Question....

So, I was listening to the MeatEater podcast on the way to the ranch Friday, and they brought up a scenario that apparently happened and I wanted to pose the question here.

A hunter in Pennsylvania "shot" a buck on public land during bow season. He did not recover the deer for 41 days (during rifle season), essentially all that was recovered was a skull and spine. When he found the deer, he tagged and it and it was ultimately deemed a new state record (or something along those lines). I am sure there is a lot more to this story, but these were the specifics given in the podcast.

The question that they argued was at what point is a deer "harvested" vs. "found"? Also, does a deer that was "found" deserve to be in the record books? Does this deer and/or hunter deserve to be placed into the record book?

I did a quick Google search and did not find any info on this particular story, so take the info given as hypothetical unless I can substantiate.

How would he prove that was the same deer he shot with his bow? He would have had to have found the arrow/broadhead still in the deer I would think. How does he know that his shot killed that deer within a reasonable time frame(less than 24 hrs or?)? Lot to prove with out anyway for him to do it. Did the deer live only to die from rut mortality or post rut mortality? Could have been another hunted wounded the same deer and it died from those wounds at a much later date. Lot of unanswered questions for me. Had he kept searching and found it within an allotted time(?) I can see it being killed and not found. For me I would not even consider it going into any record book if I could not find it within a reasonable time frame. That means I gave up on finding it within that time frame, so it would not be record worthy for me.

I agree, a lot of unanswered questions. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say it was the same deer that was wounded. But, the deeper you get into this thing, the more questions you have. At least I do. So at what point does a deer become hunter harvested or simply found? One day, two days, a month??

For me that number would be when I exhausted all avenues of looking myself, with friends and with a dog(if legal). So it might be a few hours to several days depending on what I found for sign, areas the deer bedded, if I jumped the deer, etc. There is a lot of question I would need answered before I even considered that deer for any record book. With a 41 day period I just could not say without any doubt that the arrow is what killed that deer. Just a WAG but I am betting he videoed the hunt and had that proof. WAG though. But even then we have all seen videos of shots that look to be perfect only to never find the animal. TC pics later show that animal alive. Even was a TV hunting show that showed video of a buck shot "perfectly" behind the shoulder only to have the deer travel one mile or more to another TV hunter from the same show. He shot the buck and killed it. You could see the bloody spot on the buck when he walked in and started eating corn. IIRC it was Bone Collector show that I saw video footage of.

I would consider that found.

Whether a deer that was "found" deserves to be in the record books is a good question. B&C has always allowed a "found" rack to be entered into their record books, but requires it to be listed as "Picked Up" rather than harvested. In the case of finding a deer 41 days later... if there isn't some other evidence such as video of a mortal hit, I would think it would have to be labeled a "picked up" entry.

I agree. Without photographic proof or video that he shot the deer, I would be hard pressed to believe that he should be in the record books for killing a deer that he found and has claimed it was one he shot previously.

Maybe he has a trail of documentation from the time of the event, lamenting how he shot and lost a deer of X features and then found said deer? That might give some credibility to the claim, but even then, who is to say that he ultimately killed it? Maybe it was actually killed by another hunter?

I missed out on a record striper about 15 years ago because some guy found one floating and they gave it to him vs me who caught my fish...I was pissed!!

It was an interesting podcast. I think 41 days is too long. Even if hypothetically, he can prove he shot the deer, got it on camera, found his broadhead in it, etc. At some point, you are no longer "recovering" an animal you killed, but "finding" a dead deer. I don't know where that line is. 5-7 days for me, maybe?

Boone and Crockett records were created to highlight animals and areas that exceeded the mark in management/conservation. Theoretically it takes animals/areas with great age class, nutrition and genetics to become book eligible.

The book is about the Animal not the Hunter. So it doesn’t matter on recovery time. IMO

This highlights exactly why B&C record books is failing at its goal. No longer about the animal and it’s all about the hunter

Boone & Crockett.

Times have changed since thar days. Hunten tis become a Rich-mans Sport.

