Who's Tag?

[MZac]

New to hunting here and I can't seem to find a clear answer.

I'm going to be rifle hunting for bear while my friend bow hunts. We plan to be both in proximity of each other as well as together at times.

Hypothetically, a bow hunter shoots a bear and his hunting partner has an ethical opportunity to finish it off with a rifle, and he takes it. Who's tag do you punch?

Is there a legal requirement or is it something the group generally decides amongst themselves?

[whitlers]

Generally doesn't matter in your case. As long as you both have a license and a tag. Would be the same deal if you both had rifles and the first shooter made a bad shot.

Now if we are talking bow only season then you are obviously not allowed.

[ElectricDyck]

The devils details come out when 2 guys hunt together and one has punched his tag on the first animal but then offers a follow up shot on his buddies animal, hunting illegally, even though ethically he's doing the right thing ensuring an efficient kill.

[MZac]

Thanks for the quick responses. Additional detail would be we both have unpunched tags during legal rifle season.

Electricdyck - In your scenario I wouldn't be hauling a rifle around without a tag in hand. So, I don't forsee that as an issue. Of course, I'm sure we could come up with a scenario where same day I punched my tag first on the way back to camp he makes a bad shot but the 'what if's' are endless here.

[KodiakHntr]

New to hunting here and I can't seem to find a clear answer.

I'm going to be rifle hunting for bear while my friend bow hunts. We plan to be both in proximity of each other as well as together at times.

Hypothetically, a bow hunter shoots a bear and his hunting partner has an ethical opportunity to finish it off with a rifle, and he takes it. Who's tag do you punch?

Is there a legal requirement or is it something the group generally decides amongst themselves?

Legally speaking, its a no-no. It's kind of a gray area, in that with a black bear if you both have tags then depending on the CO whether he keeps asking questions and just gives you a verbal warning or what... If you have punched your tag(s) then take a finisher shot at said wounded bear then you are hunting illegally as you don't have a tag.
A few years back when I was spear hunting with a rifle toting buddy I had a CO lose his shit on me because I didn't have a rifle for backup so obviously that meant that my buddy was going to have to apply a finisher and "he could be charged". Depends on the CO on how they handle it.


Regardless though, typically when bears are stabbed with an arrow they spin around a couple times and then line out in whatever direction they are pointed when they stop spinning. Give them a bit to bleed and stiffen up and they are pretty easy to slip a second arrow into if needed. It's more a mental thing than it is an actual danger following one up.

[blackford]

I think your over thinking it.... Both have tags...you will be fine

[Livewire322]

It’s straight forward:
Ponder the alternative scenario by taking your buddy out of it. If Hunter A shot an animal only to watch it limp off, and it was later finished off by a independent third-party, Hunter B, then Hunter B would cut their tag.

and therein lies the answer.

[wideopenthrottle]

you are ignoring the rule of first blood aren't you?


It’s straight forward:
Ponder the alternative scenario by taking your buddy out of it. If Hunter A shot an animal only to watch it limp off, and it was later finished off by a independent third-party, Hunter B, then Hunter B would cut their tag.

and therein lies the answer.

[Stillhunting]

Depends if the first shot would prove fatal, better get an autopsy done.

[caddisguy]

There is nothing defined in our laws for this specific scenerio.

Well, there kind of is. In fact this is one case where the law offers a simple solution to a more complex scenario. So opinions aside, let's just go with law.

The law requires a tag is to be cut upon recovery of the animal. You both have to have a tag to "hunt" the animal, but if you both put a bullet (or arrow) in it, the law does not care which ended it. There are no legal provisions concerning that.

I believe in "first blood". Whoever shot it first owns it. In one case I put down a deer. Once I knew it was staying down, I went to find my hunting partner so they could "recover" their deer.

So no need to overcomplicate this one. As long as you both have tags and both bow and rifle are allowed for the species on said day, you can both pursue and shoot. Then you can decide who is to "recover" it (walk up to it) and that person can then legally and ethically cut their tag. We did this last fall.

It's also a good thing to discuss with your hunting partner in advance, to decide if you agree with follow up shots by the other person or go by "first blood" or "last shot" with regard to ownership.

