Blood means you're done

[gznokes]

Do you think it should be legal to continue to hunting after drawing blood on a big game animal while hunting? (I'll leave the ethical discussion for another day).

I'd be especially interested in the response of people who think this is a bad idea. Maybe I'm way off. Here is my rationale.

The State would issue a hunting tag with a notch that says "wounded" or "invalidated". If a hunter wounds an animal the tag would be notched and the hunt would be over. Of course it would be impossible to enforce. However I believe a good percentage of hunters might go along with this if it were indeed the law.

I think it might put a little pressure on some of the delberts in camp (apologies to people named Delbert)who don't sight in their weapons before the hunt. These delberts might think twice before taking an off-hand Texas heartshot at 300 yds and their friends might actually pressure them into notching their tag if they did.

We all know of instances where an animal has received a mere flesh wound, however, I would say the majority of the time the wounds are eventually fatal.

Instituting this type of regulation would have a net effect of lowering the annual "true" harvest. This could be valuable in places where certain populations could use a little relief.

 

[D13er]

great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB

 

[west]

I could not disagree more. People putting meat on the table lose a deer guess they could eat the tag throughout the year. Besides the guys taking the 300 yard kentucky offhand shots would be the guys that wouldn't follow the rules anyway. Unfortunate things happen while hunting and animals are lost, but the fact is most people are not hunting for just the horns.

 

[gznokes]

Ok, lets keep this post moving the speed of the internet. The topic has apparently been discussed ad nauseum. Why then is it legal? or is it really a discussion that people are sick of talking about and just one of those things we all have to deal with on our own?

 

[dwalton]

If you hunt long enough, chances are you will lose an animal. If you chose to end your hunt good for you. If you continue the hunt good for you, too.

Your idea is completely without merit. How could a rule like that possibly be enforced?

What about bird hunting? If you lose a quail or a duck, are you done hunting?

 

[Younghunter]

They have that law regarding sheep hunting in AK. I know of two guys who wounded sheep and had to eat their tag.

 

[one_dryboot]

I did it last year on the bow hunt. I looked until the blood ran out then I looked for three days after that. The shot looked good but after days of looking I moved on and started hunting again.

It will happen to everyone if they hunt long enough.

So to answer your question i disagree.

 

[gznokes]

I agree with you and stated it would be difficult to enforce.

Just because a law is difficult to enforce doesn't mean a law shouldn't exist.

 

[gznokes]

For the record, I like many hunters who have hunter for about 20 yrs have wounded at least one big game animal and not recovered it. The instance I can remember most clearly, I would have kept hunting except I didn't get back out. I'm not sure what I'd do now.

As I originally stated I'm actually more interested in what the ramifications of the law would be than whether its "right or wrong". I'm proposing it from the position that if it were a law on the books it might improve clean kills, marksmanship, and recovery efforts. It also might aid marginally in population recovery.

Apparently the law exists in Alaska for sheep according to one post above. I think it exists on certain indian reservations and by rule in a lot outfitter camps.

 

[sageadvice]

gznokes said "Apparently the "law" exists in Alaska for sheep according to one post above. I think it exists on certain indian reservations and by rule in a lot outfitter camps."

I would caution believing anything younghunter has to say. He has often demonstrated himself to speak, exaggerate of which he does not know. I could be wrong myself but i believe the "law" he is referring to is only a rule that is enforced according to the individual guide or outfitter to conserve limited game numbers and possibly increase fee's paid for services rendered.

I too would be in favor of a wound one and you're done but see no way to enforce if it were accepted into a Game Law.

