Dispute Over 9 Pt Buck

[FISHINGURU]

I was sitting in my stand opening morning and seen a father and son come sit down about 3-400 yards from me. As I was sitting there I was thinking to myself what I'd do if they shot at a deer and it came running my way.

I totally thought to myself even if they hit or missed it and I dropped it I was going to say that I shot and missed and then it dropped right in front of me and let them keep the deer.

[harvey lee]

I have always went by who drew first blood. If one came by wounded and I finished it off and you could see by the other shot it was going to be fatal, then I would say, take the deer.

I would hope I will never be greedy enough to take another kid's deer, very low.

[fishhound]

These stories always make me chuckle. Back when I lived in Montana it was just the opposite. We'd fight as to who HAD to put a tag on the animal. Antelope were the worst. Nobody wanted their season to end. Especially if was early on the first day.

We’ve taken some big deer over the years and I’ve never seen a rack or an animal someone fought over to put their tag on. First shot HAD to tag the deer. Even if it wasn’t going to be a fatal shot. Anybody else that shot was usually trying to put a kill shot before it went over the hill or down into the bottom of some deep ravine. You know the place, the kind of place so bad the only way you could get the animal out was to go in with a fry pan.

The way I see it, it's like when you catch a baseball or hockey puck at the game. Find the first kid near you and hand it over. Make someone’s day.

[NWKR]

If the other guy was not there and the dear passed onto the private property and they where no longer able to track it then they would not have the dear either.

Let's say he shot it in the morning. Lose the track as the deer goes to private property, and then the deer is shot in the evening by the neighbor. Who gets it.

With a non-fatal shot and they weren't actively tracking it anymore I think it would be different. Depending on the details I would probably keep the deer if I was the neighbor. Based on the way the situation is described in the article I agree with everyone else that the kid gets the deer.

[maxx rpm]

Been waiting for one of these stories to pop up. I work in Wisconsin, and hear two every year. Seems as though a large amount of Wisconsin hunters are not good shots. Hear many more stories of tracking long distances. If a deer can go through your forty, through the next forty, and into the next one, and someone else shoots it, it is that persons deer. Personally, if I see a nice deer come in normally, and later some kid were to come by and say he nicked it, tough bounce. Learn how to shoot I guess. I have never tracked a deer that I shot at. Can either see it from the stand, or from the spot it was shot. No need to feel badly for bad shots, feel bad for the wildlife that walk off to die, needlessly. Teaching someone that it is okay to not put in the work and make a bad shot, but in the end you still get what isn't yours--those are the ones you see on the ten oclock news.

[Bureaucrat]

What if the adult needed the meat to feed his family?

[Boar]

Sorry but its hard for me to swallow that, "the need to feed the family" anyone one this site in my opinion dosent hunt for the sole purpose to put food on the table. Not in this day and age. we hunt for the sheer love of it. putting meat in the freezer that we harvested is secondary. pretty sure that for the price of the tag and fuel and shells and other hunting necessitys that he and we could all run down to sams club and actually fill the freezer. or by a whole hog or half beef and be sitting on the couch watching football. The kid should have gotten the deer. Just showes the true mentality of some adults, but I also see some of the senarios here to.

[deerminator]

This ...

http://www.grandforksherald.com/content/...y-buck-lifetime

A wonderful example of buddies and no greed when it comes to big bucks. Granted they are friends. I also like this in regards to the party hunting thread. I used to be against party hunting because I don't do it and many people do abuse it by hunting alone and tagging for their wife or girlfriend. But examples like this, and there are many unreported, are the reason I am now in favor of party hunting. You can't punish people because of what others do. Its not right and the fact that the whole party took the day off to celebrate the big buck after it was taken speaks to the motives involved. They weren't out to massacre the cloacl herd.

[LightningBG]

Sorry but its hard for me to swallow that, "the need to feed the family" anyone one this site in my opinion dosent hunt for the sole purpose to put food on the table. Not in this day and age. we hunt for the sheer love of it. putting meat in the freezer that we harvested is secondary. pretty sure that for the price of the tag and fuel and shells and other hunting necessitys that he and we could all run down to sams club and actually fill the freezer. or by a whole hog or half beef and be sitting on the couch watching football. The kid should have gotten the deer. Just showes the true mentality of some adults, but I also see some of the senarios here to.

For most of us, that is probably true, especially if hunting out of state or a long distance away. But, I'm sure there are plenty of people that count on that meat as a good portion of their meat for the year. People that aren't especially well off, hunting out their back door, with an in state license, with a gun they've had for decades. For those people 2-3 rounds and a $30 license might bring them 100+ lbs of meat for the year. For some, that few hundred dollars in savings (vs store bought meat) can make a lot of difference. That's new coats for the kids, replacing that finicky sump pump, or a load of gravel for the driveway, etc. Everyone has a different situation.

I'd still give the kid the deer.

[efgh]

Randy H must be pretty proud of himself about now, that is if he read these posts and thinks about what he did to a 11 year old kid.

