tags and unrecovered game

Is their a law that says if you wound an animal and don't recover it your tag is considered used?

I have never checked personally, but everyone I have ever hunted with has always insisted this was the case.

I only ask as I was channel surfing yesterday and this show called the "bone yard" was on wild TV and my attention was drawn as I flipped to the channel a fairly attractive women in a black corset was throwing knives . . . turns out this gimmic worked and I watched the remainder of the episode. The host was moose hunting in Alberta. At one point he shoots a moose with his bow. Very evident by the footage it was a bad shot. Very high above the lungs. You don't see the moose go down and then the show starts again and the guy says they looked for blood and gave up after 2 hours. That in itself peed me off, however the guy is back at it again moose hunting. Ends up getting a small bull with his gun.

I don't know what the law in Alberta is, but I was wondering what it is in Ontario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toddy

Is their a law that says if you wound an animal and don't recover it your tag is considered used?

I have never checked personally, but everyone I have ever hunted with has always insisted this was the case.

I only ask as I was channel surfing yesterday and this show called the "bone yard" was on wild TV and my attention was drawn as I flipped to the channel a fairly attractive women in a black corset was throwing knives . . . turns out this gimmic worked and I watched the remainder of the episode. The host was moose hunting in Alberta. At one point he shoots a moose with his bow. Very evident by the footage it was a bad shot. Very high above the lungs. You don't see the moose go down and then the show starts again and the guy says they looked for blood and gave up after 2 hours. That in itself peed me off, however the guy is back at it again moose hunting. Ends up getting a small bull with his gun.

I don't know what the law in Alberta is, but I was wondering what it is in Ontario.

---

In Ontario,the tag is considered "used" only after it's applied to a dead animal. Whomever told you that your tag was used after shooting at and possibly wounding a game animal was incorrect. I've never heard such foolishness.

No law to that effect that I am aware of, would be a moral thing IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlmorgan

No law to that effect that I am aware of, would be a moral thing IMO

---

How would you know if the animal survived or not !

Most Outfitters in Africa have it written right into your contract that if you drew blood ...you bought the animal even if it is not recovered ...... never heard of this in Ontario !
Glen

What he said. But lets say you do find the animal the next day and half eaten by yotes , I would consider a tag should be used regardless if edible or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlmorgan

No law to that effect that I am aware of, would be a moral thing IMO

---

It is written that a migratory bird that is shot and not recovered is to be included in your daily bag limit but nothing in Ontario regulations.

There's out fitters in Ontario that say if you draw blood and no recovery, your hunt is over...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdog

There's out fitters in Ontario that say if you draw blood and no recovery, your hunt is over...

---

Note to self: Never hunt with outfitters with an a**hole attitude like that. That's nuts.

I had a guy who owned an archery shop in the states hunt with me for 3 years. His hunting partners finally came clean with me that this character had shot at and wounded 6 bears over that 3 year period. I recovered one of those bears after he'd given up looking but I never knew about the others until later. So, sometimes rules have to be made by outfitters simply to protect their business against jerks like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

It is written that a migratory bird that is shot and not recovered is to be included in your daily bag limit but nothing in Ontario regulations.

---

Where is this written?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

It is written that a migratory bird that is shot and not recovered is to be included in your daily bag limit but nothing in Ontario regulations.

---

So basicly after you had shot AT birds equal to the bag limit you would have to stop hunting that day? Every time you shot at the bird you could in your theroy have hit it but never recovered it, so it counts against your bag limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tom gobble

But lets say you do find the animal the next day and half eaten by yotes , I would consider a tag should be used regardless if edible or not.

---

That's the rule at our camp; the wise old geezers who made it figured it would encourage better shooting and putting more effort in finding they deer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

It is written that a migratory bird that is shot and not recovered is to be included in your daily bag limit but nothing in Ontario regulations.

---

So I ask the question again.....where do you believe this statement is written?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Note to self: Never hunt with outfitters with an a**hole attitude like that. That's nuts.

---

I don't see a problem with that, it helps keep the a**hole hunters else where instead of ruining his business

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdog

I don't see a problem with that, it helps keep the a**hole hunters else where instead of ruining his business

---

Ruining his business? How? Are you saying that outfitter's clients are such lousy shots that they wound enough animals to affect his business? I ain't buyin' it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Ruining his business? How?

---

Ok, so an outfitter sets up baits and stands for clients, a couple of a**holes come in and wound game all week until they harvest something, what do you think any of the other clients or outfitters in the area will have to say about that, what do you think is going to happen to the management of game in his area?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Ruining his business? How? Are you saying that outfitter's clients are such lousy shots that they wound enough animals to affect his business? I ain't buyin' it.

---

And you aint huntin at any of the outfitters that have any kind of ethics

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdog

There's out fitters in Ontario that say if you draw blood and no recovery, your hunt is over...

