ORIGINAL: Paul L Mohr

Well I would say the difference is I don't hunt peoples dogs or tree stands. I didn't set out with the intention of taking your dog or tree stand with a legal right to do so. And if I found someone else's tree stand in my woods or property I had permission to hunt your darn right I would keep it. If it was public land I would probably just leave it there.

Now if I saw that an animal had a tag before I shot it it might be different. I would probably pass on that animal and maybe call who I thought it belonged to. But once I shoot it under legal terms I am probably going to keep it.

Ok, so lets say the guy should give it back, someone owned it and it's his. That would mean the owner is responsible for that animal. I say the hunter should be compensated for his time, cost of the ammo he wasted on shooting it, the tag he wasted and the amount it cost to have it processed since it was warm out. Oh, and heck lets throw in mental anguish of losing that trophy. I guess the owner shouldn't have to pay for the mount since it was obvious it belonged to someone else and he shouldn't have done it. But that raises the question, if he wants the mount, shouldn't he have to pay for it?

The hunter in my opinion has no obligation to pay the owner since it was taken in a legal means. He did not steel the animal off of the guys property and it was not premeditated. As the owner of the animal you have the obligation to keep them on your property, not the other way around.

We could argue this for days if you would like. I suppose it would be easier to just agree that you feel differently about it.

Paul