[LightningBG]

We actually had a somewhat similar but opposite situation. One of the guys in our group took a shot at a deer. Nice doe, and it wasn't the greatest shot on earth. The deer was wounded and on the move. This was his first deer ever (he's got to be nearing 40 years old). Another guy in our party, who was hunting with his 10 year old (kid was just tagging along and has been for years (no gun, no shooting)), ended up shooting the deer and dropping it. #1 guy tracked it all the way to where #2 dropped it. Being it was #1 guys first deer, #2 guy and the kid gave the deer to #1 guy, even though his shot probably wouldn't have been fatal. #2 and son ended up heading home shortly after due to the kid not feeling well and he had gotten a wet rear end from sitting in the snow. They were going to eat tag soup and they knew it.

To me this just shows that it can work both ways. Even though this kid didn't shoot the deer himself, he was shown by his father that giving it away was just as important if not more important than keeping it themselves.

No matter which way it turns out, there are teachable moments for these youngsters.

[leechlake]

don't know the guy a bit but most people justify their actions and I'd assume he's done that and has convinced himself he is justified by his actions. We all do it to an extent.

[PurpleFloyd]

I decided to look at the Wi regs to see if there was a legal reason why one or the other should have had claim to the deer and it seems that if you follow the letter of the law, the guy who actually killed it was the only one who could legally tag it.

Here are the regs in regards to party hunting;

Quote:

Group Hunting Law

It is illegal to kill game for another person except during a deer firearm season when any member of a group deer hunting party may kill a deer for another member of the party.

Group hunting is not legal for persons hunting with bows and crossbows. All participants must be licensed and each must possess a firearm, except that a mentor and a mentee hunting under the Hunting Mentorship Program may share one firearm (see page 12 for Hunting Mentorship Program rules).

Members of a group deer hunting party should also agree in advance that a tag holder is willing to use their tag on a deer killed by another member of the party.

The following conditions are established by law to ensure that hunters are actively participating in the hunt, are in the field, and do not harvest more deer than the group has tags for:

• A group deer hunting party must be two or more hunters who are hunting together within sight or voice contact at all times.

Temporary loss of voice or visual contact for a reasonable time due to terrain or weather conditions is acceptable.

Hunters may not kill deer for persons who are not out in the field actively hunting with the party or are at other locations apart from the area where the hunter killed the deer

As I said before, morally I would say let the kid have the deer, but if we take away the age of the kid and just look at the legal basis, the law seems to indicate that not only should the guy who killed it have legal rights to it, but also it may have been against the regulations to shoot a deer and then have a person from another party who was not actively hunting with him to tag it.

I am not saying that my interpretation is correct, but would like to hear from others on how they feel the legal side would go if there had been a DNR officer on site at the time. Does the fact that it was wounded have any impact legally on who had rights to it?

[CANOPY SAM]

Been waiting for one of these stories to pop up. I work in Wisconsin, and hear two every year. Seems as though a large amount of Wisconsin hunters are not good shots. Hear many more stories of tracking long distances. If a deer can go through your forty, through the next forty, and into the next one, and someone else shoots it, it is that persons deer. Personally, if I see a nice deer come in normally, and later some kid were to come by and say he nicked it, tough bounce. Learn how to shoot I guess. I have never tracked a deer that I shot at. Can either see it from the stand, or from the spot it was shot. No need to feel badly for bad shots, feel bad for the wildlife that walk off to die, needlessly. Teaching someone that it is okay to not put in the work and make a bad shot, but in the end you still get what isn't yours--those are the ones you see on the ten oclock news.

I'd agree with this post 100%. I've taught my kids to make humane kill shots, and if they can't make them, then don't pull the trigger.

I completely understand how much a Dad WANTS that buck to be his son's, but I look at it like this. My kid might play in the championship game, but if his team doesn't win, he doesn't get to take home the championship trophy. It's that simple.

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not going to get into any kind of fight over it. If the kid's balling his eyes out over a mediocre deer then by all means, let him have it. But one would hope that the adults, including the Dads, could reason out who made the first hits, the killing shots, etc., and clearly explain to the youngsters who truly owns the buck.

I'm not sure how the last quoted sentence above equates to seeing them on the ten o'clock news, but I completely agree that simply giving a kid a trophy deer, or letting him "win" when he didn't really win, is cultivating a mentality of "entitlement", and it's not doing our young people any good in the long run. Kids need to learn how to hunt, and shoot deer properly, ethically, and humanely, just like adults.

[skee0025]

I don't belive the group hunting reg you posted would impact this instance legally. Only 2 people, the father and the son would be affected by this reg. both groups were part of separate parties, both having made shots on the same animal. Had a warden been forced to resolve it, I believe it would have been in favor of who put the deer on the ground the final time. I would have given it to the kid myself. I don't hold to the whole "first blood" camp. If your hit is non lethal, you have no claim to the animal at all.