Legal or not?

[Spuddge]

After watching a few hunting videos on youtube and the likes, I've noticed that in a couple of them, two guys are hunting and after the first guy makes a shot the other guy makes a follow up shot at the same animal. So my question is; Is it legal for two different hunters to shoot the same animal? Obviously only one will cancel his tag.

[sfire436]

Another good question! I would hope that in the end and in the CO's eyes, morals must prevail and if it could be shown that the animal was given a lethal shot by the tagged Hunter and the second was only to quickly dispatch it, then he would look the other way. However it would be the individual CO"s descretion and like every other human being they can all have different views on things.

[Jelvis]

It's humane for the swiftest death. The shot that killed the so said animal is the cancelled tagger. Jel-swiftly.

[happygilmore]

What if it is for LEH draw and the other (backup shooter) hunter does not even have a tag for said animal?

[Jelvis]

The shooter of so said animal who's projectile penetrated a vital area and caused the death of so said animal for the purpose of a quick and merciful death to such said animal is a hero. Quicker mercifully placed shot. Tag it!
Jel-no suffer. Happy a different scenario won't fit. sowwy

[happygilmore]

Oh too bad, I guess he'll be there for bear defence then:biggrin:;-):biggrin:
good thing we both shoot 300wby...

[gitnadoix]

I dont buy what I think your selling Jelvis. If my partner fataly hits a trophy deer on the other side of a river and it jumps in and swims to my side but falls down and is in the process of expiring at my feet, said deer becomes mine if I put one through its brain.......My partner would thank me and tag himself out as I would had he done the same for me.

many people that hunt grizzly take a friend for back up in case things go sideways. But as you state the back up has no right to even be there as they have no tag.????

[Gateholio]

What if it is for LEH draw and the other (backup shooter) hunter does not even have a tag for said animal?

Good question..

I think legally it says if you don't have a tag for the animal, you shouldn't be shooting at it...

Yet when my buddy had a grizz tag, he busted the bear through the shoulders, and I followed up wiht a shot at the pelvis, we didn't want Mr Grizzly running away...


Legal? I suppose not. Prudent? I think so.

[EvanG]

Initial shot( a hit ) = cancelled tag

[wolverine]

If hunter #1 shoots the amimal and hunter #2 follows it up, as long as a tag is cancelled it doesn't matter. Only one animal has been harvested not two. The hunters both have licenses to hunt and as long as they both have species tags, I don't see the problem. I've seen it happen a few times but the species tag, only one species tag, was cancelled. Two shots still only made one kill.

[ElkMasterC]

We sorta hunt in turns, if we're together, a gentleman's agreement that has seemed to work.
Like when I tagged my Elk last year, it's understood that HumbleHunter gets first crack at that fine Mulie that conveniently skylined himself for a fatal second. When we're off on out own side of the valley, mountain, whatever, then all bets are off.
Should it become necessary for both to shoot, first hit counts. Say it runs to the other guys area, and you plug it, then it's still your buddy's kill.
Fortunately, we've had no incidents, but them are the rules. If your buddy didn't dump it, and it's gonna hit the thick sh8t, then drop it. Not sure of the legality, but it's better to have the animal down, and a canceled tag in hand, than a wounded animal in the bush.
**Touches wood that this won't be necessary**

Having said that, I'm backing up my buddy on his sheep hunt tag, and no, I won't shoot a sheep. It's an LEH draw, and I'm not going there. I'll have bear and Mulie tags, and I hope to fill one or both of those.
As for taking a poke at a sheep: not unless it's physically molesting me. And after a week or so on the hill, and she's cute, well.....I'm a forgiving man..... :eek:

[hunter1947]

I have always done it the old way.

The person that is shooting at the animal tags it.

If I was beside him and he wanted me to put one into as re-insurance then I would.

[jml11]

After watching a few hunting videos on youtube and the likes, I've noticed that in a couple of them, two guys are hunting and after the first guy makes a shot the other guy makes a follow up shot at the same animal. So my question is; Is it legal for two different hunters to shoot the same animal? Obviously only one will cancel his tag.


I have personally asked this question to a CO and yes it is Illegal to have two hunters shoot the same animal. CO's on the other hand do understand that it happens a lot and they do understand why it happens (it would have to take an ornary CO to charge you for it I imagine). They would rather have the animal killed than lost as a result of a non-mortal shot from the first shooter. A friend of mine who's dad is also a CO, often hunts with his dad and CO buddies and gets frustated that none of them will back each other up on a kill. But I guess they can't be hyprocrites and must follow the laws themselves.

[burger]

What about a semi-auto??

[wolverine]

I have personally asked this question to a CO and yes it is Illegal to have two hunters shoot the same animal. CO's on the other hand do understand that it happens a lot and they do understand why it happens (it would have to take an ornary CO to charge you for it I imagine). They would rather have the animal killed than lost as a result of a non-mortal shot from the first shooter. A friend of mine who's dad is also a CO, often hunts with his dad and CO buddies and gets frustated that none of them will back each other up on a kill. But I guess they can't be hyprocrites and must follow the laws themselves.


