DuckSouth.com

Just wanted to throw this out for discussion as I've heard varying opinions on the subject recently.
Hypothetical situation:

Hunter A shoots a nice buck one afternoon with a rifle, trails the deer for 3 hours and gives up for the night after bumping the deer a few times. Next morning Hunter A gathers a search party of fellow camp members and organizes a tracking effort/deer drive in a 40 acre block of woods. Three hunters, including Hunter A track the deer mainly by hoofprints and a few blood drops. Four other hunters are posted as standers along the three sides of the block woods.

45 mins into the tracking effort, the buck runs out and is killed by Hunter B. Upon inspection of the deer, it is clear that the initial shot was not a mortal wound being in the front leg, only about 2 inches above the knee. The killing shot was a near perfect 1/4 away lung/heart shot.

So....who gets the deer? Discuss and I'll give my 2 cents later.

Hunter B.....Kill shot was placed by B....besides A would have probably never seen, nor got the chance for the kill shot anyway

b

3 for hunter B

Hunter a of course!! Hunter b wouldn't have gotten to hunt in hunter a's spot without hunter a needing hunter b to help find deer!!!

B. If initial shot was not something he would have died from you have to go with second hunter.

Hunter B

As a kid running dogs, we always followed the first blood rule to keep down arguments. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't.

I have a buddy with an exceptional blood tracking dog. Every year his dog bays up and he finishes off countless deer with initial wounds that were minimal at best. I can remember many brisket flesh wounds and even one that was shot in the foot (not sure how that happened). But for his skills and the dog, these deer would have lived to see another season. He doesn't claim to have killed the deer.

I can't imagine going to help a buddy find a deer he shot, me firing off a round and claiming the deer myself. That's just me.

I vote c...

The little girl with hunter b gets credit because if she wasn't with him he would have been huffing it through to woods too

I'm with Randy Wallace on this one. Hunter B was asked to participate in this deer recovery effort, so the deer belongs to Hunter A.

If Hunter B had been hunting on his own accord, in the same area, at any time after the initial shot and had killed the deer, then I feel that Hunter B would claim the deer. I think it is two completely different situations based on how Hunter B came to be in the right place at the right time.

Follow up question: What if the deer was a B&C or a new state record? Does that change the answer?

slippery situation, no doubt. both good points made for a and for b (and c!). i went with b based on the non-lethal shot by a, whom without one of the b's on the backside would've not seen the deer staying just far enough ahead. i do see the argument for a, as b was there working for/agent of a and wouldn't have been in position to make the kill shot, otherwise.
my answer was based solely on who made the kill shot on the maimed deer.

Hunter B has the right to claim the deer...no different in my eyes than if the barely wounded deer had been killed by another hunter a month later or by someone on a different property a mile away...but since Hunter B is the bigger man he happily gives the deer and all the credit to Hunter A.

Sounds like hunter A needs to suck it up and shoot better.

I have heard of a story like this around the state woods. Hunter B got in his truck and drove way around cut buck off crossing fields. It was a monster deer hunter A got pissed hunter B loaded up and hung it on his wall.