Rule of First Blood

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

I have never ran into this before, but I wanted to get the groups idea on the topic...

Say you are on public ground and shoot an animal, say a whitetail, and your bow shot is a little far back, probably getting the guts. Said deer walks by another tree stand and that hunter places an arrow into the lungs.

You track the deer after awhile and find another guy taking a picture with "your" deer with two holes in it, who really should punch their tag and keep said deer?

 

[thusby]

I've been a part of this exact situation before. A guy had shot an 8 point buck and it came wandering by my father-in-law and he put it down for good. The buck had walked about a mile with the guts hanging out. The guy who put the first shot in it didn't deserve anything. We ended up tagging it, keeping the meat and giving the guy the antlers. We should have kept the antlers as well, in my opinion.

 

[Nameless Range]

It's a gray area on a sliding scale, but the first blood rule should only apply if the first shot is acutely fatal.

I could imagine being elk hunting, and seeing a bull with an arrow in its guts. If given the opportunity, should I let the bull suffer, knowing it is most certainly dead within a day or two? If I want the bull, I say no. And even if I don't, a question of ending its suffering arises.

So if I can be totally arbitrary - Heart, lungs, etc...Basically the boilermaker area, first blood counts, as death is only minutes away. Liver lives on the borderlands, as the difference between a gut shot and a liver shot is inches. Guts get no claim to first blood, and only the emotions of graciousness and possibly shame should follow someone else shooting an animal you gutshot.

 

[kmott]

in my mind the guy who put it down owns the right to tag it.
however if it was me , I would probably give it to the gut shooter .
1. to get him out of the woods .
2. so I could continue hunting.

 

[wyoboypt]

If he was an animal I’d be happy with I’d shoot him. Typically gut shot animals can’t be tracked very far. The chances of the original shooter finding him is slim. They die within 6 hours I’d say. 8 max. But usually less. Whoever recovers the animal the fastest has every right to claim it, unless of course you made a good shot and somebody beat you to him anyway. Fistfight!

 

[Gerald Martin]

Law of the land is whoever makes the shot that allows them to place their hands and their tag on it has possession of that animal. ( my words not actual statute.)

However, if I am in the situation I am generally shooting a wounded animal with the goal of ending it’s suffering. If the initial shot would have been eventually fatal I would gladly give it to the original shooter. If it’s a superficial wound and I wanted the animal then I would exercise my discretion at that time.
If it were an animal I had wounded and it was still traveling beyond its initial flight and was finished off by another hunter I wouldn’t expect it to be given back.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

What I am really hearing is "it depends" and man do I hate it when that happens. I think we could all agree black and white makes for the easiest decisions but this one appears to be gray all the way through.

I hope I don't find myself in this situation personally, but you never know until it happens I guess.

 

[NEWHunter]

Per the OP’s hypothetical, it’s the guy who put it in the lungs.

 

[JLS]

Some interesting takes thus far. Two points I'll make.

1) Depends on the laws in that state. Most states say the person who reduces it to possession (i.e. kills it) is who legally tags it
2) Ethics and laws don't always agree here. If you are the second shooter, and you tell the other person to tag it and keep hunting, you are now in violation of the law because you a) killed an animal and did not tag it, and b) killed an animal and continued to hunt.

 

[RidgeRunner76]

I lost the 2nd elk I ever shot due to terrain and not knowing there were other hunters just around the corner on a sage and aspen stand covered ridge. I double lunged her at about 40 yards and she made the death run about 30 yards around the ridge corner right into another group of 3 hunters. Despite the clear evidence on the snow from my shot, the other party wasn't about to give up the elk. Sucked at the time, but it sure wasn't worth it to get into an argument over the deal. Especially since there is something about elk that make guys ornery and stupid. Ethically I felt the cow was mine. She was dead on her feet just didn't know it yet. Bad luck and bad timing. As such, we quit hunting this area a few years later when game/camp thieves got to be a real problem. Last year we hunted there, some friends of ours had shot a 5x5 bull, a nice 4x4 buck. While out trying to fill another bull tag one morning someone decided to help themselves to both critters.... Was last year we hunted that area and season. Some folks have no bounds.

 

[Carbon]

Years ago, my uncle got a ticket in MT. My aunt shot an antelope. When they got to it, it was still alive and need a finishing shot. My aunt couldnt do it, so my uncle did. A game warden ticketed him when my aunt tagged it. Not sure if the law is still the same.

 

[2rocky]

I've finished off a bull elk for a guy who made a fatal, but not great, gut shot in an evening hunt. We had talked to him earlier in the day after he had lost the blood trail. After finishing the bull we tied ribbons to mark the trail and called him on the cell phone. I killed my bull 2 days later. Had I not known who had wounded the bull, I might have tagged him.