I have looked for this in the Wildlife act both Federal and Provincial and I can't seem to find it. Possible I'm missing it I suppose but next time you talk to the CO ask him if he could show you the section that specifically says it's illegal. If it is illegal it will be spelled out very clearly.

[lineofsight]

If hunter #1 shoots the amimal and hunter #2 follows it up, as long as a tag is cancelled it doesn't matter. Only one animal has been harvested not two. The hunters both have licenses to hunt and as long as they both have species tags, I don't see the problem. I've seen it happen a few times but the species tag, only one species tag, was cancelled. Two shots still only made one kill.

Makes sense - Tag to control harvesting, only one animal harvested. Backup shot humane for the animal and safe for others in area (i.e. the wounded bear example).

[burger]

I personally think it would be legal unless it is an LEH authorized hunt. In GOS anyone can shoot at a legal animal but in an LEH situation I would think that only the person authorized with the LEH would be legally allowed to shoot.

[jml11]

I have looked for this in the Wildlife act both Federal and Provincial and I can't seem to find it. Possible I'm missing it I suppose but next time you talk to the CO ask him if he could show you the section that specifically says it's illegal. If it is illegal it will be spelled out very clearly.


It is considered illegal because the second shooter is hunting on someone else's tag/licence which is an offense. I believe this would fall under Section 81 of the wildlife act. Next time I run into the CO I will ask to confirm. Regardless, I' m not sure why he would lie to me if wasn't a law.

81 Except as authorized by regulation or as otherwise provided under this Act, a licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization is not transferable, and a person commits an offence if the person
(a) allows his or her licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization to be used by another person, or
(b) uses another person's licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization.

[o2fish2day]

It is considered illegal because the second shooter is hunting on someone else's tag/licence which is an offense. I believe this would fall under Section 81 of the wildlife act. Next time I run into the CO I will ask to confirm. Regardless, I' m not sure why he would lie to me if wasn't a law.

81 Except as authorized by regulation or as otherwise provided under this Act, a licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization is not transferable, and a person commits an offence if the person
(a) allows his or her licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization to be used by another person, or
(b) uses another person's licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization.

I don't mean to sound combative however this is splitting hairs. If you watch Jim Shockey's bear video he says to the hunters on occassion "shoot it again - if he gets to thoese bushes I'll have to shoot" Common sense should prevail. A wounded animal that can't be recovered in the bush, is a waste of wildlife resources. I doubt any CO would see it any other way. (and if they did argue it in front of a judge)

[burger]

I don't mean to sound combative however this is splitting hairs. If you watch Jim Shockey's bear video he says to the hunters on occassion "shoot it again - if he gets to thoese bushes I'll have to shoot" Common sense should prevail. A wounded animal that can't be recovered in the bush, is a waste of wildlife resources. I doubt any CO would see it any other way. (and if they did argue it in front of a judge)

Splitting hairs or not the rule stated by jml11 clearly states that in an LEH situation if there is only one person with the LEH then it is illegal, but if in an GOS and you both have tags two shotters would be totally legal as you both are able to harvest a legal animal.

[Dirty]

In my opinion it is better to kill an animal cleanly, even in an "illegal" manner, than to let an animal run into the bushes and suffer. As long as the person with the tag is present than who cares. Lets not be sticklers.

[Gun Dog]

To put it another way, if you came across a mortally injured animal you have no legal autority to dispatch the animal even if it's the right thing to do. You're supposted to contact a CO and they may give you the authority. Backing up a partner is the same thing.

The law has trouble with special circumstances so until some judges rule on this specific circumstance there's no way to know for certain. Who wants to be first?

[quadrakid]

this thread needs to be split in two, one case is an leh hunt with only one of the hunters holding tag for said animal,second case is two guys holding tag for said animal and both shooting at it. seems pretty clear to me that one is legal and the other is not.

[jml11]

Splitting hairs or not the rule stated by jml11 clearly states that in an LEH situation if there is only one person with the LEH then it is illegal, but if in an GOS and you both have tags two shotters would be totally legal as you both are able to harvest a legal animal.

Even GOS is illegal, as the soon as the first shooter makes shoots at the animal, it is his licence and tag being used. The second "back-up" shooter, when he/she pulls the trigger, is now hunting on the first shooters tags. Whether you agree with it or not, this is the law.

It is a bit of a moral dilemma as the first shooter may not have killed the animal with his/her shot, therefore, from having spoken with a CO about this topic, I understand it that it is highly unlikely that you would ever be charged for backing someone up to prevent a lost animal. Probably no one has been charged for this. A CO (in most cases) would turn a blind eye to see the animal harvested and not wasted. They know that almost every hunter has been or had a back-up shooter on a kill. CO's have bigger fish to fry.

It's kinda like how COPS will usually give you 10km/h over the speed limit. Technically your speeding and breaking the law, but it is unlikely you will be pulled over.

To debate further, how many of you have been honest and clipped your tag after losing an animal?

[Steeleco]

I understand it that it is highly unlikely that you would ever be charged for backing someone up to prevent a lost animal.

