Illegal, unethical, or just frowned on

[DamnRinella]

On an elk hunt, how often do 2 different shooters together shoot the same elk?

Say shooter 1 hits the elk but doesn’t take it down and it’s off to the races. Can shooter 2 shoot it? If so, I assume only 1 tag gets punched.

Is this illegal, unethical, frowned upon, or happen all the time?

 

[waitforit]

I dont imagine this happens too often in the elk mountains. However, in the whitetail woods its common. First blood rule should apply, that is to say the first hunter to inflict a fatal wound should claim the animal.

 

[Northwinds308]

I've always had a back-up shooter on marginal shots or shots with a new hunter. Now if F&W watched you do it, and one guy didn't have a tag, they'd probably have an issue. But if there's two hunters and you both have tags the most important thing is the animal dies quickly and humanely as possible. I'll be backing up my girlfriend on her first deer this year just in case. If the shot doesn't look good or I'm worried about it, I'll shoot it too. Better to be prepared and not need it than to need it and not be prepared.

 

[Bisley45]

Rule of first blood. First hunter that makes a fatal shot claims the deer.

 

[Indian Summer]

As long as two partners who both have tags agree that they’d rather see a friend make sure the animal is killed quickly and humanely instead of dying a slow death or going unrecovered it’s acceptable. Not illegal. Obviously one tag must be punched and attached. Some people say an animal belongs to whoever drew first blood. Some say it’s the one who fired the last shot ultimately ending the animals life.

I prefer to be the only one shooting at an animal I decide to kill. But that’s a personal preference.

On brown bear hunts it’s not uncommon for a guide to dispatch the bear after a bowhunter has put an arrow in it. Perfectly legal since a rifle is allowed during the season. Some hunters make it clear beforehand that they don’t want to do that. Personal choice... not the law. Maybe even a safety precaution in some cases.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Hunters need to double check the laws in their state.

In WA the law Requires the individual who fires the fatal shot to tag the animal.

 

[Chad E]

Hunters need to double check the laws in their state.

In WA the law Requires the individual who fires the fatal shot to tag the animal.

Hi Justin can you point me towards that law? I've never seen anything on the books for that.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Hi Justin can you point me towards that law? I've never seen anything on the books for that.

This is what I could find with a really quick search:

8. Party hunting (WAC 220-413-040):
Party hunting is defined as shooting at or
killing big game or turkeys for another,
killing big game or turkeys with the
intention of having another person tag the
animal; or tagging a big game animal or
turkey that another person has killed.
Party hunting is illegal for big game
and turkey, except for hunters with
disabilities who have a designated hunting
companion as defined in WAC 220-413-
140.

 

[Indian Summer]

“Party hunting” usually refers to something that isn’t legal in most states. Simply put it’s when two hunter are going separate ways and they say “If you see two go ahead and shoot one for me”. They still intend to tag the animal but in this scenario it’s neither ethical or legal. It would require a hunter to first shoot his own animal. At that point he would no longer have a tag. Then shoot another animal for the other member of his party.

The only places I can think of where party hunting is legal are Ontario and New Brunswick where moose hunters can hunt together to fill one tag. But they can still only harvest one animal and must be able to communicate so if they do see a moose they are sure someone else hasn’t already shot one. Often times they just hunt together to be safe.

 

[Idaho Sandman]

This is what I could find with a really quick search:

8. Party hunting (WAC 220-413-040):
Party hunting is defined as shooting at or
killing big game or turkeys for another,
killing big game or turkeys with the
intention of having another person tag the
animal; or tagging a big game animal or
turkey that another person has killed.
Party hunting is illegal for big game
and turkey, except for hunters with
disabilities who have a designated hunting
companion as defined in WAC 220-413-
140.

What is being discussed is not party hunting.
I have zero issue with a guy backing up someone on a shot. But I would only fire on the animal if the first guy hit it and we just wanted the animal down ASAP, which should be the case anyhow. Now if he missed, no way would I shoot.
Once helped a buddy anchor a bull that was standing over a very very steep hill side at 563yds. Buddy shot and hit him but the bull started to walk, I shot and put one high on the shoulder and dropped him in his tracks. If he would have went down it more than likely busted the rack and damaged some meat let alone been a freaking nightmare getting it out of there.

 

[204guy]

Justin is exactly right. This is a grey area where doing the right thing crosses/ blurs with the technical wording of the law. It's also part of a regional thing, of where you learned to hunt, midwesterners take party hunting to a whole new level. If both shooters have a valid tag you'd have to be pretty blatant to have an issue. But what if you already filled your tag and your buddies bull is limping off 500yds away after he's shot 10 rounds. You know you can end this right now, definitely not legal, moral?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Dos Perros]

My bull this year I shot, I believe a fatal hit, but he ran behind a tree and stood there and didn't offer a follow up. The caller, who also had a tag, had an angle and shot him again. The bull ran a little more and offered me a third shot and I put a third arrow in him. This all happened in the span of 20 seconds or so. I think all three arrows were fatal. He went 50 yards down hill and crashed immediately after the third arrow. I was grateful that my friend could shoot him again and I believe it was the most ethical choice at the time, especially considering we were in grizzly country and had already seen 8 bears in 4 days.

I think, if it's legal, the most ethical thing you can do is give an animal the quickest death you can. There may be some examples with rifle hunting where you know you've made a fatal shot and more shooting would mean more meat damage, but generally we should aim to tip them over quickly.

 

[DamnRinella]

My thoughts exactly but wanted to make sure my potential strategy was ok. Thx all

 

[tntrker]

On my guided elk hunt with a friend, he was set up 300 yrds on a bull that was just sitting under the top of a "ridge". He wanted me on it as well in case it didn't drop when he hit it. I shuffled to the side about 30 yrds to his left and was just waiting on him. I happen to ask the guide if this was ok to do and he told me, "well, legally the last person to shoot the animal has to claim it". I didn't want that bull so I made up my mind I was not going to do a follow up shot if needed...just my experience and advice I was told...

 

[DamnRinella]

I will be with a friend and we both have tags but wanted to 1 not have the animal suffer 2 ensure meat to bring home. Thx all

 

[honlx005]

This happens quite often where I deer hunt. I agree with the others above. If Hunter 1 shoots first and the animal runs, but Hunter 2 shoots and the animal falls dead, it is Hunter 2's animal. Highly unlikely scenario. Perfectly legal, but unlikely.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[hobbes]

I'm not sure what hunter Ed teaches, but I believe that most states that require bowhunter education teach from NBEF material. In MT bowhunter ed we teach the rule of first blood. The first person to make a lethal shot owns the animal. If I put one through the vitals first, it's mine. If I gut shoot it and someone else puts one through the vitals it's theirs. I suppose "lethal" is somewhat subjective so definitely not a perfect rule. However, that isn't a written law in MT, so we also teach that no animal is worth a brawl between folks packing weapons.

 

[Austink47]

With the guys I hunt with if I hit an animal and you have an opportunity at a follow up shot take it. Who ever hit the animal first puts their tag on it. If someone was ever tried to say the follow up arrow is the one that killed it so it is my bull, that would be someone I never set foot in the woods with again.

 

[Rich M]

I agree with Austin - if a guy is hunting with me and doesn't take the backup shot to end the tracking or critter's suffering, I'm not likely to hunt with him/her again.

 

[Dos Perros]

I think we have diverging discussions here. The OP asked if it was okay for two tag holders to shoot the same animal. That's discussion one. The diverging discussion is who tags it. The law may dictate who tags it, but in the absence of the law, the two huntin' buddies work out who tags it.