Just dont walk up to it to look at it, poke it with your rifle or start taking pictures if the other shooter will be cutting the tag (a CO will likely and correctly interpret that to be recovery and failure to cancel the tag) ... at most, stay where you are and watch a few mins to make sure it isn't moving, then immediately retrieve the shooter cutting the tag.

[MZac]

There is nothing defined in our laws for this specific scenerio.

Well, there kind of is. In fact this is one case where the law offers a simple solution to a more complex scenario. So opinions aside, let's just go with law.

The law requires a tag is to be cut upon recovery of the animal. You both have to have a tag to "hunt" the animal, but if you both put a bullet (or arrow) in it, the law does not care which ended it. There are no legal provisions concerning that.

I believe in "first blood". Whoever shot it first owns it. In one case I put down a deer. Once I knew it was staying down, I went to find my hunting partner so they could "recover" their deer.

So no need to overcomplicate this one. As long as you both have tags and both bow and rifle are allowed for the species on said day, you can both pursue and shoot. Then you can decide who is to "recover" it (walk up to it) and that person can then legally and ethically cut their tag. We did this last fall.

It's also a good thing to discuss with your hunting partner in advance, to decide if you agree with follow up shots by the other person or go by "first blood" or "last shot" with regard to ownership.

Just dont walk up to it to look at it, poke it with your rifle or start taking pictures if the other shooter will be cutting the tag (a CO will likely and correctly interpret that to be recovery and failure to cancel the tag) ... at most, stay where you are and watch a few mins to make sure it isn't moving, then immediately retrieve the shooter cutting the tag.

This is an excellent answer. Thank you for taking the time.

[adriaticum]

New to hunting here and I can't seem to find a clear answer.

I'm going to be rifle hunting for bear while my friend bow hunts. We plan to be both in proximity of each other as well as together at times.

Hypothetically, a bow hunter shoots a bear and his hunting partner has an ethical opportunity to finish it off with a rifle, and he takes it. Who's tag do you punch?

Is there a legal requirement or is it something the group generally decides amongst themselves?

The person who takes the first shot punches their tag.
Mercy shot doesn't count.
But it's really about what you agree on prior to leaving your couch.

[caddisguy]

This is an excellent answer. Thank you for taking the time.

Anytime and thank you for the very good question / topic.

We should all be cognizant of the laws and not just believe anything on the Internet. I'm a stickler for the "letter" of the law and not just the "spirit", but wouldn't want anyone to take my conclusion as a certainty and would be happy if anyone could cite law or potential interpretation of law that is contrary. I am confident enough to state what I have done publicly.

It sounds like you did quite a bit of homework, so good on you.

It absense of a specific law, sometimes we just need to look at the Act in full to make sure there is no potential violation. The only potential violation I can see is if someone walked right up to the animal especially putting their hands on it or taking photos (well established criteria for recovery) and did not cut a tag, or did not have a tag to pursue (hunt) the animal to begin with (see definition of hunt)

Definitely still urge anyone unsure to double check the Wildlife Act (which it sounds like you have) to make sure you come to the same conclusion.

Key sometimes is not necessarily looking for a provision to cover a specific scenerio but rather making sure you are not in violation of any law, so the direction I would point anyone is to find a law that could be interpreted as violation (I cannot) I think you likely exhausted that and found there isn't one, hence the uncertainty and excellent question.

Some other examples cited (spear hunting with a rifle hunter for backup and no tag being a likely violation, or independent party being "able" to finish a wounded animal and cut their tag--dirty pool if other hunter is near by but legal IMHO--are noteworthy, but not particularly relevant to the scenario)

Anyway, wishing you a memorable, safe and successful hunt! Spring is springing (or trying to) and it's a wonderful time to be out. Enjoy!

[ROY-alty33]

From the Regs

Licence CancellationIt is unlawful to be in possession of a big game animalwithout a properly cancelled species licence or otherwiseby licence, permit, or as provided by regulation. Anyperson who kills any big game species must immediatelyafter the kill and before handling the big game killed,cancel the appropriate species licence in accordance withthe instructions on that licence.
Pretty sure person who kills it cuts their tag!
If you are together lend them your rifle, for some reason in BC gang hunting is against the rules.

