Shooting cow with calf

[bobcat]

A 1-2 year old calf would most likely make it through the winter

If an elk is that old, it is no longer a calf.   

[BULLBLASTER]

I see the elitist crowd is doing well, and are fully willing to castigate people for saying they would shoot a legal animal.

More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".

Like shooting a milk cow calf?  Get real.

[STIKNSTRINGBOW]

This is a great example of ethics, what you do when no-one is watching.
Only you can feel good or bad about your decision.
I know I have passed on plenty of animals, for a variety of reasons, but in an antlerless hunt, the only real criticism that matters is your own.
Others can say what they want, but any Elk on the ground by ethical means (good shot, clean kill) is just that.
It does not matter which one you shot, survival is a game of numbers, the calf would have been fine no matter what you might have heard, not only do they have the ability to survive on their own, but Elk are by nature herd animals.
The calf would have found other Elk in the area to hang out with. I have seen "nursery" groups where there were a whole lot of calves together with only a few cows, the other cows were off doing 
But with other predators, winter, disease, vehicles, etc. whether or not you take one animal out of the herd is immaterial, it is only the WDFW handing out hundreds of antlerless permits that has any impact on herd numbers, not one here, or there.
But in the end, it all comes down to you, do what feels right, your the one who has to live with it.

[Bigshooter]

I would have had no problem shooting either one.  If I had my choice I would have shot the calf.  Better eating.

[Hi-Liter]

I see the elitist crowd is doing well, and are fully willing to castigate people for saying they would shoot a legal animal.

More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".

Like shooting a milk cow calf?  Get real.

Agree to disagree. If you feel that you need a calf elk that bad, than take it. After all its legal as you said. The OP was just stating that he/she was morally debating the issue of taking the elk and possibly regrating not shooting the calf, there was nothing mentioned in the OP about if it was legal. You  are way off the issue.. 

[JLS]

I see the elitist crowd is doing well, and are fully willing to castigate people for saying they would shoot a legal animal.

More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".

Like shooting a milk cow calf?  Get real.

Agree to disagree. If you feel that you need a calf elk that bad, than take it. After all its legal as you said. The OP was just stating that he/she was morally debating the issue of taking the elk and possibly regrating not shooting the calf, there was nothing mentioned in the OP about if it was legal. You  are way off the issue..

I'll agree to disagree too.  Re read my post, I never said the OP mentioned anything about the legality.  I did.  I did so to point out that I am legally harvesting an animal that I have a license for.  You can moral police this all you want.  It would be no different than me moral policing you for shooting a trophy buck instead of letting it go to pass on its genes.  After all if you feel you need a trophy buck that bad, take it.

So now we are all so in touch with our inner wildlife managers that an instance of a legal harvest is now a moral issue?  Wow.

[Hi-Liter]

JLS-Wow, what about the trophy buck? would you shoot it? I am assuming you would. I would just as you have said. Does that mean that I ruined the gene pool? no. It is a complete different theory .

After all the OP never stating anything about legal harvest of the calf elk, like I said before. No, I am not policing you, I dont really care if you shoot a calf elk and it legal. I said that it was a moral issue that a person would have to deal with, and that I wouldn't shoot one.

[Bigshooter]

I see the elitist crowd is doing well, and are fully willing to castigate people for saying they would shoot a legal animal.

More power to you, I could very well criticize someone for shooting a big buck, instead of allowing him to remain in the gene pool and spread his wealth for the "sake of the herd".

Like shooting a milk cow calf?  Get real.

Agree to disagree. If you feel that you need a calf elk that bad, than take it. After all its legal as you said. The OP was just stating that he/she was morally debating the issue of taking the elk and possibly regrating not shooting the calf, there was nothing mentioned in the OP about if it was legal. You  are way off the issue..

I'll agree to disagree too.  Re read my post, I never said the OP mentioned anything about the legality.  I did.  I did so to point out that I am legally harvesting an animal that I have a license for.  You can moral police this all you want.  It would be no different than me moral policing you for shooting a trophy buck instead of letting it go to pass on its genes.  After all if you feel you need a trophy buck that bad, take it.So now we are all so in touch with our inner wildlife managers that an instance of a legal harvest is now a moral issue?  Wow.

Two great points.

There is nothing wrong with shooting a legal animal.

[BULLBLASTER]

JLS-Wow, what about the trophy buck? would you shoot it? I am assuming you would. I would just as you have said. Does that mean that I ruined the gene pool? no. It is a complete different theory .

After all the OP never stating anything about legal harvest of the calf elk, like I said before. No, I am not policing you, I dont really care if you shoot a calf elk and it legal. I said that it was a moral issue that a person would have to deal with, and that I wouldn't shoot one.

sounded like you do care if a calf was shot... when you said that you think it is BS that people will think about shooting a calf.

[BULLBLASTER]

And more. I think its BS that someone wants to shoot a calf. Its like shooting a milk cow calf. Not much of a hunt if you ask me.

my last post refers to this

[Bigshooter]

Moral issues for shooting a calf?  Really?  So is it ok to shoot a 1 1/2 year old?  Or a 2 1/2 year old?  Or does it need to be over 5 1/2 years old before you shoot it?  When is it not a moral issue any more?  If you have moral issues for shooting a legal calf elk, you really should think about why you are hunting.

[JLS]

And more. I think its BS that someone wants to shoot a calf. Its like shooting a milk cow calf. Not much of a hunt if you ask me.

my last post refers to this

Because rifling a spike is a much bigger accomplishment than shooting a calf with a bow?

[tmike]

Where do you draw the line? If you shoot a cow standing alone how do you know you didn't kill 2 elk? It's each persons personal choice. I'm not going to look down on someone either way. Maybe hunting with a camera would be a better option for some as that would take the whole moral dilemma of the harvest out of the equation.

[Hi-Liter]

And more. I think its BS that someone wants to shoot a calf. Its like shooting a milk cow calf. Not much of a hunt if you ask me.

my last post refers to this

Because rifling a spike is a much bigger accomplishment than shooting a calf with a bow?

Yep, much bigger accomplishement, are you kidding me? We went from someone stating their choice of shooting a calf versus not shooting a calf, legal issue, moral issue, personal choice, use a camera, moral dilemma, to shooting it with a camera. I guess the topic should be split.

I have no problem shooting an elk cow or bull, just a calf and thats my issue or moral issue that I can deal with, so you mind your issue and I will mind mine-deal?

[Smithandsonstaxidermy]

PETA, loves you.