Then let it be made legal, so the boys/girls in blue pickups can do the important things like catching poachers and not honest hunters doing whats right!!

[burger]

81 Except as authorized by regulation or as otherwise provided under this Act, a licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization is not transferable, and a person commits an offence if the person
(a) allows his or her licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization to be used by another person, or
(b) uses another person's licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization


I have read this a few times and cannot see where in the wording that if two people had tags and they both shot at the same animal in a GOS where that would be illegal.

I am reading here that a license is non transferable. Both shooters are authorized to harvest an animal.

Next CO I see I will ask as well. I have one that lives close to me and see him occasionally

[jml11]

I have read this a few times and cannot see where in the wording that if two people had tags and they both shot at the same animal in a GOS where that would be illegal.

I am reading here that a license is non transferable. Both shooters are authorized to harvest an animal.

Next CO I see I will ask as well. I have one that lives close to me and see him occasionally

Yes it is a gray area for GOS but unlawful none the less. I have already explained why that is. Yes they can both harvest an animal but not the same animal. I'll explain a bit further with one of the many scenarios possible...Hunter A shoots animal and it runs so Hunter b shoots animal and it dies...Hunter A clips tag his tag being the first shot even though it seems that Hunter B was the kill shot (assuming we don't know if hunter A took a lethal shot). Hunter B has now harvested an animal on Hunter A's licence, a contradiction of Section 81 of the Wildlife Act. This is how I understand it. I imagine because there a lot of assumptions that go with the law is why a CO would probably never give you grief for doing this. There is also the whole debate about safety and self-defense...i.e. bear hunting.

Not all laws makes sense to everyone and unless they are challenged in court they will not change. Like I said I have spoken to a CO about this exact topic and have discussed it with a son of another CO. Two CO's working in different jurisdictions saying the same thing...good enough for me! I don't agree with the law either and do strongly believe that it is morally and ethically ok to have a second or in some cases a third hunter 'help' you kill a wounded animal. I am just trying to be informative since I have experience on the subject. Please do ask your local CO, the more we learn as group the better sportsman and hunters we can be. I play hockey with two CO's and I bombard them with questions every chance I get and I have learned a lot from them.

[happygilmore]

Yes it is a gray area for GOS but unlawful none the less. I have already explained why that is. Yes they can both harvest an animal but not the same animal. I'll explain a bit further with one of the many scenarios possible...Hunter A shoots animal and it runs so Hunter b shoots animal and it dies...Hunter A clips tag his tag being the first shot even though it seems that Hunter B was the kill shot (assuming we don't know if hunter A took a lethal shot). Hunter B has now harvested an animal on Hunter A's licence, a contradiction of Section 81 of the Wildlife Act. This is how I understand it. I imagine because there a lot of assumptions that go with the law is why a CO would probably never give you grief for doing this.

Not all laws makes sense to everyone and unless they are challenged in court they will not change. Like I said I have spoken to a CO about this exact topic and have discussed it with a son of another CO. Two CO's working in different jurisdictions saying the same thing...good enough for me! I am just trying to be informative since I have experience on the subject. Pleas ask your local CO, the more we learn as group the better sportsman we can be. I play hockey with two CO's and I bombard them with questions ever chance I get and I have learned a lot from them.

This doesn't float!
1- A tag is canceled when the animal is recovered dead not when the bullet is fired!
If you wound an animal and do not recover it you do not cancel your tag.

2-How do you know hunter A hit the animal at all?

3-My friend shot a deer that had already been shot by someone days earlier, didn't realize till he skined it, so is that the other guys deer?

[jml11]

For those that have not seen it, there are some good opinions on this topic in this thread as well, in particualr Gatehouses' comments.


http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=24713

[Gateholio]

To debate further, how many of you have been honest and clipped your tag after losing an animal?

That woudl be improperly cancelling a tag.

[Barracuda]

I have personally asked this question to a CO and yes it is Illegal to have two hunters shoot the same animal. CO's on the other hand do understand that it happens a lot and they do understand why it happens (it would have to take an ornary CO to charge you for it I imagine). They would rather have the animal killed than lost as a result of a non-mortal shot from the first shooter. A friend of mine who's dad is also a CO, often hunts with his dad and CO buddies and gets frustated that none of them will back each other up on a kill. But I guess they can't be hyprocrites and must follow the laws themselves.


Either you mis heard or the CO does not know the regulations pertaining to this matter.
As long as both folks have tags that make them eligable to hunt the animal species it makes no difference as to who or if both shoot the animal and it is the hunters that decide who is the person the cut the tag ( the one that retrieves it would be the one that is meant to cut the tag in theory) .

As for cutting the tag on an animal that got away , well that is against the rules so if you were to follow the letter you would be committing an offence.

beliefs and heresay dont hold water.
What are the names of the COs that you are talking to? and what office are they out of?

[jml11]

Either you mis heard or the CO does not know the regulations pertaining to this matter.
As long as both folks have tags that make them eligable to hunt the animal species it makes no difference as to who or if both shoot the animal and it is the hunters that decide who is the person the cut the tag ( the one that retrieves it would be the one that is meant to cut the tag in theory) .