---

I can accept that. It would make the shot placement decision very critical as it always should be-/-/------->

I remember it was a law like this in Alaska that got uncle Ted in some hot water years ago. Draw blood, your tag is used. I can see why some outfitters would use this policy.

My personal law is if I am sure that I hit the animal and did not completely miss

I vill try to recover for Day or two dependent of the situation if I will not find it I will consider the tag is filled for that year (bear )
I will still stay in the camp and help other to succeed , but I will not use my gun just in self defence ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toddy

Is their a law that says if you wound an animal and don't recover it your tag is considered used?

I have never checked personally, but everyone I have ever hunted with has always insisted this was the case.

I only ask as I was channel surfing yesterday and this show called the "bone yard" was on wild TV and my attention was drawn as I flipped to the channel a fairly attractive women in a black corset was throwing knives . . . turns out this gimmic worked and I watched the remainder of the episode. The host was moose hunting in Alberta. At one point he shoots a moose with his bow. Very evident by the footage it was a bad shot. Very high above the lungs. You don't see the moose go down and then the show starts again and the guy says they looked for blood and gave up after 2 hours. That in itself peed me off, however the guy is back at it again moose hunting. Ends up getting a small bull with his gun.

I don't know what the law in Alberta is, but I was wondering what it is in Ontario.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krakadawn

So I ask the question again.....where do you believe this statement is written?

---

Sorry, been throwing up for two days, calm down.

When I first started hunting I thought I had read in the migratory bird regulations that any cripples were to be included in your daily bag limit, now it seems to be written that any cripples found are to be killed and included in your bag limit, so it may have changed of been read wrong.

As to Snowwalkers comment, that is the dumbest thing I have ever seen, because you shot at the animal did not mean you hit it, if you shot at it went down then took off running and you did not recover it then that would be considered a cripple to be included.

[QUOTE=Fox;1049418]Sorry, been throwing up for two days, calm down.

"When I first started hunting I thought I had read in the migratory bird regulations that any cripples were to be included in your daily bag limit, now it seems to be written that any cripples found are to be killed and included in your bag limit, so it may have changed of been read wrong."


Sorry to hear that you've been sick, I just got rid of it and I'm pretty calm.

I don't recall any mention ever about cripples being included in your daily bag limit.Here's the current section:


Retrieving Birds

16 (1) No person shall hunt a migratory bird unless he has adequate means for retrieving any such bird that he may kill, cripple or injure.


(1.1) A person who kills, cripples or injures a migratory bird shall

(a) immediately make every reasonable effort to retrieve the bird; and


(b) if he retrieves the bird while it is still alive, immediately kill and include it in his daily bag limit.



(2) Notwithstanding paragraph 15(1)(e), a power boat may be used for the purpose of retrieving a migratory bird.


SOR/79-544, s. 8;
SOR/82-703, s. 6;
SOR/83-594, s. 1;
SOR/2000-331, s. 3.


It's been the same over the years(too many) that I can recall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowbanksArcher

I remember it was a law like this in Alaska that got uncle Ted in some hot water years ago. Draw blood, your tag is used. I can see why some outfitters would use this policy.

---

As I recall it was a law that was found by someone many months after his hunt. He was then charged. The Guides and CO in Alaska did NOT know about it till then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Sorry, been throwing up for two days, calm down.

When I first started hunting I thought I had read in the migratory bird regulations that any cripples were to be included in your daily bag limit, now it seems to be written that any cripples found are to be killed and included in your bag limit, so it may have changed of been read wrong.

As to Snowwalkers comment, that is the dumbest thing I have ever seen, because you shot at the animal did not mean you hit it, if you shot at it went down then took off running and you did not recover it then that would be considered a cripple to be included.

---

You made a pretty broad statement. Just asked how far your definition of having to count it goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdog

Ok, so an outfitter sets up baits and stands for clients, a couple of a**holes come in and wound game all week until they harvest something, what do you think any of the other clients or outfitters in the area will have to say about that, what do you think is going to happen to the management of game in his area?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdog

And you aint huntin at any of the outfitters that have any kind of ethics

---

Really? I'm not calling BS,but,It's hard to imagine that happening. No doubt,outfitters have remedies for such an eventuality,but,they have no authority to cancel someone's tag. Outfitters I know take measures to ensure the marksmanship of each client before the hunt to minimize the chances of that happening,usually,at their own range to ensure rifles are still "zeroed" after travel.