I want a Game warden to issue that Grizzly a ticket that stole the Tenderloins outta my dad's Elk in 2006. Ever since then I will pack my elk out on my saddle horse rather than leave an elk out over night...

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I see no problem finishing an animal off and waiting to see if the previous shooter does his or her due diligence in tracking it and letting them have the animal. The only problem is the law says the kill shot hunter must tag it.
To me there is not much accomplishment in shooting an animal that someone else did the work to call in or glass or however they happened on the animal and shot it. I feel it's the duty of a hunter tho to be humane and put down a suffering animal whenever possible so you shouldn't let it walk if its mortally wounded. Tough tough situation that I hope I'm never in.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

If that bull that I gut shot last week had been found and ultimately killed by another person prior to me finding it and that person wanted to claim it as theirs, I would completely agree with that assessment. In my situation, I had already notched my tag the night before. I am not certain of the legality of doing that, I think it is the incorrect way, but at the time I felt it was the right thing to do. I had no problem dealing with the consequences either way.

If someone else had found the bull I gut shot before I did and they had not taken a shot on it but still wanted to claim it as there's, I would like to think I would simply say ok and let them have it. Easy to say, maybe not so easy to do. However, there are consequences to making poor shots. The least of which are who gets to claim the animal.

 

[JLS]

In my situation, I had already notched my tag the night before. I am not certain of the legality of doing that, I think it is the incorrect way, but at the time I felt it was the right thing to do. I had no problem dealing with the consequences either way.

The drawback to this is you are now out looking for the animal (bow in hand I assume?) with a notched tag. That would certainly raise some eyebrows for the Game Warden who checks you. Better solution (been there done that) is to keep your tag unnotched while looking, and then when you finally cease looking for the animal, notch it or throw it away.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

The drawback to this is you are now out looking for the animal (bow in hand I assume?) with a notched tag. That would certainly raise some eyebrows for the Game Warden who checks you. Better solution (been there done that) is to keep your tag unnotched while looking, and then when you finally cease looking for the animal, notch it or throw it away.

I don't disagree with you and I thought of that very thing when I did it and had the same concerns. Part of my reasoning was I didn't want to give myself the opportunity to talk me out of notching my tag and part of it was acting impulsively due to being pissed at what i did. Either way I was prepared to deal with the consequences.

 

[JLS]

I don't disagree with you and I thought of that very thing when I did it and had the same concerns. Part of my reasoning was I didn't want to give myself the opportunity to talk me out of notching my tag and part of it was acting impulsively due to being pissed at what i did. Either way I was prepared to deal with the consequences.

I appreciate your candor and honesty. Truly glad you found that bull.

 

[BucksnDucks]

Law of the land is whoever makes the shot that allows them to place their hands and their tag on it has possession of that animal. ( my words not actual statute.)

However, if I am in the situation I am generally shooting a wounded animal with the goal of ending it’s suffering. If the initial shot would have been eventually fatal I would gladly give it to the original shooter. If it’s a superficial wound and I wanted the animal then I would exercise my discretion at that time.
If it were an animal I had wounded and it was still traveling beyond its initial flight and was finished off by another hunter I wouldn’t expect it to be given back.

The law of the land can be contradictory to the actual law of the state. First blood laws or hot pursuit laws exist for better or worse and usually determine possession to be that of the hunter who wounded the animal.
My experience is the fish and wildlife law relies on the first hunter being in pursuit not the lethality of wound.
The reality is without intervention by law enforcement the second hunter, who took physical possession of the animal usually notches the tag.

 

[JLS]

My experience is the fish and wildlife law relies on the first hunter being in pursuit not the lethality of wound.

Not in many western states.

 

[BucksnDucks]

Some interesting takes thus far. Two points I'll make.

1) Depends on the laws in that state. Most states say the person who reduces it to possession (i.e. kills it) is who legally tags it
2) Ethics and laws don't always agree here. If you are the second shooter, and you tell the other person to tag it and keep hunting, you are now in violation of the law because you a) killed an animal and did not tag it, and b) killed an animal and continued to hunt.

Maybe another reason to dislike CA. The "first blood" regulation relies on the pursuit of animal. Part (a) states it's unlawful; to take, mutilate, or destroy game lawfully in possession of another.
Fish and Game Code 2011(b) a bird or mammal shall be deemed in possession when it is actually reduced to physical possession or when it is wounded or otherwise maimed and the person who wounded or maimed it is in hot pursuit.