recovering wounded animal after legal shooting hours

[BobT]

In today's electronic world I can't imagine too many of us not having a cell phone handy. It's pretty easy to figure out that when it's within 15 minutes of the end of shooting hours and you're still tracking that it is a good idea to give them a call just in case.

I can see their point. Were I in their shoes and got a call about 1/2 hour after dark from someone claiming to have wounded a deer an hour ago, I'd have a hard time believing them.

[MUSKY18]

I Think about it, when you initially take the shot, we are all trying to make the most lethal and ethical kill shot, so as to put the animal down quickly and painless. I have tracked deer at night, to try and find them, but without any type of weapon with me. If the trail was too hard to follow, we have backed out and waited until the morning to try and pick up the trail again. Guess I would rather have the animal lay down and expire on its own, than try to push it and make the chances greater that you won't recover it at all. Does the animal suffer, probably so. But I guess that is the nature of the beast when it comes to hunting. Not all shots are going to dispatch the animal immediately, even though that is the ultimate goal. I would rather be able to ensure recovery of the animal than push it and never find it at all.

[fishermatt]

If I called a CO to let him know I'm tracking a wounded deer after dark and they gave me a hard time, I'd say: Do you think I would have called you if I was doing this illegally? A poacher sure as heck ain't gonna call a CO!!!

[BobT]

There is good merit in what you say. Tracking a wounded animal too soon or too hard can often result in never finding it. I don't know how many times I've come across blood trails in the snow with human tracks following only to learn that within just a few yards (< 100) of where the trackers stopped, I'd find a nice buck or doe. This was an obvious case of hunters pushing too early, too hard, and too fast and so the animal kept moving ahead of them. Had they stopped their pursuit and gave it a half hour or hour, they would likely have found it.

Last year my nephew wounded one just before dark. It turned out to be a good shot (through both lungs) but we were unable to find it that evening. The shot was placed high enough that it bled internally and didn't leave any blood trail on the ground. The area we hunt is loaded with oak, maple, and birch so there are a lot of colorful leaves on the ground, which can make tracking a blood trail somewhat of a challenge anyway.

The weather was quite warm for deer hunting. If memory serves me correctly, it was in the mid to upper 50's and remained above 40 overnight. The next morning I volunteer to see if I could find it and I did. Turned out that I actually walked completely around it the night before in the dark within just a few yards and never saw it. When I opened it up I had a strong desire to hold my breath. We eventually got it cleaned out but we chose not to keep the inside tenderloins or any meat that was potentially contaminated by the blood. The moral of this story is that sometimes it is better to find it as soon as practical than to wait. It can be a tough call.

[BobT]

If I called a CO to let him know I'm tracking a wounded deer after dark and they gave me a hard time, I'd say: Do you think I would have called you if I was doing this illegally? A poacher sure as heck ain't gonna call a CO!!!

In that case I would expect they might want to be there with you.

[MUSKY18]

There is good merit in what you say. Tracking a wounded animal too soon or too hard can often result in never finding it.

The moral of this story is that sometimes it is better to find it as soon as practical than to wait. It can be a tough call.

I hear and understand exactly what you are saying BobT. Guess it is sometimes the "6 of one, half dozen of the other" type senario. Totally a judgement call.

[chris63]

FFA?Do you mean the FAA?The question of taking game with the aid of an aircraft would be subjective and the CO can and does interpret this the way that they want.I'm not advocating or condoning leaving an animal for dead but sometimes the Law stinks!c63

[InTheNorthwoods]

FFA?Do you mean the FAA?The question of taking game with the aid of an aircraft would be subjective and the CO can and does interpret this the way that they want.I'm not advocating or condoning leaving an animal for dead but sometimes the Law stinks!c63

Yes, it would appear that I made a typo. The "Future Farmers of America" would have nothing to do with regulating aviation, that would be the Federal Aviation Administration.

The question of taking game with the aid of an aircraft would NOT be subjective - atleast not in a court of law. It would require a "taking" to have occurred, or evidence of a taking. Simply flying low over ones land, without a weapon no less, would never be proven to even be an attempt at a "taking". The CO could have had some supicions as to what Harvey's intent was, but the fact is, the CO had no reason to stop Harvey to question him in the first place. The fact is, Harvey was (according to his recounting of events), clearly NOT taking game with the aid of an aircraft. He was simply flying over his land. Flying over his land is, no matter the suspicions of the CO, not illegal and not a stoppable offense without some other overt act of attempting to "take" an animal. If Harvey had happened to see a deer floating in the water, or laying in the crp, well, that is just a fortunate coincidence. No different than someone driving around their land looking for a downed animal, which is an equivalent act - taking an animal from a vehicle is also illegal.

[chris63]

I wasn't being argumentative or suggest someone used an aircraft to "take" game.I'm just saying that Law enforcement is subjective as well as a court of law.IMHO..............c63