[ROY-alty33]

As of 2020 spear hunting is illegal as well in case anyone was thinking of giving it a shot

[Livewire322]

you are ignoring the rule of first blood aren't you?

Whatever extralegal agreement you come up with in your hunting group is your business - and your risk.
The legal answer is, he who kills it, cancels the tag.

[caddisguy]

Here is the actual law (Wildlife Act)

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96488_01

It does not define kill vs mercy shot, etc.

In fact, it states it is the law that "every effort is required" to be made to recover a wounded animal and does not exclude working with another willing licensed participant. Paraphrased synopsis summary aside, legal focus / wording in the Act focuses on hunting, possession and recovery.

It does not define mortally wounded vs mercy or anything of that nature.

If one wants to get that complicated, then if you were persuing wounded game that fell off a ridge, you would then need to perform an autopsy to determine if you killed it or the fall did (and be required to obtain an additional permit to acquire it) ... This is not a "thing".

Let's just stick with the actual law (Act) ... there is no need to overcomplicate this. If we speculate into autopsy land between two different shots (has this even happened in case law?) I think it means thank goodness a new season is coming upon us so we can focus energy somewhere relevant :)

Try to find a case of this nature ever being tested. No such case law exists for obvious reason.

[Livewire322]

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.

[whitlers]

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.

You're over thinking it..

[blackhawk19]

whoever puts the kill shot in ,must tag

[KodiakHntr]

Here is the actual law (Wildlife Act)

https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96488_01

It does not define kill vs mercy shot, etc.

In fact, it states it is the law that "every effort is required" to be made to recover a wounded animal and does not exclude working with another willing licensed participant. Paraphrased synopsis summary aside, legal focus / wording in the Act focuses on hunting, possession and recovery.



You are missing the important point there in that particular regulation. It speaks specifically to the individual that initially wounded the animal. It does not speak to multiple people.
I seem to recall there being wording decades ago in the synopsis around "party hunting" being specifically illegal, but I can't find reference to it now. I could be wrong.

I do however like the simplicity of your first post where potentially a shooter applies a finisher, but does not approach or handle the animal prior to the first shooter taking possession of said animal by ensuring it is dead (via physical verification) and then cancelling his or her species tag. As long as it doesn't come under close scrutiny it isn't an issue. I concur with your assessment of when taking possession occurs, when you have physically put your hands on the animal and are satisfied that it is dead.

The issue that comes up, is that when people are asked questions by an authority figure they can get nervous and start talking and volunteering too much information that may or may not be exactly correct and then the CO starts poking and prodding and then potentially issues a citation that may or may not be valid. This falls into the category of "don't be the guy that initiates the case law".

There may not be specific case law YET, but it won't take too many instances and there will be. Example, spear hunting. It was fine and legal until it came under official scrutiny, then there had to be a law....

I used to know the local CO (an older guy who had been doing it all for a long time and had seen pretty much everything) and we would grill him on occasion on stuff like this, and quite often his response was "if that happens don't give me enough information that I have to start looking into it. We know it happens, and you know it happens, but I don't want to have to look at this officially with you sitting on the other side of the table. If you don't volunteer it, I don't know to ask."

It isn't really all that much different from shooting something 5 minutes before the end of legal light and then it takes 15 minutes to get over there, and you find the animal still alive. The legislation that you quoted would indicate that the right thing to do is finish what your started. There is conflicting legislation that says it is an offense to hunt or kill wildlife outside of prescribed hours of the day. I know which particular piece of legislation I am personally going to follow, but it isn't because that is what the law states.....




A person commits an offence if the person hunts wildlife and kills or injures that wildlife and fails to 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

[Livewire322]

You're over thinking it..

That is your opinion. The alternative, backed by the Wildlife Act as I quoted, is that you are under-thinking ‘it’.

[whitlers]

That is your opinion. The alternative, backed by the Wildlife Act as I quoted, is that you are under-thinking ‘it’.

Thanks tips ��

[Livewire322]

Thanks tips ��
You are most welcome :)