Ok. So this brings up yet another question. Assuming he shot it as reported during bow season and recovered it during rifle season, what record book should it go into, B&C or P&Y? Since it cannot be confirmed how the animal died.

You are absolutely right on the first part and absolutely wrong on the second part. If they were “all about the hunter” they would have caved in long ago on issues like modifying their scoring system to a “gross score” system and modified their rules to allow HF animals, electronics use, and a host of other shortcuts. Would certainly be in their pecuniary interest to do so.

Instead, they have remained steadfast on these issues in the face of massive pressure to change. Others have filled the void (SCI, BuckMasters, etc.). You yourself (like many others) call them non-inclusive/divisive “elitists” all the time on these very issues.

Now you say just the opposite, that they kowtow to hunters.

If it were about hunters, they wouldn’t even allow pick-ups - yet several world records are pick-ups, including the new WR Rocky Mountain bighorn.

Boone and Crockett doesn’t restrict weapon, only Pope and Young. A lot of archers will see which panel will give them highest score.

I guess it’s up to wether Pope and Young wants your entry money or not.

I did not realize that. Thanks.

Please, you just proved my point perception is all about the hunter now, Your actions on this board and fact you brought HF animals in to the conversations AGAIN proves that. You also throwing in what makes a hunter “better” then another also proves it.

You are an elitist, that cry’s when some one makes a parallel to a legal form of hunting that you feels cheapens your accomplishments. Get over yourself, no one is doing that here. My opinion on BC Private property rights is irrelevant to the conversation also. This thread isn’t about that. It’s about a dead animal, not you.

The fact that people are arguing over if the animal should be entered into a book shows exactly that it’s about the hunter and not the animal.

Wether it’s BC intent or not doesn’t matter, that’s the perception

Again the scoring system was set up to HIGHLIGHT animals which had excelled in age, nutrition and genetics, putting a focus back on Conservation ........ not the lucky hunter that was at the right place at the right time or the guy that spent 20k to shoot a record book animal on an virtually exclusive private mountain.

It’s comical yet predictable you would troll me on this.

You didn’t address the B&C facts at all. They are more about the animal than any other record keeping group. Their rules and actions prove it.

I don’t relish at all replying to your posts. At all. But on subject after subject, it’s apparent you just want to bash - and make up your reasons for doing so as you go along. The proof of this is that (as here) those reasons are often directly contradictory to one another and contradictory to the facts.

Yesterday: B&C bad because they’re “elitist”, “exclusory” and “divisive” of hunters.
Today: B&C bad because they kowtow and are “all about the hunter”.

Nobody’s arguing about anything. The man asked a question and folks are discussing it. And B&C is not involved in any of this but for you dragging them in somehow so you could bash them for no good reason.

It’s as rich or as poor as you want to make it. Only excuse to not being able to get out and legally hunt is you didn’t see the return worth your efforts.

Look troll - you are confused or just making crappp up as always. All irrelevant to what I actually said



When people are agruing or questioning the deers accolades due to the hunters circumstances then BC has failed at delivering to hunters and general public why it has a BOOK.

Nothing I said had anything todo with demeaning BC principles.

Only one bringing principles and nonsense is yourself. If hunters don’t know why the book is there then general public damn sure doesn’t.

Should be entered as a found buck IMO.

+1. When you’re done with recovery efforts, it’s not the hunter’s anymore IMO.

I can see some issues with his proving that he was the one that shot it after that length of time, but I also feel that found animals, road kill animals, etc. should go into the books (just not with a hunter listed). I don't look at the books as some kind of reference as to who the greatest hunters of all time are, I've shot some good animals I've just stumbled into and I've had to work for some dinks, I see the books as more about the animals than the hunter, to show what is possible as for as antler/horn development. if we keep segragating records out as to season, means, etc. eventually we are going to end up with someone claiming a "record" for an the biggest animal taken with a 55 grain bullet from a .223 on a thursday in November between the hours of 5:15pm and 5:23pm when the temperature is between 57 and 61 degrees.

x2

I say after 24-48 hours it is no longer considered a recovery.

if hunter moved on to next harvest. Would say found.

If the meat is inedible it shouldn’t count as a recovered deer.