Who Get's the Elk ?

[mountainman]

My son was out on the rifle bull Elk hunt a week or so ago. He spotted a spike, shot and hit the spike but it didn't go down. As he was preparing a 2nd shot at the spike another shot rang out and the spike went down.

When my son and his friend got to the spike there was a lady standing there that had made the 2nd shot. She said the Elk was hers and there was no discussion needed. My son didn't know what to do but gracefully let the woman have the spike.

My question is (I know it's been covered before but not lately) woman hunter or not what has been your experience in a case like this ? Should the person that makes the 1st shot get the animal (that's my opinion) or what ?

 

[mmwb]

Legally? It was probably hers. Ethically? Case by case. If she hadn't taken the shot, the spike might have taken off and maybe no one would have gotten it. Who should have got it is subjective. Did she even know if the first shot connected? She was at the animal first, so I presume that she was closer. Sounds like your son (how old is he?) did the manly thing. More hunt time.

 

[dreaminbouthuntin]

I think its 'rule of last blood'. Meaning whoever put it down gets it. Its usually case by case, but in reality, if you shoot at or hit an animal and it takes off and doesnt go down soon and someone else shoots it and puts it down, i'd say its theirs. I hope this never happens to me. Its a tough call. Now, if you shoot an animal, it goes a ways dies and someone tries to take it claiming it was theirs.. i'd hate to say it, but there'd be a fight. Right or not.
Sorry this happened to your kid. If it were me making the second shot and a youth was involved, i would have let the kid have the elk. Tough situation.

 

[mountainman]

Yea, she knew the 1st shot connected and you are right she was closer.

 

[sageadvice]

LAST EDITED ON Oct-14-12 AT 12:54PM (MST)[p]Until learning that there are differences State to State and even one area to another, we always went by first good blood and that way, there was never a problem when someone helped you finish off a dieing wounded animal.

I have found MOST people very reasonable when discussing just who should own the downed animal that was shot by more than one person. I have seen where neither party wanted to claim it as theirs, the Buck was not so big and they enjoyed the shooting but preferred to continue hunting, but first good blood determined the person to use their tag.

I really wish the law of the land was First Good Blood. Someone wanting to help putting the animal down, fine, but many times a animal is "dead walking" with a great placed shot and just a little needed tracking after a bit of time passes. But then, someone else sticks another bullet or arrow in it. Sometimes, there is the possibility that the animal might even be already down, has happened, a guy shoots it again anyway to claim jump it. This is just not righteous but it has been done and again, first good blood would keep this from successfully happening .

Because of what i consider awkward or maybe even "backward" rules, Regs, or laws like this, i'm pretty careful anymore where i hunt and how many people are around. There are just too many people out there that would shoot somebody once they get their two or three brain cells worked up to the fact that they could claim someone else's animal if they pushed the issue hard enough. I just don't care to play that game or be in that position.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[Bullelk1]

It happens every year, and each situation is a little different. I would be interested in where the first shot hit the elk. A bullet through the paunch is not the same as one through both lungs. It happened to me as a young man on what would have been my biggest buck. My shot was less than perfect, and another hunter killed and tagged the animal. Looking back, he was right to do so.

 

[carbonnation]

It is my understanding that in the state of Utah a hunter has the right to persue. .... meaning that if they hit an animal and are actively engaged in persueing in an attempt to retrieve the animal that they have a right to the animal. I will have to look it up, I have read it before, and it could have been changed. The law was originally put in place to dicsourage someone from watching and animal get hit and then running over and finding it first and then claiming that they finished it off so it is theres.......... haveing said that....woman, with a gun, no witnesses, just a spike..... your boy is lucky he got out of there at all. ha ha

 

[toughelmer]

I believe that any life threatening shot (including a gut shot)should go to the first person who shot it. Even if it will take time for the animal to die. I had a friend take his daughter hunting for the first time and she was able to shoot a bull. The bull got shot in the stomach and the girl didn't have enough time to make another shot. The bull did run off but bedded down where they could watch. The dad decided to sneak his daughter into position to get another shot when another hunter shot her bull. When they got to the bull the hunter that finished it off claimed it, even after the dad had explained what had happened. The 12 year old girl was devastated that she couldn't claim her elk. I personally think that was very immature for that guy to take a little girls first elk. For young hunters a moment like that could mean never hunting again. I myself have shot an animal after someone else has shot it but I always offered the that person to claim it first. I know my way may not agree with what the law says but the situation should be in the hands of the two responsible shooters to decide who gets the animal.

