mjwendorf
Well-Known Member
Whoever hits the deer 1st that's it. Doesn't matter who makes final kill shot. They both agree she shot the deer 1st.
Controversy in UT - Extremely long post
- Thread starter lafn96
- Start date
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
Easy solution, do what Solomon would have done... cut the head in half and give each party half a skull
So you are saying if a hunter grazes a deer with a non-lethal shot, and it moves by another hunter who drops it in its tracks it should belong to the first hunter?
Laughable.
If the dude jumped ahead like the lady said then he was wrong since they were tracking it.
Where I've hunted around others, the person who makes the final shot is the one who killed it and can claim the deer. That was the "code". I've always thought of that as when the deer is still upright.
Where I've hunted around others, the person who makes the final shot is the one who killed it and can claim the deer. That was the "code". I've always thought of that as when the deer is still upright.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2016
- Messages
- 9,320
I was thinking same thing. Just thought it must have been different on this end of state...back when I started hunting. Someone shoots a deer a few hundred yards away...and it comes limping by you...you put it down...and it was yours.
Now, if I shoot one and it's laying there and someone runs up and shoots it again..because it's twitching... different story.
Boll Weevil
Well-Known Member
Same.
mjwendorf
Well-Known Member
Ok didn't word that great. Referring to first blood rule. "The first hunter to place an arrow in an animal's vital area, which draws enough blood to leave a trackable trail and thus has a good chance of bringing the animal into his or her possession, may claim the animal. Conversely, if the first hunter feels that the wound was superficial in nature and recovery of the animal was not likely, that hunter should give up claim to the game if another hunter brings it to the ground."
That is more like it.
But, that is an "unwritten rule" and has zero legal standing.
But, that is an "unwritten rule" and has zero legal standing.
Last edited:
My opinion, he's full of horse crap. He claimed his deer wasn't wearing a collar, but threw in a disclaimer that "he wasn't sure." Sounds like she and her husband were outnumbered and he bullied his way in and claimed the deer when he saw how big it was.
Lone Hunter
Well-Known Member
One other option to point out, especially, when shooting at a big buck. NO ONE has never made a bad shot on a big deer. They have always hit it in the boiler room with a perfect shot.LOL… Couldn't have missed it…Don't know how many times I've heard that… I was always taught if an animal came by you bleeding or not and you put it down then it was yours. This opinion differs in other areas but my opinion is if I didn't shoot it I don't want it.
I would try to gather weather or not the other hunters shot was lethal and the distance the deer traveled . No way would I want a buck that I honestly hadn't killed .
Crappieaddict
Well-Known Member
My opinion, both stories are probably exaggerated. This is another reason that I don't like hunting or fishing around others. My mind immediately went to being in a dove field. My last dove hunt got me peppered in the chest….that's when I decided it was my last. Anyway, in my mind I see that lone dove flying across the field through a barrage of shots. As he nears the edge of the field, he is barely able to fly, and the final shot rings out and he falls.
Based off both stories one thing is consistent with both stories is that the girl shot it first and they were tracking it so yeah it is the girls deer. The guy was in a foot race with them to claim a deer that he had not shot. He may have at the time thought it was his deer but it wasn't. If he had not been there the girl would have tracked the animal then finished it off. It would be different if the guy was hunting and wounded deer came by and he finished it off not knowing that they were tracking it.
Same here. If it was even questionable I'd give it up. I don't want a tainted kill. Would have zero positive meaning to me.
Then again I wouldn't be trying to hunt a deer somebody else had shot and was in process of recovering either. This deer wasn't wounded then walked by him without him knowing it was injured. The only part of both stories that's the same is that he went hunting an animal that she had shot and was searching for, beat her to the animal and put a couple of his own rounds into it so he could claim it. Neither hunter dispute that.
I was just writing the same thing when you posted so you saved me some writing lol
But you're correct. That is the nuts and bolts of it. When you remove the fluff they tell the same story and it becomes clear he stole the deer. The only thing I might slightly disagree on is that I don't believe he ever for a minute thought it was his. I think he was doing everything he could to make it his, and he still is by lying. He knows. That dude just sold out his integrity for the price of antlers and everyone sees it.
Years ago, my cousin shot a nice buck in Wisconsin. Not long after the shot, couple guys emerged. At some point, her dad shows up. When it came down to it, those guys pushed that deer well over a mile, to where my cousin shot it. I think they tried to lay claim to it, and the deer would have eventually died, but a mile later and I'm not so sure you can still claim jt.
I don't think that's the case with the story out of Utah, and honestly, someone probably nailed it when they stated the deer was probably dead when the deer thief shot it.
I don't think that's the case with the story out of Utah, and honestly, someone probably nailed it when they stated the deer was probably dead when the deer thief shot it.
Yep, she shot first and his first shot (front knee) was clearly not a lethal shot. Hers may have been. He goes ahead and puts two more rounds in it after they're all tracking it. Those two rounds in my mind, even though those are the kill shots, are irrelevant. Her deer.
and to add more crazy to this story, there is rumor or allegations that the lady somehow used the deers collar frequency to tract it ahead of time which is obviously very illegal.
There is not standing proof at the moment but that is something the Utah game and fish are looking into.
Overall just a wild story and a VERY VERY bad look for all hunters. I cant pass judgement on either side not being there, we all know there are 3 sides to each story. My main take away is both are beyond stupid for taking shots that far on a deer no matter the size.
There is not standing proof at the moment but that is something the Utah game and fish are looking into.
Overall just a wild story and a VERY VERY bad look for all hunters. I cant pass judgement on either side not being there, we all know there are 3 sides to each story. My main take away is both are beyond stupid for taking shots that far on a deer no matter the size.
From his story:
"I will mention that there was a seriously illegal act performed during the follow up (not by my group), but I prefer to not make a statement that might get anyone in trouble."
I don't think he's alluding to them using something to track the collar, as he says it was performed "during the follow-up". If he thinks they were using it to hunt the deer, he wouldn't have said during the follow-up. No idea what he is alluding to, since he took the deer it's not a tag issue.
Probably just a scare tactic to get them to stay quiet about taking their buck.