As for cutting the tag on an animal that got away , well that is against the rules so if you were to follow the letter you would be committing an offence.

beliefs and heresay dont hold water.
What are the names of the COs that you are talking to? and what office are they out of?



So far I am only that seems to have spoken to a CO about this, what are you basing your statements on? If you must know the CO's are Van Spengen and Richardson in PG and Stent in Nelson. Two of these guys are managers and all have been CO's for 20+ years, obviously they must be wrong.....

Laws come down to definitions and sometimes interpretation, it is illegal to hunt on someone else's tag. If I shoot an animal on my tag and you also shoot, you have now hunted on my licence.

Hunt and Hunting - 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.

This is how I interpret the law what does this mean to you? The only way I could see some leniency and I do understand all of your views, is if it is a GOS and both hunters have uncut tags for that species. In my opinion this is fine. I tend to believe that in most situations both hunters do not have eligible tags as it is either an LEH situation or one has already clipped their tag. I am going to go with what I have been told from the guys who can decide my hunting future until someone can prove me wrong with something concrete.

What are you all worried about anyways. If we are all moral and ethical as we say we are in this thread, then we should have a sighted in rifle, be taking only good high percentage broadside kill shots and wouldn't need a 'back-up' shooter. I realize that sometimes mystery bad shots happen but really how often is a back-up shooter really needed then?

[jml11]

That would be improperly canceling a tag.


Check the hunting regs page 17 under retrieval.

No person shall kill, cripple or wound game without making all reasonable
effort to retrieve and include it in his/her bag limit.

I know the regs aren't cut and dry laws but that's what I deduced from this statement.

At the very least it is ethical to stop hunting for that species if you lose the animal.

[o2fish2day]

So far I am only that seems to have spoken to a CO about this, what are you basing it on? If you must now the CO's are Van Spengen and Richardson in PG and Stent in Nelson. Two of these guys are managers and all have been CO's for 20+ years, obviously they must be wrong.....


Honestly half the COs are confused over the regs... see the threads on snarring snowshoe hares, using target arrows to bow hunt birds, legality of deboning an animal and now this. The regs and rules are created by burocrate who don't know how to translate (or relate) to the average hunter.

I still say, if you wound an animal, what's worse, letting it die in pain or the partner helping you out of a jam.

Honestly, look at all the licenses you have to carry just to leave the house these day, hunting, fishing, firearms, boating, drivers,

On top of that you have to be familiar with driving, wildlife municipal, provincial, federal rules concerning all these things.

Good grief, who are we kidding. We all break 8 laws just getting to the driveway (and probably have no idea)

If you are out if the bush, a bear is charging you down because it moved as you pulled the trigger, common sense would prevail (hopefully) and your partner would bail you out and shoot him.

Likewise if you shot a deer in the ass because your scope was off don't let the thing suffer...

It's a crazy debate. We could get two layers to argue about it, and maybe there is a reason they don't want the bulk of the people doing it which is why it's illegal but really it's shades of gray, and who the hell would know anyways?? (unless you were stupid enough to tell a burocrate that you did it)

[Gateholio]

Check the hunting regs page 17 under retrieval.

No person shall kill, cripple or wound game without making all reasonable
effort to retrieve and include it in his/her bag limit.

I know the regs aren't cut and dry laws but that's what I deduced from this statement.

At the very least it is ethical to stop hunting for that species if you lose the animal.

That law is about taking steps to recover an animal, not about cancelling a tag for a wounded but not recovered animal. The statement must be taken as a whole, not 2 parts.


No person shall kill, cripple or wound game without making all reasonable
effort to retrieve and include it in his/her bag limit.


The intention is that you should not seek to kill/cripple/wound without the intention of retrieval and including it in bag limit. It's not about cancleling a tag if you wound and lose animal.




At the very least it is ethical to stop hunting for that species if you lose the animal

That would be a personal choice on the hunters part, depending on the particular circumstances.

[bayou]

I discussed this with a CO but only about LEH animals mainly grizzly since so many people say they are going as back up. I was told it is illegal and a chargable offence if you are shooting an animal with out a speicies tag.
i no people that have been charged and animal taking away for doing this on goats. So it looks like some on here dont really think the laws/regs pertain to them.

[elkdom]

I missed a shot at a grouse once, I think I wounded it, but after searching for the grouse for 3 hours, I finally made up my mind to cancel my moose tag and smash all my teeth out with a rock!, did I punish myself enough? we'll never know will we? lmao

[o2fish2day]

I discussed this with a CO but only about LEH animals mainly grizzly since so many people say they are going as back up. I was told it is illegal and a chargable offence if you are shooting an animal with out a speicies tag.
i no people that have been charged and animal taking away for doing this on goats. So it looks like some on here dont really think the laws/regs pertain to them.

I can see if you go hunting and you buddy has an LEH tag, and you don't - in fact you have no other reason to be there (ie: no deer tag, no bear tag, ) AND you are toting around a 30 06,

But if you both have a species tag under GOS it's fair game and I would take that one all the way to the bank! COs are like cops, they enforce the rules, doesn't meen they understand them.- LOL! Being charged doesn't mean you are guilty.