 

[mountainman]

The shot was low probably taking out the liver.

 

[justr_86]

First blood...

 

[WapitiBob]

I believe you'll be hard pressed to find a single instance where a statute is referenced. Meaning, there is no law.

 

[1911]

Should be first blood. Otherwise, you could shoot an elk, watch it pile up, it lifts its head doing the dying shivers, and somebody else sinks a pill in it and 'finishes' it off. Either way one it remains one of the blessed scenarios that public land brings. At any rate, spike or mature bull, one thing is for certain. I'm not about to get into an armed confrontation with someone over an animal. The plus side is he got to shoot an elk, and didn't even get his hands bloody or pack an ounce of meat.

 

[Triple_BB]

Here in Wyoming, I think there is case law that whoever delivers the first mortal shot owns it. Remember about 12 years ago, my buddy shot a 370 class bull on the refuge out of a group of bulls. He went running over as soon as he dropped it. Another guy shows up a few minutes later and sez thanks for finishing my bull. Some heated words were exchanged with my buddy saying let's go ahead and settle it man to man. The other guy left saying he was gonna call the park rangers...

 

[carnyman]

I was set up one morning watching 2 bucks come to me through the trees when a shot rang out. Both bucks took off looking unhurt. I got on the bigger buck and shot. Went down and he was piled up, shot through the rib which is where i was holding. Soon other guy walks up and i asked if he shot. When he said yes he tried to neck shoot the buck i started to look for a bullet hole. Sure enough he missed the spin and the wind pipe but he hit the deer. The ol' man always had a first blood rule in our camp so i gave up the deer. I guess it just goes to the Golden Rule.

 

[llamapacker]

Some states do have a rule pertaining to this situation. It is still not easy to apply the rules, however. I believe it is Washington that says something to the effect that the shot that "reduces the animal to possession" determines ownership. This generally means that the first shot that will be fatal determines who tags the animal. Grazing the hind leg or even gut shooting, while maybe eventually fatal, and of course draws blood, is not considered a fatal wound.
Each situation is a law unto itself, and needs to be discussed calmly and reasonably by the parties involved. Good luck with that....
Bill

 

[Broadside_Shot]

It is whoever hit the animal first that has the right to tag the animal first.

Legally you can't speculate whether it would have or could have gotton away.

If two people have tags and the first person hits the animal in the leg and the second puts is down, Legally the first person can tag it. Even if it is not a fatal shot.

The debate comes on whether the second person can tag it.

I had a scenario on the extended archery where I hit a buck in the ribs but the arrow didn't penetrate well enough to kill him immediately. I looked for 3 days when another young man killed the buck. The buck was still alive after three days and upon evaluation there where two holes within 2 inches of each other right in the rib cage.

Somehow his killed him and mine didn't. This was a 31 inch 4 point and it was the young mans first deer. He graciously said I could have it since I hit him first and was still tracking the deer. Commen sense told me that this was his buck and so I said let me get some pictures with him and he all yours.

The young man was so excited.

I could have pushed the law but sometimes you just know what is right.

 

[bigmoosie]

We were hunting Tule elk in Cal a few years back, my wife shoots an 8x6 opening morning. She's shooting a .284 win. hits the elk right behind the shoulder we begin following the bull hes wobbling about ready to go down another pickup pulls up women jumps out shoots the bull from about 20 feet away. Bull dies in road, we run up say thanks for finishing our bull, they your bull its our bull.I want to go ballistic on this guy but wife says calm down. We show guy where bull was shoot right behing shoulder he says too bad. The guy didn't even know how to gut the elk we end up gutting the bull and helping him load the bull in his pickup. Called game warden hes says its our elk, but we would have to take them to court. Wife ends up killing another monster bull out of a herd of 11 bulls. Bet shes the only hunter from Calif. with two Tule bulls that didn't buy the tags.

 

[travishunter3006]

This is why I try my hardest to get away from others during any hunt. Sometimes you just can't avoid it though...


Before me and my buddies go out into the field we discuss this same situation... If there is going to be a "1...2...3...Boom" type of deal where we both arrow an animal or drop it with our rifles then the closest to the heart gets it. If That way doesn't determine it then we flip a coin. Sure there might be some bad feelings for a minute or two but If you are good buddies you're happier for him that you would be for yourself.


