Who's elk is this?

[robby denning]

Personally, I don't want any animal that I didn't draw first blood on....

Central Montana archery elk hunt ends in custody battle over bull | Outdoors | missoulian.com

 

[go4thegusto]

Yes, they should have conceded the bull which sounds like it was mortally hit. I had this happen on a bow shot deer during gun season. I was tracking an arterial hit buck and had just found 3 bloody beds in 50 yards. I eased ahead and jumped the buck. He struggled over a rise and POW, a rifle hunter was just over the hill. I walked up on him and asked if the buck was still on its feet when he finished it off. He looked at me in amazement. As I told him the story and we examined the arrow wound, he said "congrats that buck was dead on its feet and I had no time to see that". Situation turned out as it should with no hard feelings. The guy helped me drag it out and we took a photo together which I sent him with a thank you note. What has happened to basic sportsmanship?

 

[Murdy]

At common law, the first person who reduced the animal to possession was the owner. One reason for this is that it discourages the waste of the animal. If Hunter A wounds the animal but does not take possession, he may or may not ever recover it. If a second hunter will have to surrender it to the first hunter if the second hunter takes it into possession, the second hunter has no incentive to do so. Placing ownership with the first person to take it into possession encourages people to keep trying to do so (I'm not sure if this rule was applied to a dead animal or only a wounded one).

 

[LongWayAround]

Strange story.

What made the first guy think it was a good idea to leave his bow behind? Whatever became of that elk?

And why did these two leave to go get help with two animals hit? Wouldn't it make more sense to find them, confirm they were dead, and tag them before leaving? At least if they were tagged the game warden would have had some recourse. If the second animal was hit as well as they stated, it shouldn't have taken long to die, I would think.

It is very unfortunate that some other group of guys basically stole the elk but it seems to me there were a series of poor decisions preceding that.

 

[AdamW]

I'm as much interested in what the hive thinks as my own opinion. I'd like to see where the bull was originally hit.

Assuming the first hit was a fatal one, I'd turn the bull over to him. If someone ham shot a buck/bull and I heart/lung shoot him over a hill I may have a hard time with that one.

 

[FlyGuy]

Strange story.

What made the first guy think it was a good idea to leave his bow behind? Whatever became of that elk?

And why did these two leave to go get help with two animals hit? Wouldn't it make more sense to find them, confirm they were dead, and tag them before leaving? At least if they were tagged the game warden would have had some recourse. If the second animal was hit as well as they stated, it shouldn't have taken long to die, I would think.

It is very unfortunate that some other group of guys basically stole the elk but it seems to me there were a series of poor decisions preceding that.

Well, those are only poor decisions in hind-sight. Nothing really out of the ordinary though for anyone to do when they are extremely confident that their elk is down.

The thing that makes it shady is the fact that the second group tried to hide it. If there was an arrow in him then they expected some one to be coming along - which is why they lied about the blood trail and hid the arrow. Id love for the author to post up the names and hometowns of the individuals in that second group. Maybe what they did was legal but it certainly wasn't ethical.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Tapatalk

 

[idelkslayer]

Strange story.

What made the first guy think it was a good idea to leave his bow behind? Whatever became of that elk?

And why did these two leave to go get help with two animals hit? Wouldn't it make more sense to find them, confirm they were dead, and tag them before leaving? At least if they were tagged the game warden would have had some recourse. If the second animal was hit as well as they stated, it shouldn't have taken long to die, I would think.

It is very unfortunate that some other group of guys basically stole the elk but it seems to me there were a series of poor decisions preceding that.

I agree. If they had stayed in the area until confirming that the bull was dead and tagged them, this situation could have been avoided. Definitely not a mistake in hind sight. Why would you leave the field when you know that you have wounded animals out there and without even attempting a search?

If the bull was still on its feet when the other hunter shot it then legally it is his and I would even say morally it is his. He did nothing wrong, especially if he saw it was already wounded and decided to use his tag and end his hunt on a wounded animal. Fact is that when he reached the bull and tagged it, no one else was around to claim it. That person would be just as skeptical of the guy showing up to say he shot it first.