This is fun - everyone wound up tighter then a knot then BAM! It's hunting season!!

[o2fish2day]

Trollin', Trollin', Trollin'
Though this thread is swollen
Keep them posts a Rollin'
Rawhide!

Work 'em up, Ethics gone
Stir 'em up, Mods yawn
Warnings 'up, head 'em out

Reel them in…


RAWHIIIIIDE!

[elkdom]

[QUOTE=o2fish2day;315267]I can see if you go hunting and you buddy has an LEH tag, and you don't - in fact you have no other reason to be there (ie: no deer tag, no bear tag, ) AND you are toting around a 30 06,

But if you both have a species tag under GOS it's fair game and I would take that one all the way to the bank! COs are like cops, they enforce the rules, doesn't meen they understand them.- LOL! Being charged doesn't mean you are guilty.



Yep! I have a valid PAL,and a valid BC resident hunting licence, and I pack my, 30-06, 416 mag or whatever I choose to pack, 24/7, 365 days out of the year every year, no bussiness of the CO's or the RCMp. Im LEGAL so dont bother me!

[jml11]

That law is about taking steps to recover an animal, not about cancelling a tag for a wounded but not recovered animal. The statement must be taken as a whole, not 2 parts.


No person shall kill, cripple or wound game without making all reasonable
effort to retrieve and include it in his/her bag limit.


The intention is that you should not seek to kill/cripple/wound without the intention of retrieval and including it in bag limit. It's not about cancleling a tag if you wound and lose animal.




Thanks for the input Gatehouse, like I said before laws are often about definitions and interpretation and your explanation does make sense to me. Unlike the other debate, this question I have not asked a CO and I was basing it on the statement in the regs.

I think I will contact my CO friends on monday to clear the debates up, obviously a lot of opposing views, and some are valid ones at that. Will repost when I hear back from them.

[jml11]

This doesn't float!
1- A tag is canceled when the animal is recovered dead not when the bullet is fired!
If you wound an animal and do not recover it you do not cancel your tag.

2-How do you know hunter A hit the animal at all?

3-My friend shot a deer that had already been shot by someone days earlier, didn't realize till he skined it, so is that the other guys deer?

This is why you will probably never be charged, it is a gray area and based on many assumptions with numerous scenarios. As for scenario three, to be charged of a crime you typically have to have intent...mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reas (guilty action)...I think thats them...(remembering back to my conservation enforcement course). Shooting (actus reas) an animal that you know (mens rea) was shot by someone else is intent. Shooting an animal that you had no idea was shot previously is not intent, no mens rea , therefore no offence.

I hopefully be clearing this debate up in a few days once I get a hold of my CO contacts.

[Barracuda]

This is why you will probably never be charged, it is a gray area and based on many assumptions with numerous scenarios. As for scenario three, to be charged of a crime you typically have to have intent...mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reas (guilty action)...I think thats them...(remembering back to my conservation enforcement course). Shooting (actus reas) an animal that you know (mens rea) was shot by someone else is intent. Shooting an animal that you had no idea was shot previously is not intent, no mens rea , therefore no offence.

I hopefully be clearing this debate up in a few days once I get a hold of my CO contacts.

dont confuse criminal law with the wildlife act or by-laws . contact victoria not you buddies and get what they say. . :tongue:

this sure seems like a troll to me :lol:


jml11 Do you happen to know Yappy doodle dog???:lol:

[jml11]

dont confuse criminal law with the wildlife act or by-laws . contact victoria not you buddies and get what they say. . :tongue:

this sure seems like a troll to me :lol:


jml11 Do you happen to know Yappy doodle dog???:lol:


What by-laws are we in a municipality all of a sudden???

Trolling for what????

How is an offence under the wildlife act analyzed differently than under the criminal code? Tried in the same courts my friend. There are two forms of law/courts, criminal and civil, which do you think it falls under then???

[Avalanche123]

I believe a lot of the GO's (feel free to correct me here) have you pay for your hunt even if you wound the animal and it is possible that the rest of the hunt is your time (and guide) spent looking for such wounded animal.

I am not sure if this pertains to Canadian Outfitters or American as I can't recall where I read it.

[Barracuda]

the wildlife act has a different set of criteria for determining guilt not to mention administrative penalties can be levied without a conviction and or in addition to a conviction.
But you are right you are tried by a judge :lol:

[jml11]

I believe a lot of the GO's (feel free to correct me here) have you pay for your hunt even if you wound the animal and it is possible that the rest of the hunt is your time (and guide) spent looking for such wounded animal.

I am not sure if this pertains to Canadian Outfitters or American as I can't recall where I read it.


I have heard this as well and I think they may even have you clip the tag, not positive though, probably outfit specific. I wonder if the lost animal is counted in their quota?? One outfitter camp I stayed has lost an elk and used the outfitters plane to search for it later that day. They found it, flew over it in the morning and it was dead were they seen it the night before. Guide and hunter went and retrieved it with the hunter later on.