Well it's happening a lot more than most people are aware of, and yes these outfitters have a range, gun/archery, test your equipment, but if you draw blood your hunt is over with these outfitters, they will do everything possible to help in the recovery, but if the game cant be found, the hunt is over

IMO, burning your tag on a wounded animal is an ethical thing to do. Just because you don't recover the animal, doesn't mean that it didn’t die at some point afterwards due to its wound. A bullet wound, no matter where, is nasty and very prone to infection. The main reason an outfitter may dictate that an un-retrieved animal is a burned tag is the fact that many die a slow death. Burning the tag limits the kill and ensures he has sufficient numbers if animals to run his business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

IMO, burning your tag on a wounded animal is an ethical thing to do. Just because you don't recover the animal, doesn't mean that it didn’t die at some point afterwards due to its wound. A bullet wound, no matter where, is nasty and very prone to infection. The main reason an outfitter may dictate that an un-retrieved animal is a burned tag is the fact that many die a slow death. Burning the tag limits the kill and ensures he has sufficient numbers if animals to run his business.

---

Im of the understanding if the government agreed on this being ethical or not they would make it a law. They are well aware animals get wounded and could die without having a tag placed on them.

Why be any harder on yourself then the government is...practice often and be sure of your shots...if crap happens oh well Im not disqualifying myself because a perfectly legal and understandable mistake happened. To each their own I guess, outfitters that have that rule will simply loose out on my potential business no hard feeling either way they can do what they want even if that means running themselves out of the business. It may be to prevent amateurs from going out wounding animals all over but the majority of us practice our shots and can hit wherever needed with much confidence and skill.

If I was chosing between 2 similar outfitters and the only difference was this dumb rule well the choice would be very easy for me. No way in hell am I paying 1200+ for a guided hunt and a mistake happens and they kick me out/disqualify me because of something out of my control happens. Crap happens all the time and that rule is just a punishment meant for lousy shots however grouping excellent shooters into the same pool and punishing all alike is a poor business decision IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Note to self: Never hunt with outfitters with an a**hole attitude like that. That's nuts.

---

totally agree...lol next scam out there will be they screw with your sights when your not looking so you make a bad hit and they kick you out and keep your cash haha! kinda reminds me of this:

https://youtu.be/TGwZVGKG30s

...last year a guide was charged with misleading his client who shot a record bull moose to believe they could not recover the animal...later on the guide was attempting to sell the rack for some crazy amount of money and got busted...so although pretty far fetched I would hope nobody uses this rule as a way to scam clients because although not very probable its definately plausible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bdog

Well it's happening a lot more than most people are aware of, and yes these outfitters have a range, gun/archery, test your equipment, but if you draw blood your hunt is over with these outfitters, they will do everything possible to help in the recovery, but if the game cant be found, the hunt is over

---

how would they know you drew blood unless you were stupid enough to admit to it? So an animal jumps the string resulting in a wound and I loose out on my $1200 guided hunt and people are agreeing this is fair practice? What if you know it was a good shot and your lousy guide cannot track it down, they just say ohh you wounded it your done please step aside for the next customer! Good luck with the guiding business if thats the way it's going, hope they know how to make KD and hot dogs when the money runs out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler

how would they know you drew blood unless you were stupid enough to admit to it? So an animal jumps the string resulting in a wound and I loose out on my $1200 guided hunt and people are agreeing this is fair practice? What if you know it was a good shot and your lousy guide cannot track it down, they just say ohh you wounded it your done please step aside for the next customer! Good luck with the guiding business if thats the way it's going, hope they know how to make KD and hot dogs when the money runs out.

---

How would they know? Same way you knew people were trespassing where you hunt........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler

Im of the understanding if the government agreed on this being ethical or not they would make it a law. They are well aware animals get wounded and could die without having a tag placed on them.

Why be any harder on yourself then the government is...practice often and be sure of your shots...if crap happens oh well Im not disqualifying myself because a perfectly legal and understandable mistake happened. To each their own I guess, outfitters that have that rule will simply loose out on my potential business no hard feeling either way they can do what they want even if that means running themselves out of the business. It may be to prevent amateurs from going out wounding animals all over but the majority of us practice our shots and can hit wherever needed with much confidence and skill.

If I was chosing between 2 similar outfitters and the only difference was this dumb rule well the choice would be very easy for me. No way in hell am I paying 1200+ for a guided hunt and a mistake happens and they kick me out/disqualify me because of something out of my control happens. Crap happens all the time and that rule is just a punishment meant for lousy shots however grouping excellent shooters into the same pool and punishing all alike is a poor business decision IMO.

---

Gov doesn't regulate ethics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler

outfitters that have that rule will simply loose out on my potential business no hard feeling either way they can do what they want even if that means running themselves out of the business. It may be to prevent amateurs from going out wounding animals all over but the majority of us practice our shots and can hit wherever needed with much confidence and skill.

If I was chosing between 2 similar outfitters and the only difference was this dumb rule well the choice would be very easy for me. No way in hell am I paying 1200+ for a guided hunt and a mistake happens and they kick me out/disqualify me because of something out of my control happens. Crap happens all the time and that rule is just a punishment meant for lousy shots however grouping excellent shooters into the same pool and punishing all alike is a poor business decision IMO.