However, if this was the case, why did they hide the first arrow? They had to have known it wasn't theirs to claim.

 

[541hunter]

Took a buddy for his first elk hunt in the Eagle Caps a few years back for rifle season. We packed in a few miles the day before and got on a rag horn bull right at day light. He shot twice. One was high lung and the other missed. Started to track and heard 2 more shots a ridge over. Followed Blood to the now downed elk. The other hunter had shot the elk once in the hind quarter and then once in the neck. We all worked and to quarter the elk and talked about the situation. He also informed us this was his 25th bull in 30 years of hunting. After the work was done he offered us a chunk of back strap and informed that us he would be keeping the elk sine he put to the ground, despite me showing him my buddies lethal shot. I told him no thank you and that I hope if he is in the reverse roll that somebody shows him what real sportsmanship looks like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bubblehide]

I believe CA regulations state that if you hit the animal, and are in pursuit of it, it belongs to you. I would hate to see a legal animal get away and go to waste. If I were in that situation, I would consider finishing it and hanging a tag on it. But like others here, I would not consider the animal mine.

 

[wapitibob]

I'm as much interested in what the hive thinks as my own opinion. I'd like to see where the bull was originally hit.

Assuming the first hit was a fatal one, I'd turn the bull over to him. If someone ham shot a buck/bull and I heart/lung shoot him over a hill I may have a hard time with that one.

yep

 

[5MilesBack]

Unless it was a really nice trophy bull, I'd just let the second group have it and move on. The positive side is that his season goes on........he gets to keep hunting! Personally, I wouldn't have left any bull after shooting it.

And I have never heard of ANYBODY putting down their bow once they've shot at an elk........until now.

 

[ericF]

Colorado regulations state that the animal belongs to whoever took the killing shot, but that is completely ambiguous. Does that mean whoever took the shot that would eventually kill the animal ie lung shot, or the person who put the animal down ie second shooter. I would lean towards whoever made the first lethal shot.

 

[elkduds]

Colorado regulations state that the animal belongs to whoever took the killing shot, but that is completely ambiguous. Does that mean whoever took the shot that would eventually kill the animal ie lung shot, or the person who put the animal down ie second shooter. I would lean towards whoever made the first lethal shot.

Try this logic. It was alive when I shot it, then it died. Regardless of wounding before it got to me, mine was the killing shot. No shoulda, woulda, coulda. CO language does not include "lethal," as in a shot that would have eventually killed it. This is my interpretation of the CO Killing Shot rule.

For further ambiguity, check this out from CO Bow Hunter Safety Course:
Rule of 1st blood: Respect Your Hunting Companions

Which says the ethical hunter yields the game if the previous hunter drew a trackable blood trail from a potentially lethal hit.

I had some hunters try to claim an elk I shot in CO many years ago. My argument was, "I shot it once, show me where you shot it." It only had one gunshot wound, no matter how much they argued about it.

All good reasons to hunt away from others and pass on iffy shots. I lean toward the logic that wounding is not killing, strongly influenced by much more rifle hunting than archery in my life. A dead and recovered animal is way better than one wounded and lost.

 

[jmez]

If I shot the elk and it had already been hit I'd give it to the guy that shot it first, wouldn't even be a discussion. If I had shot it first I'd expect the same in return. If the other saw it differently, I wouldn't argue, I'd just walk away. No use to fight or ague, an asshole is going to be just that. You aren't going to change his mind.

The size of the antlers would have no bearing on either scenario.

