL fast and, even if ya know what yer doing, same deal. But, as far as getting hooved, he's gotta be close enough to rear up and when they are on two legs it's easy enough to step to the side or knock them over with a stick... or do a number of other things. Of course, they is always the chance of an error.

Ed... here's one... when it gets cold in the late fall and the sun has been shining on the pavement SLOW DOWN. Ya know how the wind dies down at dusk? Deer (moose especially) will actually stand on the pavement where it's warmer. They will often look away from bright headlights because the light hurts their eyes so ya can't see em at a distance.

Another... ya se em in the ditch and they don't look like they are gonna get in front of you. Wrong! When you get close they think you are chasing them and they take the clearest path to run away from you and it ain't rocket science figuring out where the clearest path is. They will often disappear into the woods but they only go so far as to hide because they wanna see what you are gonna do and then the same scenario takes place... they run out in front of you at close range.

In the spring the snowmelt concentrates salt and they stand on the edge of the snow and lick it up. Again, where are they gonna run when you "chase" them... into the snow? No.

Slow down on curves. That's just obvious. Always take the inside of the curve if you have to avoid one... even if you have to hit it. If you have to hit it, try yo hit the front or rear as the case presents... taking out all four legs is bad news.

Up country here, we have long stretches of road thru the bog country... 4km straight stretches are not uncommon. A very short beep of the horn will turn their heads toward you and you see a flash of the eyes.

I was surprised that the wife of a buddy of mine in NFLD did not know that you have to concentrate on the ditches at 400 to 600m ahead when travelling at 100kph. The stuff up close doesn't matter except for potholes or debris which will become apparent within the narrow field of vision directly in front of you when you scan the ditches from side to side. Ya gotta look ahead and not concentrate on stuff that is too close to do anything about.

As said above, NEVER travel too close to the vehicle in front of you. Even the recommended distances in the driver's education books are FAR too close. I allow at least 200m in deer country at 100kph.

There's a few.

Now, if yer huntin moose and ya see one way out, honk the horn repeatedly while driving as fast as ya can toward it. Hmmm... maybe that's not sommat I should share? Of course, that's during legal hours. At night, ya wanna be drivin about 4X4 bull low with yer foot off the gas or parked. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 04:44 PM

Uneful information< gnu
Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 07:40 PM

Gnu aced all that. I would add one obvious thing: Sir Isaac Newton.

He was a brilliant, brilliant man.

"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

The external force in this case is a moose. Bulls can weigh 1600 lbs. Every collision involving vehicles actually have three forces at work.

After ya hit the bull, your car decelerates very quickly. YOU however, do not. If the vehicle was going 60 mph (100 km/h) and it comes to an abrupt halt, you, the driver will continue to travel forward at about 100 km/h. Then, your head (body) strikes the vehicle at about 100 km/h. Your brain strikes the inside of your head at about 100 km/h. (It's actually less than that--likely nearer 65-70 km/h, but this is for elucidation purposes.) If you live through that and your eyes stay in their sockets, I guarantee that when you're fortunate enough to wake up you will have lotsa medical problems and real bad headaches.

Night driving in moose/elk/deer country has potential dangers. An elk was struck by a semi (big truck with a trailer). The semi and its cargo musta weighed 25 tons. The elk maybe a bit more than a half ton. The elk was literally exploded by the force of impact. The trailer rolled once to 90 degrees, but the cab and the driver did a 450 degree roll. I never did find out if the guy walked again after that accident.

Gnu pointed out things to watch for, and he's right about all of them.

One last thing to mention: SLOW DOWN, because 'rescue' personnel feel really crappy when all they have left to do is pull bodies out of wrecks.

Subject: RE: BS: Dept. of Natural Resources don't know why?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Oct 11 - 09:34 PM

Oh, BTW, I've seen a You Tube video of guys in a vehicle following (chasing) a moose on a road... to the point that the exausted moose turned and charged the vehicle while the assholes were laughing about it! ??? If I ever see someone doing that I will take down the licence number and report them to the authorities for harassing game. I hope the idiots I saw on You Tube were found and charged. Chasing a moose in a vehicle is equal to torturing a moose. It's not a fun You Tube video to me. It's fuckin sick.

Seriously, even at slow speed. Just let the moose go into the woods and ease past slowly... then, when yer clear, gun it and let the moose be. They won't mess you up unless you mess with them.

Of course, if they are "crazy" with brainworm or whatever, ya takes yer chances eh? Best ta have Rocky runnin shotgun at that point ta talk Bullwinkle down.