---

Most outfitters rely on return clients and they get to know these guys fairly well. And they get to know their capabilities usually sooner than later. If a guy comes year after year and constantly wounds animals then even the most skeptical should see the need for restricting this guys activities.
And these archery guys that constantly wound animals--well I've watched these same guys kill pie plates with deadly and consistent accuracy but put a bear 10 yards in front of them and suddenly they can't hit the proverbial barn door.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

Gov doesn't regulate ethics.

---

You obviously didnt understand the purpose of the post? The government is aware animals are wounded and not recovered, if they believed it was a problem they would regulate it.

FYI The government does regulate ethics through laws. Lots of legislature is created because of ethics. Actually most laws are based on ethics and ethical principles. Thanks for your insight on this thread, keep up the great work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

Most outfitters rely on return clients and they get to know these guys fairly well. And they get to know their capabilities usually sooner than later. If a guy comes year after year and constantly wounds animals then even the most skeptical should see the need for restricting this guys activities.
And these archery guys that constantly wound animals--well I've watched these same guys kill pie plates with deadly and consistent accuracy but put a bear 10 yards in front of them and suddenly they can't hit the proverbial barn door.

---

What your talking about is a specific case example and specific return dbag customer. If some d bag comes back every year and always wounds animals they should be asked not to return once the hunt is over and explain why. Make an example of the extreme case idiot sure, but dont blanket everyone with some lousy rule meant to control the minority few who are probably the guys who arent much into hunting anyways and probably not a real ambitious hunter to begin with.

Dont turn this into a gun vs archery debate, you can draw blood/wound with any type of weapon and unless you have any statistics to prove archery hunters wound more game Id argue that its more about inexperience with a weapon over the choice of weapon. A lousy shooter or someone who doesnt practice with gun or bow isnt likely to make an ethical shot regardless of what they use, its not the tools fault its the operator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler

You obviously didnt understand the purpose of the post? The government is aware animals are wounded and not recovered, if they believed it was a problem they would regulate it.

FYI The government does regulate ethics through laws. Lots of legislature is created because of ethics. Actually most laws are based on ethics and ethical principles. Thanks for your insight on this thread, keep up the great work.

---

What laws are based on ethics? The government won't regulate it because it's unenforceable.

Go back to school, a high school diploma might serve you well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

What laws are based on ethics? The government won't regulate it because it's unenforceable.

Go back to school, a high school diploma might serve you well.

---

Every single one of our conservation laws started out due to the ethics of the majority, that is pretty much how all laws are setup, the group saying that is not acceptable.

Go back to school, a high school diploma might serve you well. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

What laws are based on ethics? The government won't regulate it because it's unenforceable.

Go back to school, a high school diploma might serve you well.

---

Conservation laws are based on sustainability. Not the same as ethics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

Conservation laws are based on sustainability. Not the same as ethics.

---

Look at the BC brown bear cancellation, nothing at all to do with sustainability.

Not sure that has anything to do with ethics. More to do with mainstream values. Sad though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

Not sure that has anything to do with ethics. More to do with mainstream values. Sad though.

---

Sure it is a law made by ethics, but not the ethics of the people actually involved in hunting them, rather the ethics of the people in Victoria and Vancouver, their moral principles say that "Trophy hunting" should not exist, therefore the ban was put in place, nothing at all to do with sustainability, all to do with the ethics of the masses pushing their morals on the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

What laws are based on ethics? The government won't regulate it because it's unenforceable.

Go back to school, a high school diploma might serve you well.

---

Don't steal.
Don't murder.
Don't Rape.
Don't ... Don't....Don't....

Should I go on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

Conservation laws are based on sustainability. Not the same as ethics.

---

Government doesnt regulate ethics...this is what you wrote...now your changing the wording?

As for my edumacation I have a 30k bachelors degree so I think my edumacational background is sufficient to debate grown up topics?....not sure why insulting my intelligence is relevant to prove your point unless perhaps your compensating for lack of real knowledge on the topic.

You on the other hand have no clear understanding on how or why laws are created. If you did, you wouldnt make such rediculous claims which you need to keep changing the story to stay relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Menard

Not sure that has anything to do with ethics. More to do with mainstream values. Sad though.

---

ethics and values are so closely related... you cant see the forest through the trees, but keep trying your almost there! Keep changing your story and soon you will be arguing my point for me....lol

No law. This isnt letting game meat spoil because you never had the meat in your possession.

My opinion - If youve given every effort to find the animal and can not recover it, then go ahead and continue hunting. Youve done your honest duty as a hunter. if the first animal was anterless, then I might impose an antlers only rule going forward.