<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It's no different than if you had your buddies helping you on a bloodtrail and one of them spotted the dead buck first. The shot could have been better but hey, it happens to the best of us. So it was hard to find and took him a few days, it's all gravey. Yes I would have entered it in pope and young. It was the bowhunter that killed the deer, so he harvested the deer legaly, and as ethicly as he could with ONE SHOT. Great job if you ask me. I wonder how old the buck was?
"Hey ya'll, watch this"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
If your buddy follows a bloodtrail to your buck? Your buddy blindly stumbles across your buck , but it's still entact and the innards are still warm?
Theres no difference?
As for your statement "It was the bowhunter that killed the deer"<img src=icon_smile_question.gif border=0 align=middle> The jury is still out on that one! There was no forensic evidence to prove the cause of death was anything other than predation!
Lets try this scenario. You made a poor shot on the buck in question. The buck may have lived with adequate recovery time. But while trying to recover , a pack of coyotes ran it down and killed it for their consumption. Now , if you knew this to be the fact because farmer Jones told you he had seen the coyotes kill the buck , would you still claim it for the fame and fortune?
Finally , if just
one person would step forward to say that Zaft had described the buck perfectly to them before the farmer found it , all of my doubts on wether or not it should be in the books would be removed.
Edited by - bowfanatic on 12/06/2002 00:08:33
Edited by - bowfanatic on 12/06/2002 00:20:03