[Gateholio]

I believe a lot of the GO's (feel free to correct me here) have you pay for your hunt even if you wound the animal and it is possible that the rest of the hunt is your time (and guide) spent looking for such wounded animal.

I am not sure if this pertains to Canadian Outfitters or American as I can't recall where I read it.


It's not law. It's some outfitters policy. The idea is to make clients think twice abotu taking a risky shot.

[moosinaround]

Well law or no law, if i am in the woods looking for a wounded bear, moose, or elk, if it is still alive leh or not, I will dispatch it before calling over the tag holder to dispatch it. It will not be suffering anymore, and further more it won't be getting up to put a tooth or horn through my hide!! Moosin

[hunter1947]

If it is illegal to shoot some one else animal that is wounded then ,sometimes you have to do what is the best for the animal and your hunting party under certain situations.

What I thing the CO would say is that if the animal is wounded and 2 or 3 of you are looking for it and all have a tag for this animal in the GOS.

If one of the others that come across this wounded animal and shot it to put it down ,then he would have to tag it because he was the one that killed it ???.

If the same thing happened in an LEH draw then you just have to use you heads ,sometimes its best just to shut up and say nothing when this happens to your hunting party .

Lets face it the LEH holder in a case like this does get the animal .

Lets face it the chances of a CO being there when one of your party members puts a bullet into a wounded animal is very unlikely.

[jml11]

the wildlife act has a different set of criteria for determining guilt not to mention administrative penalties can be levied without a conviction and or in addition to a conviction.
But you are right you are tried by a judge :lol:


Since you seem to be so knowledgeable on the subject, I assume you have either studied the laws extensively, are a lawyer or are actually a CO. Then maybe you can explain why if two hunters shoot the same animal under a GOS but only one tags it, why/how the two have not hunted on each others licence? i.e. hunter A and B both shoot the animal, hunter A tags it, does this not mean that hunter B hunted on A's licence? I will get this answer from a CO but your input is appreciated.

[Caveman]

I've got a twist for you. Two guys hunting, not knowing each other, both shoot the same animal. The first shot may or may not have been fatal, the second shooter ultimately kills the wounded animal. Who tags it?








This happened to my uncle and the two were going to split the animal and go their separate ways but the sticker was that they would each have to cancel their tags. This came from a CO in attendance. But back to my question, in your minds who should the animal go to. My own thought would be the first shooter, but if his shot took out only an ear or something the animal could easily survive, my thoughts might change.

[happygilmore]

I've got a twist for you. Two guys hunting, not knowing each other, both shoot the same animal. The first shot may or may not have been fatal, the second shooter ultimately kills the wounded animal. Who tags it?


This happened to my uncle and the two were going to split the animal and go their separate ways but the sticker was that they would each have to cancel their tags. This came from a CO in attendance. But back to my question, in your minds who should the animal go to. My own thought would be the first shooter, but if his shot took out only an ear or something the animal could easily survive, my thoughts might change.

I would think the second shooter since he "Killed" the animal...if this happened to me, I would let the first shooter have it.

Both would have to tag it!??? So I kill a deer and give my father 1/2 the meat he has to cut his tag?
WOW there are either ALOT of stupid laws... or alot of stupid interpretations by CO's... Both sound probable...

[Caveman]

I would think the second shooter since he "Killed" the animal...if this happened to me, I would let the first shooter have it.

Both would have to tag it!??? So I kill a deer and give my father 1/2 the meat he has to cut his tag?
WOW there are either ALOT of stupid laws... or alot of stupid interpretations by CO's... Both sound probable...

I would think if you split it up at your place of residence it would be different than splitting it in the field. No different than having the butcher spitting it up for a hunting party.

[happygilmore]

I would think if you split it up at your place of residence it would be different than splitting it in the field. No different than having the butcher spitting it up for a hunting party.

Your right, you would have to start butchering it then divide. or fill out transport papers (in your regs) we used them when someone other than the hunter who tagged the animal is transporting the meat/horns. :!:

[hunter1947]

I've got a twist for you. Two guys hunting, not knowing each other, both shoot the same animal. The first shot may or may not have been fatal, the second shooter ultimately kills the wounded animal. Who tags it?








This happened to my uncle and the two were going to split the animal and go their separate ways but the sticker was that they would each have to cancel their tags. This came from a CO in attendance. But back to my question, in your minds who should the animal go to. My own thought would be the first shooter, but if his shot took out only an ear or something the animal could easily survive, my thoughts might change.

This happend to me years back ,I shot this big mule deer that I did not know was wounded ,it was standing near a timber line .

When I got up to it it had a secount bullet hole in it ???.

In a few moments I hear this person yelling at me you shot my deer.

I told him that I did not know that it was wounded by another hunter.

We talked about this animal that had two different bullets in it from two different hunters ,the out come of the story is that the other hunter that wounded it got the animal.

I'm my books I have always been a believer that the person that has taken the first shot at it and has wounded it ,but another person finds it and kills it does not get the animal ,thats the way I have always been and will never change the way I feel about this.