Last year my wife shot a buck that an older gentleman and his hunting compadre claimed and began gutting before we could get to it. When we talked about the deer with this fellow and his old hunting pal, the hunter said "I'd never take a lady's first deer" and packed up his stuff, shook our hands and left.


I was hunbled by this experience and look for ways to make another hunter's day if I can.

Sorry this happened to you but I hope, with waht time is left, your boy can get out and put a bull on the ground.

 

[pookiebar]

Sorry you had a bad experience, but that is her bull. Too bad your son didn't get the bull, it sucks but that is how it goes on public land.

 

[BPKHunter]

I believe the concept of "any" first blood is rediculous. Common sense says that only a mortally wounded animal can be claimed. Not sure of any Idaho Law that would support any position. Clearly the main ethic that should be supported here is working as a "community" for the quick and ethical dispatch of animals and the finishing off of another's mortally wounded animal is ethical. Claiming an animal you made a bad shot on, seems to be the opposite of ethical. The cost of a bullet should not be a deterrant from helping put an animal down quickly, nor an excuse to claim what isn't ethically theirs.

Clearly there is a gray area here though on what's a mortal wound.

I had two bullets go 1" or so apart through the lungs of a buck 3 years ago at 100 yards. Turns out they didn't expand properly. Blood trail up and over the hill about 400 yards where he laid down, bleeding from his mouth/nose to expire. As I crest the hill some guy riding an ATV illegally see's this 4x laying in the brush, which never get's up while he pulls his 300WM and shoots from his quad into the back abdomen and through the off rear quarter. We meet at the buck. I offer to show them the blood trail and proceed to show them the "multiple" hits I placed with my .257. I also asked if they thought it was odd this bleeding buck never rose as they fumbled with their guns. Needless to say I assumed the possession and suppose if they wanted to get testy I'm not sure how far it would have gone, but I wasn't about to let some illegal quad riding road hunter make a poor 150 yard shot on my buck and then tag it. I'm still pissed about the mess they made of it, but don't blame them for shooting, just think they should have shot better at that distance.

 

[Zeke]

In our group it's always first blood but actually according to the State the animal isn't "reduced to bag" until it's down and dead. The animal isn't yours just because you wounded it first.

If the other hunter would have been me your son would have his elk because I don't want it if someone else has hit it and still on it's trail. That's just the way we play but you'll run into all kinds out there.

Remember, it's not your until it's "reduced to bag" and it's not in the bag until it's dead.

Zeke

 

[7thgenmt]

Try hunting where you dont have to worry about this BS,if she was closer he probably shouldn't have shot at all.

 

[Magicman]

I saw one settled by a "game warden" last year. A huge bull and the last shooter that actually put the bull down got it.


Before you die.....Take time to live

 

[Broadside_Shot]

Just like any case. If it goes to the Lawyers I guess it could go either way. Just depends on who can argue their case the best.

You just hope that there are alot of people out there with some good ol' "Commen Sense" and can avoid these type of situations.

It's crazy the emotions hunting brings out in people.

 

[Gator]

GW in Utah told us it was whoever did the killing shot and not who wounded it.But the person who killed it last.
Me I have always did the first blood rule.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[k22hornet]

First good blood is the rule I follow. Doesn't matter to me if the first shot by another hunter isn't a killing shot. I am glad if I can help a hunter stop a wounded animal from getting away.

 

[muley77]

This same thing happened to me swan hunting. I was with my dad and drilled a swan. It was clearly hit and was on its way down and glided about 75 yards over and behind me where just before it hit the ground heard some shots and heard a bunch of excited yelling. I was so mad, I instantly wanted to run over there and get into it with the people that claimed it but my dad persuaded me that it would not be a good idea. Well needless to say about an hour later here comes the people walking towards us on the dike and here is a 12 year old kid with his grandpa and dad, grinning ear to ear with his first swan over his shoulder. My anger instantly went away and I congratulated the kid on his first swan. There are people that are unethical about everything when it comes to hunting but I realized then and there that there was no way I could mess with the experience that this kid had and it would not have done any good for anyone. I was happy to see his excitement. Just remember the experience you had with your son and go do it again. I will go out again and I will get another swan.
I think your son did the right thing.

 

[mountainman]

My son could not see her. She was off to one side in some junipers.