 

[bluetick78]

I've run across situations like this in my years of guiding. I spotted an elk once on a very steep hillside quite a ways away. I could tell it was a bull, but there seemed to be something wrong. The area was a very heavily hunted OTC unit, so sometimes just finding a bull was more than most hunters could muster.
My client and I hurried over there, put a good sneak on it, and got ready to peek out from the opposite side of the steep, narrow canyon and shoot it. I looked just over the brush to confirm it was still there, and my heart sank. It's side was bloody and it was clearly dead. We went over there to find it had been shot perfectly through the lungs. Rigor mortise had set in, so we checked the meat to see if it was bone sour yet. It was.
As we were discussing what to do, we heard voices down in the bottom and soon 4 hunters appeared coming in our direction. As soon as they saw us, they began screaming and firing shots in the air. I went down to talk to them, and was met with a fury of screaming and threats. I waited for the enraged bunch to chill out, then explained what we had done. They told me that one of their group had killed the bull the afternoon before and they were just getting back to pack it out. It was almost noon. I explained that the animal was ungutted, untagged, and that the meat was souring quickly. I then went and got my client and we continued our hunt. I did turn them in to F&G enforcement for not tagging the bull and potential wanton waste. I never heard back, but I doubt any charges were ever pursued.
If we had tagged the animal, I'm certain a gunfight would've ensued given the other party's attitude, but I never would've considered it either.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

Technically whomever killed the elk truly (not eventual mortal shot) would have dibs on the animal in most states. In terms of sportsmanship if I shot an animal and then realized it had a mortal would I would look around to figure out if a hunter was coming for it (for all I know it ran 2mi and that guy lost it). If I found that person I'd likely let him tag if IF I hadn't already notched my tag for it (which if a hunter came an hour later for it I'd have already done). Once I notch my tag my hunt is ended unless I drive all the way back to a CPW office and plead my case, in that instance the hunter didn't keep "hunting" the animal and I made the honest assessment that the wounded animal had been lost/abandoned. So not nearly as black and white then. If someone winged an animal with a shitty shot and then tried to say they killed it we'd need to review the matter. If I want the animal and its some yahoo I'd likely tell him sorry you didn't kill it, if some young kid walks up who made an honest attempt to kill it but really had only wounded it I'd congratulate him on his kill.

In the story I think the 1st shooter gave up a lot of claim to the bull when he left the hunt. If the second shooter honestly shot the elk and the first hunter was no where to be found I can see why they'd tag it. But they just should have said off the bat they killed it honestly, noticed the first arrow but couldn't find a hunter anywhere in the vicinity and proceeded to tag it and start cutting on the animal.

 

[muddydogs]

I'm with pods8 on this. Guy arrows an elk which runs over the hill and who to say it didn't run right up to the other guy that stuck another arrow in it and the elk goes down. Hunter 2 notices the arrow and maybe he back tracks the elk a ways looking for hunter 1 but since the other guy decided to just walk off and go to town for an hour, ya right bet it was longer then an hour, he can't find anyone. Whats the guy to do, he killed the elk, the meat is getting warm and most states require tagging upon the kill so he tags the animal and goes to work processing the meat. Hunter 1 comes along and wants to claim the elk that he walked off from but hunter 2 has already burned his tag. This is not the movies were a guy can kill an animal and come back a few hours latter expecting it to still be there, others are also in the woods and chances are someone is going to come across your animal.

 

[Northernpiker]

Both parties sound stupid and/or dishonest let them fight it out.

 

[Superkodiak38]

This reminds me of the old question; If a man jumps off a 50 story building and on the way down he is shot through the heart by someone on the 40th floor is the shooter guilty of murder since the man was about to die anyhow ?

People are going to be people, 90% of them are reasonable and 8% are not, that leaves 2% that are nut bags that should be locked up for their own good or that of societies...point is I ain't gonna die over it and I ain't gonna hurt anyone over it.

Percentages are estimates and ACME Inc claims no responsibility for the veracity of these assertions whether real or imagined.

 

[Bubblehide]

This reminds me of the old question; If a man jumps off a 50 story building and on the way down he is shot through the heart by someone on the 40th floor is the shooter guilty of murder since the man was about to die anyhow ?
:

To answer your question, the shooter was only practicing euthanasia