[srupp]

HMMM I have been asked many many times when hunting BEARS..especially GRIZZLIES.."who shot the bear, did anyone else shoot at/or shoot the bear " I have ALWAYS answered NO..

When I asked "why" I have been told by several C/Os that no one else should be shooting at the bear unless in defense of life and limb "

HOWEVER that is GRIZZLY and LEH situation.

good discussion.

Steven

[o2fish2day]

HMMM I have been asked many many times when hunting BEARS..especially GRIZZLIES.."who shot the bear, did anyone else shoot at/or shoot the bear " I have ALWAYS answered NO..

When I asked "why" I have been told by several C/Os that no one else should be shooting at the bear unless in defense of life and limb "

HOWEVER that is GRIZZLY and LEH situation.

good discussion.

Steven

Good to know the COs are enforcing the important laws....I get this sense to anytime I talk to one that they are just looking for a way to bust me for something...a bunch of casual conversation mixed in with very specific questions... I admit I am a new hunter and a veteran fisherman, never had a problem as a fisherman...

Why don't they bother poachers....

[gitnadoix]

Thats cause the Poachers dont wear signs that say "I am a Poacher" For all they know you could be public enemy #1. If you have nothing to hide chat away. I find after about 1 to 2 minutes of respect given, I start getting it back in spades. I dont begrudge a little interigation if thats what it takes to weed out the rats, then hey small price to pay.

[Avalanche123]

Good to know the COs are enforcing the important laws....I get this sense to anytime I talk to one that they are just looking for a way to bust me for something...a bunch of casual conversation mixed in with very specific questions... I admit I am a new hunter and a veteran fisherman, never had a problem as a fisherman...


They are just doing their job.

[winbuckhunter]

Check the hunting regs page 17 under retrieval.

No person shall kill, cripple or wound game without making all reasonable
effort to retrieve and include it in his/her bag limit.

I know the regs aren't cut and dry laws but that's what I deduced from this statement.

At the very least it is ethical to stop hunting for that species if you lose the animal.





I shot a very nice mule deer, gutted it, went back to the truck with my huntin buddy. we put on our packs and went to get him.. when we got there. well there was a huge bore grizz with the deer hanging from his teeth draging it to the bushes... the bear had taken my kill fair and square but i had already canceled my tag. so i phoned the local CO and he told me to come into the office and he would replace my license and tag. so i did.

there was 8 inches of snow and it was -15 that grizz probably ate that deer then curled up under a log for the winter.. so really there was no waste..

CO even gave me permission to retrieve the antlers the fallowing spring!!

[winbuckhunter]

he told me not to cancel my tag until the animal was in my possession. (IE) in my truck!!!!!!!!

[happygilmore]

he told me not to cancel my tag until the animal was in my possession. (IE) in my truck!!!!!!!!

I've started gutting a deer and gammie came along and said I should cut it before! :roll:

[winbuckhunter]

I've started gutting a deer and gammie came along and said I should cut it before! :roll:



were you beside your truck??? i wasn't, i was 2kms in the bush, so the deer wasn't in my possession. there was nothing i could do to stop the bear. i thought the same as that. once your animal is down you tag it. i had leave and return to it to retrieve it. i think COs just use their judgment in these cases. the CO said he did not expect me to fill my tag on an animal i didn't harvest. i did have to take him to where the deer got taken from me tho. and its against the law to kill an animal (bear in my case) that has claimed your kill!!! so i got my canceled tag back.. did i mention it was a 5 x 4 muley and grosses over 170.. it was a sad day!!!!!!!!

[Gateholio]

I seem to recall seeing somethign that stated that you had to cancel your tag prior to even handling the animal.Not sure, though...:p

[reach]

I seem to recall seeing somethign that stated that you had to cancel your tag prior to even handling the animal.Not sure, though...:p
Yeah, the regs are pretty clear on that. Not sure what those COs were smoking.


Cancelled Species Licence- means a
Species Licence that has been cancelled as indi-
cated on the licence. The Species Licence must
be cancelled immediately upon killing the
animal.


Licence Cancellation
It is unlawful to be in possession of a big game
animal without a properly cancelled species
licence or otherwise by licence, permit, or as
provided by regulation. Any person who kills
any big game species must immediately cancel
the appropriate species licence.

[hunter1947]

I always notch my tag after I shoot it ,then get on with the job http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif.

[winbuckhunter]

thats what i did.. i canceled my tag right away. wouldn't you go to the CO if your deer was taken by a bear. The CO gave my tag back..

maybe i was lucky and got a good, fair CO. I don't know but i got my tag and the bear got his meal.. i never did shoot another muley tho.. That sucked

[happygilmore]

thats what i did.. i canceled my tag right away. wouldn't you go to the CO if your deer was taken by a bear. The CO gave my tag back..

maybe i was lucky and got a good, fair CO. I don't know but i got my tag and the bear got his meal.. i never did shoot another muley tho.. That sucked

I would think having a bear take your kill would be the exception and you did everything right, cancel your tag, bear takes it, get another tag... but if a co pulls up and your hands are bloody and you tell him you have not cut your tag your just now going to go pick up your deer. What do you think he's going to suspect? If he's nice he'll let it slide and make you cut it then... if not!