Joey

 

[Ticks N Tines]

On many of the Utah CWMUs that rule is enforced. I think it helps people in recovering the animal. I tracked an Antelope for 6 miles and 9 hours after making a terrible shot, and finally found it and put it down. This was on Deseret and they have a very strict rule about wounding animals. Many people see wounding an animal as just an opportunity to shoot a couple animals. If you wound a deer and look for it for a few hours and then come across a bigger one, what do you do??? Most people these days would drop it, but if we had a law I think people would think twice and spend more time looking for the wounded animal. Most people wont change, but it might save a couple deer.
I personally know several people that wound 2-3 deer per year with bows and think nothing of it. I think it's pretty ridiculous that people are killing 2-3 deer per year and think there's nothing wrong with it. I think if you make a bad shot (Mistake), you need to pay the consequence and stop hunting. Spend as much time as possible looking for the wounded deer and you will probably be rewarded.

 

[dwalton]

I'd be willing to bet that there is no law in Alaska. It is more than likely the outfitter's policy. Most of the sheep outfitters up North have something in the contract you sign.

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-09 AT 05:48AM (MST)[p]I think it would be a good idea. Problem to enforce? You bet, but you and your friends would know that you violated the law.

As far as meat hunters, you would dang sure take shots with a very high kill percentage and not take shots that were questionable.

I am not sure if it is the law, but eveyone I know who has gone to Africa has told me that they had that rule while hunting there.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[Zigga]

It's enforced on private ranches with outfitters and guides present but good luck enforcing it any other way. Where would the proof be? Hunting ethics need to be taught at all levels. I know plenty of fathers and grandfathers that are terrible role models for the up and coming hunting generation. It will always be an issue unfortunately.

 

[west]

In africa its not a matter of blood drawn your done. Its blood drawn you still pay. You can shoot another one. Its just going to cost you another trophy fee.

 

[west]

i can't see a law like that helping promote hunting ethics in anyway.

 

[Califelkslayer]

Just saw an article within the last month of a guy that took a huge bull. The meat processor gave him a sack containing a bullet and a broadhead, apparently the bull had survived both a rifle shot and an arrow. Many stories of elk with old broadheads in em.

It's a personal decision that everyone has to make on their own and I believe most game Depts factor in wounded/lost animals in their tag allotments. The crime is not putting enough effort into recovering a wounded animal.

 

[BucksBullsandBroncs]

I think you should have tagged out. You shot your animal, regardless of wiether or not you recovered it. Heated discussion. I think a person should just tag out. Notch your tag and leave.
I've had it happen, found the critter the next morning, but was so bloated and the meat was soured. I tagged out and left.

 

[AndymanSavage]

C'mon, the bowhunt hasn't started unless you hit 2 or 3 deer....

-----------------------------------------------
http://andymansavage.blogspot.com/

 

[Oregonbowhunter]

I disagree with this thought of if you hit something you're done. Why? Because this is something that belongs in your own ethics and morals category. And when you try to shove your beliefs of what YOU think is right and wrong onto others, that's BULL. That's one thing I can't stand in this world is those folks that think they are so high and mighty and their **** doesn't stink. People that think that they have it all figured out and that everyone should believe and do as they do. Makes me sick. That mindset is no different than the anti's trying to take our rights away from us and force their beliefs on the world.

Damn Nazis

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-06-09 AT 05:16PM (MST)[p]I certainly don't have it all figured out, but where do you draw the line letting people make their own decisions? Would it be ok for a guy to shoot and lose 10 deer before he recovered one? I believe his personal choice ends when he starts limiting my hunting chances/experiences due to less deer in the woods.

An extreme example I know, but with shrinking opportunity in the west, there would be more animals (and more tags for the draw) if this law was in place and worked.

For instance, if this were enacted in Utah, and somehow it meant that they were able to add 20, 30, .....??? more tags to the draw in the next few years, would it be worth it?

Calling me a Nazi for my belief that this might be a good thing is way off base IMO.

