[Twud]

Your in your stand on your property when you hear 2 shots from the adjoining property. You decide to keep an eye out in that direction.
About 10 minutes go by and along comes a doe that is crippled with a broken front leg. Taking careful aim you put her down. As your climbing down out of the stand along comes the shooter who happens to be the son of the property owner next door. He dosen't ask permission to enter my land (as state law mandates) he just walks right up to the doe admiring his handy work. He's thinking he put the one in the chest and I shot the leg near off.
He shot first and I finished the job. To whom does the deer belong?
I seem to recall that whoever drew first blood can claim the animal.

[eliphalet]

It's on your land, you killed it, it's your deer.

[TexasRifleman]

I seem to recall that whoever drew first blood can claim the animal.

If you feel like being polite and all that then go by that certainly, but legally he's trespassing and poaching to continue after the deer.

Now if it was me I'd probably let him keep the deer this time and explain it all do him, especially depending on his age. Maybe no one taught him, here's a good chance to do some good.

[JWarren]

To whom does the deer belong?
I seem to recall that whoever drew first blood can claim the animal.


I recall the same thing. I don't know if there are statutes here that say as much, but it is tradition that first blood claims the animal.

As I see it, it isn't a thing worth consideration. There are other deer in the woods. What harm is it that a person would let the other guy have it-- especially a kid. I would, however, advise them to make a better shot next time. It's kinda petty to get in an argument over who has rights to the deer.


As your climbing down out of the stand along comes the shooter who happens to be the son of the property owner next door. He dosen't ask permission to enter my land (as state law mandates) he just walks right up to the doe admiring his handy work.

If a guy was tracking a wounded deer, I am willing to let it slide that they entered my land. It's not all that feasible to stop following a blood trail in order to go get persmission. And during that time that he is getting permission, the odds of finding the animal and ending its suffering are diminishing. I'd much rather a person put the animal out of misery as quickly as possible.

While I take a VERY dim view of trespassing, I would condone the infraction for the sake of humanity. Sometimes following the letter of the law ignores ethics and compassion.


-- John

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There is a classic law school case on this - Pierson v. Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Post). IIRC, it dates from 1805 and involves two men hunting foxes, In that case though, there was no wound. One man was chasing the fox when another man shot it. The common-law rule is called the "rule of capture" meaning that whoever captures/mortally wounds a wild animal is the one who has rights to it.

However that is over 200 years old and the law has changed a lot since then. Now, it would mostly depend on what your local statutes and case law say on the matter.

[jpwilly]

Do you have a no Tresspassing sign up. Are you friends with the next door property owner? Etc Etc...do what is right.

[Legionnaire]

He's thinking he put the one in the chest and I shot the leg near off.
And why would you shoot a dying doe in the leg?

Seriously, would people have a different take if this were a trophy buck? My general rule would be that the mortal wound takes the animal, whether doe or buck. It would be generous and kind to let a youngster take the doe, but I'd explain the situation and make sure he understood that you put it down and that you would be within your rights to keep it.

[Kimber1911_06238]

I'm with legionnaire...whoever kills it gets it. Actaully, I think legally that if two people shoot a deer, the first one to tag it gets it, but i'm not sure about that.

[Mr White]

It's always been my understanding that whoever makes the killing shot gets the animal.

It's also always been my understanding that you may track a wounded animal onto private posted ground.

[doc2rn]

I was trained to finish off the animal as quickly as possible, with the original shooter being allowed the game. What you did was show mercy to the animal, highly respectable anywhere, but it's still the boy's doe. I would tell the boy to practice and make sure he has a tag for the deer, though.

[Patrick_Henry]

It sounds to me like there are several different factors at play, it looks like it's more your decision than anything covered by much precedent.

[retrieverman]

I noticed that you referred to the kid as "the son of the property owner next door", and I will assume that you are not necessarily "friends". In that case, I would let the kid have the deer, but I would rip him a new a$$ for making a poor shot and crossing onto your property without permission.

[Cosmoline]

Pierson v. Post

Boy, that's a dusty one. IIRC (and I probably don't) that one came up in first year property law and had some relation to the evolution of how we view mineral rights. I don't remember it having much impact on modern F&G laws, though. I'd consult your regulatory authorities on the matter.

[akodo]

in my MN 'hunters ed and firearm safety' many years ago we were told that the law allowed crossing into land posted no-tresspassing and no-hunting, even game preserves, if in persuit of a wounded animal. Of course we were told that if we encountered law enforcement we'd better be able to point to a blood trail that started outside the 'no-no-zone' or be standing over an animal with 2 bullet holes in it not just one, etc.

also, I am pretty sure that legally the first hunter to shoot and hit has claim on the animal. Truth be told, many, maybe even most, larger game animals do not die instantly and immedately. There is always the case of a guy who gets a lung shot on a trophy animal only to have another hunter shoot it before it bleeds out, or even shoot a dead animal and claim they were finishing off the trophy buck as the original shooter tracks the bloodtrail to the animal. The law cannot have a complicated set of critera to see if the shot is truely a mortal blow, and once the second person has shot, who can say if the original wound would eventually have killed it,

Now, 'do what's right' says a clean killing blow on a wounded animal, the clean killing blow gets it, but legally it was probably the kids.

[eliphalet]

It's also always been my understanding that you may track a wounded animal onto private posted ground.

legally it was probably the kids.
That may be state law where you live but here it is against the law. Retrieving or even following the the animal onto posted or cultivated land is legal ONLY with the land owners written permission.

