I’m well aware of what the act says and I have read it through and through.
Two elements of the act should be considered in answering the OP’s question: the definition of “hunt” and Section 35(2).
“‘Hunt’
includes shooting at, attracting, searching for, chasing, pursuing, following after or on the trail of, stalking or lying in wait for wildlife, or attempting to do any of those things, whether or not the wildlife is then or subsequently wounded, killed or captured,
(a)
with intention to capture the wildlife, or
(b)
while in possession of a firearm or other weapon.”
“35 (2) A person
commits an offence if the person hunts wildlife
andkills or injures that wildlife and failsto make every reasonable effort to:
(a)
retrieve the wildlife, and if it is alive to kill it and include it in his or her bag limit, and
(b) remove the edible portions of the carcass of game to the person's normal dwelling place or to a meatcutter or the owner or operator of a cold storage facility,
unless exempted by regulation.”
I revert to my previous example of Hunter A shooting an animal only to watch it bound off and be shot by an independent ‘Hunter B’. Hunter B’s actions would meet the definition of “hunt”.
As for the mercy shot delivering hunter, they would have shot at the animal while in possession of a firearm or bow - thus also meeting the definition of “hunt”.
If we then turn to Section 35(2) of the act, both hunters (mercy-shot Mike, and Hunter B) considered above would commit and offence per this section if they fail to retrieve the wildlife and cancel their tag - they both
hunted and
killed wildlife.
Maybe there is case law to guide a judge in this; however, to me at least, the above is crystal clear.
If I came around the corner and witnessed someone killing an animal - mercy shot or not - and was later questioned as to who ‘killed’ the animal, my answer would implicate the person who pulled the trigger last - of course I would give details to indicate if it appeared to be a mercy shot and leave it up to the CO/court to decide.
To be perfectly clear Caddisguy, I have no qualms with a hunting party doing exactly what you suggest that you have done and can’t say I’d do differently, but I’m not a judge, CO, or a lawyer so my above detailed opinion hardly matters to anyone but myself.