 

[justr_86]

I've had 2 bucks taken from me. First one was my first muzzy buck. I was road hunting down the mountain in the evening. I saw an 18 inch 3x4, would've been my biggest buck at the time. I shoot him at 50 yards and he circled down below me and went to cross a side road and I heard another shot. There was 1 hole in the deer (from me) and the guy (in his 40s) was ready to fight over it... I walked away.

2nd was with archery, bucks could've been brothers. He walked in to 30 yards turned broadside and looked away from me. I Drew back and let it fly, couldn't have been a better shot! He ran around the point of the finger I was sitting on and out if sight. I have him about 15 minutes. Followed a very easy to see blood trail to a guy standing over my buck (about 60 yards from the shot) said it layed down in front if him so he shot it. Again 1 entrance 1 exit. I showed him the blood trail, his dad showed up, once again tried to fight me. So I went to walk away and got yelled at for not helping them pack it out (about a mile). I told him to get bent and kept hunting....

 

[sageadvice]

All this talk yet still very different opinions.

If it were as easy as, "the bullet that puts the animal on the ground and in possession", too many cases of a guy who found, hunted, and shot a animal with a lethal or killing shot, will lose his animal to the guy(s) who happened to be nearby, before, during, or after, the animal died. How Fair is that? Not at All!!

"First Good Blood" seems the only fair way to do it. A archer, or rifle hunter, can comfortably let his bull, buck, whatever, bed down, stiffen up, and/or bleed out after a good shot not having to worry about a potential game thief claiming his prize.

I have taken a few animals that were hit in the guts. Sometimes it takes a bit of tracking, sometimes not at all, but i have always found my few gutshot or hipshot bucks so i think first good blood should include most all solid hits to the main body mass, not the legs, ears. nicking the neck, or grazing of the body, but a shot into or through the mass of the animal.

"First Good Blood" Should be the law of the land. Less heated debates or threatened fights on the mountain, it just makes too much sense to me to not be the universal law!

Joey

"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[mulemanrack]

To me.....If someone wants to claim a "spike" elk that I shot and is willing to stand there and argue about it....they must need it more than I do. Had fun shooting at it, still got my tag, KEEP HUNTING!

 

[sageadvice]

mulemanrack, my sentiments as well but what if, instead of a spike, it were the biggest monster bull that you had ever seen?

There should be less or no "grey Area" in this regard. We all, hunters in all the western states, should know and respect the/a commonly known law regarding "who gets the animal".

Until this is so, i fear and predict that many more problems, right on up to a person or persons, getting shot dead, will occur.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[nickman]

Unless you are a complete retard, it is fairly simple to tell if an animal has been wounded.

If you finish it off and someone shows up and the two of you cannot come to an agreement without a fight, .....you need to take up another hobby.

I understand that there can be a "trophy" issue, but doing the RIGHT thing is way easier to live with than lying to yourself .....and others forever after.

Personally, if I even suspect that there is another hunter tracking a wounded animal, I ain't shooting it. I use the theory that coyotes need to eat too.

My hunting time is precious and personal and I WILL NOT ruin the experience with any sort of confrontation......from other hunters or LEO's....who most always get involved in these things.

I find it amazing that someone would claim something they did not shoot and then be willing to fight over it.

"I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and
sh!t a better argument than that!"

 

[idelkslayer]

I will begin by saying I hope I never encounter this situation, and I'm sorry for the long post.

Elk are tough animals and it sometimes takes more than one shot through the vitals to put it down. I once shot a cow elk three times through the chest with the bullets all striking within 3 inches of each other. She never flinched but wandered out-of-sight behind some brush where I found her dead a few minutes later. The first shot killed her, she was dead on her feet. Why do I keep shooting? Because you can never be 100% certain until the animal is on the ground. If someone else had shot her after my first shot, she would not have been any more dead even if she then fell to the ground. It would be my elk.

There is a logical way to approach it.
Typically it is easy to know who shot first, therefore when both parties meet at the animal they should be able to identify their entry wounds. If both shots are in the chest then it would be logical that the first shot killed it and the second shot only hastened the inevitable. The first shooter gets it.

If there is a good blood trail leading back to the scene of the first shot, then the first shooter gets it.

If the first shot only grazed it or drew minimal amounts of blood from a non lethal shot then the second shooter gets it.

