>We wouldn't even be discussing this
>situation if the first two
>guys could hit where they
>were aiming. I don't blame
>Brian one bit assummimg that
>he shot if a safe
>manner. Would the two original
>shooters be fussing over who
>shot what out from under
>each other?... probably. Geez... Last
>time I checked, you needed
>to actually kill a deer
>to put a claim or
>tag on it.
The guy who finally killed the deer didn't tag it? Did you miss that part?
By definition, the mortally wounding shot means the shot that killed it. If the deer was still alive, and the other guy shot it at 20-30 yards in the timber then the buck belongs to him.
Maybe that's just my thinking though.
For you to decide that the buck would have eventually died from your shot is wrong. An example is that gut shot deer will often cover a lot of ground after the shot. If someone sees that buck 1-2 miles away and kills it then the buck would belong to them. That buck was not killed by Founder's bullet. Sure looks to me like the law has been broken. Maybe if given enough time to die it would have been Founder's buck, but that's not what happened.
I think it takes a lot for Founder to leave the thread open and then make the statement that he has, but it seems that for hunters that are experienced there was a lot of things that went wrong up there and kept piling on top of each other. I think it was wrong of Founder to make a claim on the buck when someone else had just killed it.