Know a guy that lost a elk to a land owner just this way, even after he made a call to the authorities. Owner had a tag killed the wounded elk and kept it.

I'd let the kid have the deer with just a easy sentence or two on marksmanship, unless there are issues I have no idea about, but in this state that is at the landowner's discretion. In another state it could be the complete opposite.

[CSA 357]

I was always told that ever who stopped the deer got it, i was told this was the law of the land, in this case i might let the kid have the deer,but if you think about it would he have ever cought up to her if you hadnt shot her? i have killed a good many deer that had been shot before, some had even healed up, killed a good 8 pt one time that had been shot in the leg and it had gotten infected, im pretty sure he would have died a slow death if i had not got him , csa:)

[Exmasonite]

i recently got into hunting here in michigan and was told the following by a friend who hunts a lot and works with the DNR (dept natural resources) here in michigan (but i'll admit it's not "the law"). similar but not exact situation...

If you shoot a deer, it runs off and dies on your neighbor's property, he has the right to refuse entry onto his property to pursue the deer. The ONLY recourse the hunter has it to call the DNR and they'll come out to make a call/decision on the matter. what will usually happen is if the neighbor isn't budging, the DNR will confiscate the deer and thus nobody wins. So, involving the DNR is only done to deny the neighbor/land owner from claiming your trophy.


I guess the crux of the problem in your case is that more unscrupulous land owners could shoot a dead deer and then claim that they had killed it when in reality, the original shot had done the job. short of CSI coming out to determine which wounds were ante- and postmortem, it's one person's word against another.

I am by NO MEANS insinuating that's what happened here. just putting a twist on the situation and playing devil's advocate.

[matt9052]

here in Iowa you are allowed the UNARMED pursue of game on to private property. I believe the law says you can't be denied access to the other property if you are tracking wounded game.

[Legionnaire]

I taught hunter safety for many years in NY State. There we taught that one could not cross onto private property without the owner's permission, even to track wounded game. DEC Officer related a case where a nice buck crossed onto private property before expiring and the owner would not let the hunter onto the property to retrieve the deer. However, the property owner didn't have a tag, so he wasn't allowed to keep the deer, either. It became the property of the state. So know your state laws.

[qajaq59]

He shot it first and I'd let him have it. No one else is nice to hunters so we might as well be nice to each other.

[jeepmor]

Ethically, the boy was doing the right thing by tracking the animal. As was the fellow in the treestand by putting it down. As for who's it is, I don't know legally. But expecting a hunter to go find permission while an animal is suffering is not ethical, laws be damned, pursue game first, contact landowner second.

I had a similar incident this year where my deer hopped a fence onto somone else's property. He didn't get far, aobut 100 yards or so, but it did take a second shot to anchor him.

I had this very moral dilemma playing out in my head, I chose to honor the animal and went over the fence and down the hill after him. To mock me in his last breath, he proceeded to roll another 100 yards down a 45 degree slope....serves me right. Timney trigger next season, that 7-8 lb Ruger triggers sucks for quick shots, I obviously jerked the trigger and hit him further back than I planned because I aimed right for the breadbasket and had a good broadside shot. I'd have taken more time, but he was proceeding behind the thorn bushes.

[Zeke/PA]

I always went by the fact that the first on to draw blood, provided that he was on the trail of the crippled animal deserved the kill.
As far as all the litigation in these other posts, I think that courtesy, and being neighborly should prevail.
Helping the youngster dress out his kill and transporting it home would go much farther in human relations than a heated dispute over property lines.
Regards, Zeke

[Art Eatman]

Since the laws are nowhere near the same from state to state, the part about trespass will vary. Texas = no trespass without permission.

The best way to deal with it is for the hunter to check with neighboring property owners ahead of time. That way there's no doubt about how to deal with a wounded animal which gets over a boundary fence. In any no-trespass state, it's for sure the hunter's responsibility, since no law can make a third party responsible for humane treatment of an animal wounded by another. That neighbor isn't required to have a humane bone in his body.

There was a case near New Braunfels, Texas, many decades back. A woman shot a buck and went over and put her tag on it. As she was getting ready to gut it, the buck jumped up and ran. So, away she goes, chasing her deer.

The buck jumped the fence into the next pasture, and was shot by another hunter. The hunter and a friend go over to gut the deer, and here comes Mizz Bangbang on a dead run.

"Stop! That's MY deer!"
"Whaddya mean, lady, I just shot the danged thing!"
"Look! He's got my tag on him!"
Pause...
"Okay, lady, anybody that can run that fast deserves a deer."

[yesit'sloaded]

I'd let the kid have the deer. Unless it is the stupid twelve year old in our camp that always gets a better deer than anyone else. In that case I'd tell his daddy that he made a bad shot and needs to be spanked. ( just ranting a little bit, last year I sat in a stand for four hours, the kid goes and sits on the stand for ten minutes and gets a nice eight point) Then again I know everyone for the next five miles around our land. If it was a trespasser that didn't own any land close by we might have a little talk while we wait for the sheriff as the land is clearly posted.

[oklahoma caveman]

for me it would depend on the kids attitude. was he being rude? if he was id take it home and tell him to learn to shoot better next time. if he was respectful then i would give him the deer help him drag and get to know the kid

[351 WINCHESTER]

Tresspass is plain and simple. If you shoot a or another animal you do not have the right to tresspass without the consent of the land owner. Tresspass with a firearm is a felony in fl.

That said, I'd give the kid a good talking to about the law and tell him to sharpen up on his shooting skills as they are severely lacking. I would follow up with a call or visit with his parents.