If the first was a gut shot(could take hours to a day to die and leave little blood to follow, and hard to recover anyways) then the second shooter gets it, however I would leave it at his discretion to let the first guy have it. I know I would let someone take the gut shot animal from me or let me take an animal that I had gut shot.

In your sons case where he believes he hit a little back and got the liver. If the woman knew that your son had hit the animal then she was wrong to shoot. (if the elk had run away and appeared unhurt she could shoot at it) But if it stayed in place after the first shot and she thought it was a miss, then I say she was still wrong to try and take an elk out from under someone like that.

My personal rule is that once someone starts shooting at an animal, I will not shoot at it until the other guy has emptied his gun and it is clear he did not wound it.

The golden rule and honesty should prevail. I would feel sick if I knew that I had taken someone elses elk or deer, because I know how I would feel if someone did that to me or my son. If everyone keeps a cool head and goes through the sequence of events and looks at the evidence(entry wounds, blood trails, timeframe) I think that most cases can be resolved and whoever keeps the elk can do so with a clear conscience and the other guy can walk away knowing he wasn't bullied away.

 

[sageadvice]

Yeah, both of you last two guys comments are correct and make perfect sense to me. But, from reading here in these pages, even from some of the comments above, and knowing that even the bassackwards law will in cases side against you, making perfect sense and what or who you might find waiting for you as you approach your downed animal are two very completely different things.

Many here and out there truly believe that if they come across a badly wounded, but still on it's feet, animal and they finish it off, that the animal is rightfully theirs. Some feel that if they come across a freshly dead animal, that they can shoot it again, and the animal is rightfully theirs. Then their buddies show up, tempers can flair, and it can go downhill from there depending just how bad both parties want the downed animal.

Logic and what makes perfect sense sometimes just doesn't apply in this case and it won't until the law in all the western states is First Good Blood.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[nickman]

I agree......but a murky shadow indeed!

"I could eat a bowl of Alphabet Soup and
sh!t a better argument than that!"

 

[mountainman]

Wow, I never thought my comment would get this much attention. Lots of good discussion and thoughts.

As for me and my son, if we know someone has already shot an animal we will leave it alone unless we put it down to help the person who shot 1st.

If we ever do get in a situation like this we will always try to negotiate an agreement, If that isn't in the cards and the other party is getting all worked up we will back off. Injuring anyone over the possession of an animal is insane.

Thanks for all who commented.

Oh by the way, we typically hunt where there aren't crowds. This instance was unusual that way, A lot more people than we had anticipated.

 

[wybighorn]

Truly unfortunate. My rule is first blood but... it's difficult to make a hard and fast rule because of the numerous possibilities and circumstances that could and do happen every year. Tell your boy congrats on being a "man." He kept his dignity and did the respectful thing even though he would have had every right to argue over the bull. Good karma is headed your way.

 

[hntbambi]

First blood should not mean crap. Who ever makes the first mortal shot is the owner of the animal. I have seen many deer with brisket grazes or shoulder angled hits that never was more than a flesh wound that were rightfully killed and tagged by other hunters.

If I am hunting in a very populated area, shoot the shoulders and put them down now.

 

[sageadvice]

" First blood should not mean crap. Who ever makes the first mortal shot is the owner of the animal. I have seen many deer with brisket grazes or shoulder angled hits that never was more than a flesh wound that were rightfully killed and tagged by other hunters. If I am hunting in a very populated area, shoot the shoulders and put them down now."


Exactly what i was referring to when i stated that there are widely differing opinions on the subject and that there needs to be a updated well thought out Universal, State to State, law regarding just who the dead animal belongs to.

"Shoulder angle hits" not being mortal? Then there are good archery hits. How can one expect to anchor a trophy animal with a bow? Whatever! Grazing shots were never a part of my, who gets the animal, recommendations.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[jodog]

If I see someone shoot an animal, unless Im hunting with them they better hit him good because I'm not shooting at it and don't want the hassle of... who's is it... they can have it. Now if I'm out hunting and see an animal and don't know it's been hit and I kill it and find that someone hit him with a bad shot earlier in the day...it's going home with me. Moral of the story, don't take a bad shot.

 

[dieselman23]

Your son sounds like a darn good sportsman! Props to him for letting the woman have it. Would be very difficult for a lot of hunters to let it go like your son did.

 

[elkhunter57]

my heart says you sons elk, the law of the land says your sons elk, anyone with one ounce of respect says your sons elk, but its the killing shot sorry to say