Who gets the deer? Discussion Topic.

[country_20boy]

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.

[D1]

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

[donia]

b

[eSJay]

3 for hunter B

[quacker11]

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!!!

[mshunter77]

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

[slim jim]

Hunter B

[randywallace]

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.

[gps4]

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.

Until I hear a more logical reason about why Hunter B should get the deer, I will subscriber to randywallace's viewpoint as explained above.

I remember one time i was hunting over by steele bayou with a buddy at his camp. two of our other friends were also hunting the property that evening. On the way out, my buddy got a text that one of our friends had shot a deer, and he and his brother were looking for it. we decided to stop and help. we met up with the brothers and spread out looking for his wounded deer. we bumped it a couple times before one of us were finally able to shoot it again and finally kill it. at no time did i ever think that if i was the one who got the chance to shoot it, would i claim the deer was mine.

when i was a kid fishing with a group of friends or family, there was always that one guy who would throw his hook in my spot when I had just missed a bite in the hopes that the fish would bite his hook instead of mine. I'm not going to say what we called that guy, but seems like someone in a search party who killed and claimed a deer someone else wounded would stir up the same sentiments.

[bulldog ducker]

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

[country_20boy]

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?

[donia]

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.

[landscaper]

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.

[slim jim]

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

[REBEL DUCK]

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.