Oldtimr

mmrb, you just don't get it and I doubt you ever will. I made a specific point of saying the law prevents, nay prohibits WCOs from deciding ownership of a deer. There was not one thing illegal about that boy allowing the man who wounded the deer to tag it after he put it down and the old man came down the hill tracking the deer. I repeat, nothing was illegal about it technical or otherwise. You don't need to quote the law to me, I am quite sure I know it much better than you ever will. Now I am done after my last period in this post, and you can continue to insist you are correct from now until the next millennium, but you will still be wrong. There wasn't even time to get ink on the kids deer tag before the old man came into view obviously tracking the blood trail, no one had touched the deer yet, the old man told us where he had shot the deer and that he had been tracking it for a while. The kid did not tell the man to" tag his deer,"( the boys words), in order for him to be able to continue hunting, he did it because it was the right thing to do if a person has any morals or conscience, and perfectly legal. The law you posted is written the way it is so as to prevent arguments over ownership of animals after they are dead, if there is an argument, an officer can tell both parties what the law says and then it is still up to the two to decide who is taking the animal home, there is no violation in the game code or charge for violating that law. Therefore there was no violation. You have to know the intent of the law, not just the words in order to enforce it. There was no argument, the law regarding ownership did not need to be applied...