Subsequent to reading most of the posts regarding the "Zaft" buck, including Zaft's article, the jury in my mind is in.

Where is the rule that says a recovery must be made only by the shooter? If that was true, then I suspect that many of us do not deserve credit for some of the kills and recoveries we have made when another party in our tracking group finds our deer before we do, or a landowner calls you the next day and tells you your deer is lying in his field.

Take for instance the 8-pntr I have killed, so far, this season. While tracking the buck I shot, I was being assisted by a friend. My friend found my buck first. Should I get the credit for the kill? A few hours earlier, my nephew, our friend, and I were tracking the doe that my nephew had shot. I found the doe first. Should my nephew get the credit for the kill?

Regarding Zaft's kill, it is the time spread, which was extremely minimal, which was the next day as I read and understand it, that is muddling up the thinking, and maybe (even) some jealousy. Zaft said he tried his best to find the buck on the day he shot the buck. He then went back to the area the next day and tried again. He was not able to find the deer and said "He headed home again." He did not say he conceded the loss and had given up the pursuit.

He must have extended his tracking by informing people who lived near the kill area, because an adjacent landowner was obviously aware and notified Zaft about the buck lying in the field. When Zaft arrived, the buck was still on the ground where it was simply spotted by the landowner.

Who is ready to say that your right to claim recovery is not valid if you, the shooter, do not find the deer first, and before the sun goes down? Regardless of time between shot and recovery, and who finds the deer, does corroborated evidence of whom made the kill establish ownership? Or, is it "Finder, keeper; looser, weeper?"

The kill and the recovery were totally righteous, and Zaft is fully deserving of the credit and the honors that goes with the kill.

PS: The only aspects of the "Zaft" story that surprised me was 1) that an experienced hunter as Zaft apparently is, held a belief that a wounded deer would go directly to cover and not cross a large open field to do so, and 2) relies only on blood trails to track.

Too many hunters think like humans, not deer. Deer do not comprehend like we do. They do not think, "Oh hell, I have just been severely wounded by an arrow/bullet, I better take cover before I fall down!"

Unless a deer is so severely wounded they began to loose strength rapidly or sense they are severely disabled, they may not go directly to cover. They may simply flee as they do when you (just)spook them.

Ever had a severely hit deer jump and run a few yards, stand and look around or go back to eating, and then just fall over?












Edited by - c903 on 12/05/2002 15:48:36