Now the question of enforcement and whether or not it would actually work is certainly another question.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[Wiszard]

Here's a scenario.....a guy is out deer hunting and shoots at a deer broadside. Hit's the deer in the hind quarters due to his scope being off...deer runs off and is never recovered. Hunter thinks it was a bad shot. Gets another deer in his scope, hits that one in the hind quarters. No recovery. Can't figured out what is wrong. There are guys out there like this. Hunter gets another deer in his sights and this time puts the crosshairs in fron of the shoulder. Pulls the trigger only to gut shot the deer. Lots of blood for a while but eventually quagulates and blood trail is gone. Another lost deer.
Will the law suggested above stop this? Not in my opinion because the hunter in this scenario is ignorant to begin with. It is completely about ethics and how you will handle certain situations. If I wound an animal and exhaust every means possible to find that animal and I can't recover him....depending on the situation, I'll probably harvest another animal. I gut-shot a buck in D13 and tracked the biggest blood trail I have ever seen and ended up bumping him out of his bed. His blood trail stopped no more than 50 yards from when he left his bed. We never found that buck and I felt so crappy, we headed for home and never took a deer home. It's how YOU feel about handling the situation.


Steve

 

[Chadl]

Its the law in Alaska

They've already made this a law in Unit 2 for black bears in Alaska. Read the regs.

 

[gznokes]

Oregonbowhunter, Easy big fella . . .Eeeaasssyyy

 

[4blade]

It is too bad that this sort of thing isnt taught better to young hunters and should be the norm regarless of whether it was a law or not. our sport would be alot better for it...I think it is the status quo for old hunting such as Scottland etc...you respect the life of the animal you are taking and it is a privelige to take ONE.

I agree that it will happen to everyone if you hunt long enough.

An Aldo Leopold quote that I am sure most of you have seen before....says it all.

"A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than that of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this fact".

 

[mdfanatic]

i agree and dissagree, i would think if you wounded an animal notching a tag is an option then the rest of your time hunting is spent looking for the animal youve wounded...some believe a couple hours is an honest effort i guess it depends on how well you believe the shot placement was...but if your a true hunter you would put in the necessary time even days.. looking for it.
ive never wounded an animal, not bragging just not shot at alot of animals, im quite selective in pullin the trigger. side note,my brother shot a nice bull elk on strawberry ridge a few years back the had a broadhead in the hind quarter, hind quarter was no good, full of gangreen. tough question but thats my 2cents.

 

[BCBOY]

In 2006 I wounded a big ol' buck that I had been chasing for 6 years. Had really good blood to begin with. Thought the buck would be down fast. Didn't turn out that way. The blood got less and less until I had just a speck every 100 metres or so. I tracked that buck for close to 4 hours before I lost it about an hour before dark. I took a GPS point on the last speck of blood. The next morning I was planning on picking up where I left off. But as I worked up the mountain, over a km from my GPS waypoint, I cut a track with a speck of blood in it. The track was very unique (big back hooves, small front hooves) and I knew it was the same buck track as the one I had followed the evening before. There was no way for me to follow that new set as the place was ripped apart like a barnyard. They had rutted, chased, and fought all night long, and I couldn't make out if the buck was coming or going. I came to the conclusion his wound was non-fatal. My holidays ended the next day and then I had to go back to work and hunt the rest of the season as a weekend warrior. I told my story on a local hunting site and was ripped a new one. Many told me I was unethical and I should cut my tag. I didn't and I continued to hunt. 3 1/2 weeks later, I finally caught up with that buck on the last day of the season and I killed him. The entry wound had healed over. Imagine this, I had taken out the opposite shoulder the day I had wounded him. How my bullet missed lungs, to this day I will never know. He had a bad limp on the day I killed him, but that didn't slow him down. I do believe he wouldn't have made it threw the winter though, would have ended up being wolf bait. If I had of cut my tag on the sight of blood 3 1/2 weeks earlier, I would never have been able to finally finish what I started.

 

[nickman]

The butcher I used in town had 2 full coffee cans of broadheads and bullets grown over with cartlidge. All wounds are not fatal.

 

[txhunter58]

Very good point BC and that brings out why actually having this law and how to write it would be very difficult indeed. I doubt anyone would be against continuing to hunt the animal you wounded. But it would be very difficult (if not impossible) to write a law that included this continengency, as it would need to do.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)