On another hunting forum the question came up as to who was the rightful "owner" of a downed deer...the one who killed it or the one that caused "first blood" whether it was a lethal shot or not.
I couldn't believe the "first blood" idea where even a knick of the skin and tiny trickle of blood lead some hunters to believe it was "their" deer.
One responder indicated there was "north/south" attitude where one view prevailed in one region of the country vs. the other.
I can understand the first shooter feeling the deer is theirs if their shot was mortal, the deer just hadn't expired yet and a 2nd hunter puts it down for the count. I can understand a heated arguement there.
but a flesh wound where the deer could keep on running into the next county? Never die from the grazing wound in the shoulder? gimme a break!
One hunter said his uncle shot the deer first, grazed the shoulder, the deer ran by the nephew and he made a killing shot. When the uncle walked up to the nephew, the uncle "claimed" the deer as he had "first blood".
Is this common? How in the world can any hunter claim it's "his/her" deer if they didn't mortally wound the animal?
Guess you can tell which side of the issue I come down on...
Is there a regional trend here? What say you?