That does suck by the way!

[jml11]

he told me not to cancel my tag until the animal was in my possession. (IE) in my truck!!!!!!!!

Interesting, by this CO's defintion you wouldn't have to clip your tag for a sheep until after it was inspected... I belive it states in the regs that for CI game you are not in legal possession until it has been inspected...

[ElkMasterC]

Yeah... I still think I'd be erring on the side of caution for that one.

HappyG has an excellent point.

Drop it and chop it.

I guess the mssg here is, grab the cape and horns, and make your buddy carry the backstraps at least. If you're 2000 meters in the bush, and hey, who isn't at least that, carry gear that will at LEAST let you facilitate that much. Good lesson for all tho. Carry a bigger pack, even if it's mostly empty, and a saw and some para-cord. Oh, and Turkey Tape for the horns..lol.

Thanks for the post!

[J_T]

I've got a twist for you. Two guys hunting, not knowing each other, both shoot the same animal. The first shot may or may not have been fatal, the second shooter ultimately kills the wounded animal. Who tags it?

Bowhunters live by the deadly bleed rule. He (or she) who causes deadly bleed first is entitled to the animal. Period. A non fatal hit does not have ownership.

[jml11]

I asked many of the questions in this thread to a CO. Provided below is the email and his reponse.

Hopes this clears up some of the debates. Basically it all comes down to the mood of the CO you encounter that day!

I've been having a debate with some fellow hunters about some topics and was hoping one or both of you may be able to provide me with some information. The debate is about the legalities of having back-up shooters while hunting. It has been generally agreed upon that in an LEH situation or when only one hunter has an eligible tag (the other may have already clipped his tag or simply does not have one) anyone else shooting at that animal is committing an offence (i.e. hunting without a tag or licence/ hunting on someone else licence); however, what has generated some conflicting views is what about in a general open season when both shooters have an eligible tag? Some say since both have a right to that animal and is it ok if both hunters shoot at it as either can take it on his\her licence. While some say that this is still considered hunting on someone else's licence (i.e. Hunter A and Hunter B both shoot, hunter A clips tag, does this mean that hunter B has now hunted on A's licence?). Just looking for some clarification and if you can provide which legislation applies (Section 81 of the Wildlife Act???) I would appreciate that as well.

When both people are legally allowed to harvest an animal, both can shoot at it. It now becomes a question of who killed the animal.

Wildlife Act Hunting Licensing Regulation

Licence must be cancelled
7 (1) If a person hunts and kills big game, he or she commits an offence unless, immediately after he or she kills the big game and before handling the big game killed, he or she cancels the appropriate species licence in accordance with the instructions on that licence.
(2) Repealed.
[am. B.C. Reg. 84/2001, s. 2.]

[B]Ethically, only one person should be the shooting at an animal.

Now the question begs, if hunter A shoots at an animal and wounds it, can hunter B kill it if he has the opportunity to but is not legally entitled to harvest the animal. By the letter of the law, NO HE CANNOT SHOOT AT THE ANIMAL.

Ethically, Hunter A should have enough rifle skills to kill the animal with the first shot and if he wounds it, should kill it himself. Also, ethically, another hunter should put down an injured animal if the first hunter is not in the position to put it down himself. But technically he is committing an offence under the Wildlife Act. It will be at the discretion of the officer what action if any he takes. ( i.e. Similar to speeding to a hospital because your wife is having a baby. Technically, you are speeding but there is mitigating circumstances.) Clear as mud??????




The other question is, if you wound an animal, make an attempt to find and cannot, is there any requirement to clip your tag or is this considered improperly canceling a tag?

No, you do not have to cut your tag but every reasonable effort must be done to ensure you try and find the animal and include it in your bag limit. A reasonable effort would require a substantial search of the area to retrieve the animal. I would not consider a 15 minute look see to be reasonable.

Yes, if you shoot and kill an animal and a bear claims it or it spoils for some reason, you have to cut your tag and include it.

Hope this answers your questions.

[bullmagnum]

Right on. So the way I was taught is correct. That's a relief. In GOS if me and my partner both have a proper species tag for the animal we are hunting, we can both open fire.

The only thing I don't understand is the C.O.'s views on Ethics. As far as I am concerned it is far more ethical to be sure that the animal is dispatched of quickly and cleanly. If that requires 2 guns, then so be it.Is it sporting? no. Ethical? Absolutely. Maybe he got his terminology mixed up :p

[Mik]

It is considered illegal because the second shooter is hunting on someone else's tag/licence which is an offense. I believe this would fall under Section 81 of the wildlife act. Next time I run into the CO I will ask to confirm. Regardless, I' m not sure why he would lie to me if wasn't a law.

81 Except as authorized by regulation or as otherwise provided under this Act, a licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization is not transferable, and a person commits an offence if the person
(a) allows his or her licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization to be used by another person, or
(b) uses another person's licence, permit or limited entry hunting authorization.

in this case, you are not "using another persons leh/tag" , you are simply there to do a follow-up shot should it be necessary.