Are harvest and possession the same in your eyes?

[Mallardmasher]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

[Bill W]

If it's not defined as the same then it's not the same.

[W_Ellison2011]

If it's not defined as the same then it's not the same.

That would be 100% my understanding. Unless they specify it in the regs then they are giving out tickets and fines wrongly. If those people were smart and fought it in court it would have to be overturned. Also, If you hunt long enough you are bound to have a marginal shot or a lost animal. As long as the hunter does their due diligence for finding the game animal then it shouldn't be a big deal.

[Mallardmasher]

Both lost in court, the determination was, if you shot it it was harvested, nothing says you must have it in your possession, the judge said unless you could prove it was still alive, then your tag was filled. Tule Lake is notorious for handing out tickets for non recovered waterfowl, when you continue to hunt until your limit is in hand. But I was looking for something firm and written.

[Bob33]

I think it would depend on the ability to retrieve the game. If I were to shoot a deer, walk up to it and see it's dead, then walk away and shoot another deer I could be cited with cause for several things: wasting game, and illegally killing a second deer.

[W_Ellison2011]

Both lost in court, the determination was, if you shot it it was harvested, nothing says you must have it in your possession, the judge said unless you could prove it was still alive, then your tag was filled. Tule Lake is notorious for handing out tickets for non recovered waterfowl, when you continue to hunt until your limit is in hand. But I was looking for something firm and written.

That's where doing your due diligence comes in. Also I would have turned around and asked them to prove that the animal was dead and not still alive.

[Doublelunger]

I think the issue of waste would be a factor if you were able to recover and chose not to.  This is strait from the regs.

2. Waste of Wildlife: You may NOT allow game animals or game birds you have taken to recklessly be wasted.

[Angry Perch]

How in the world would they know you shot it in the first place? Id think the odds of an LEO witnessing a big game animal being shot would be very slim. And for waterfowl, unless the LEO is right there, and you're the only one shooting, again, how would they know whom to cite?

[Oh Mah]

Catch and release?can a fisherman prove that the fish is still alive?They dont ticket for this so why should they ticket for a deer that was not recovered and may not have even been hit.BEAR STORY ALASKA HUNTER WAS TED NUGENT anyone remember that?

The rules and regs (all laws for that matter) need to be clear in all aspects before anyone should be cited. 

[Oh Mah]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

If everyone looked at it like this then more fools would be out shooting herds flocks or whatever then retrieving the one they wanted. 

[bigtex]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

The keyword is "take" (harvest isn't in the federal waterfowl regs which states then adopt).

50 CFR 20.24 states "No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit".

"Take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect

So in your instance of a guy sailing birds and not retrieving them not only is he in violation of wastage but also potentially over limit since any birds he shot/wounded/killed counts towards his limit.

[Bill W]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

The keyword is "take" (harvest isn't in the federal waterfowl regs which states then adopt).

50 CFR 20.24 states "No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit".

"Take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect

So in your instance of a guy sailing birds and not retrieving them not only is he in violation of wastage but also potentially over limit since any birds he shot/wounded/killed counts towards his limit.

that's about the clearest explanation I've ever had.

[Badhabit]

I've never seen a regulation wherein it states lost or wounded game not in your possession counts against your possession limit. Ethically, if you sail a duck or goose and see it drop but it is unrecoverable the shooter should count that bird towards his daily possession limit.

[Oh Mah]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

The keyword is "take" (harvest isn't in the federal waterfowl regs which states then adopt).

50 CFR 20.24 states "No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit".

"Take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect

So in your instance of a guy sailing birds and not retrieving them not only is he in violation of wastage but also potentially over limit since any birds he shot/wounded/killed counts towards his limit.

Great explanation.With this explanation it seems that even shooting at,missing would still be counted.Correct?

[bigtex]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

The keyword is "take" (harvest isn't in the federal waterfowl regs which states then adopt).

50 CFR 20.24 states "No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit".

"Take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect

So in your instance of a guy sailing birds and not retrieving them not only is he in violation of wastage but also potentially over limit since any birds he shot/wounded/killed counts towards his limit.

Great explanation.With this explanation it seems that even shooting at,missing would still be counted.Correct?

By the way the law is written, yes. Now that being said nobody would enforce it that way during an open season. Where it would be used is during a closed season where an officer witnesses someone shooting at ducks and they missed. Just because they missed doesn't mean they weren't "taking" during a closed season.

[Oh Mah]

Makes sense.Thanks.

[andersonjk4]

Some of the pertinent Washington laws.... Seems clear as mud to me.  Its all about how you interpret things.

RCW 77.08.010
Definitions....
(2) "Bag limit" means the maximum number of game animals, game birds, or game fish which may be taken, caught, killed, or possessed by a person, as specified by rule of the commission for a particular period of time, or as to size, sex, or species.
(33) "To hunt" and its derivatives means an effort to kill, injure, harass, harvest, or capture a wild animal or wild bird.
(62) "To take" and its derivatives means to kill, injure, harvest, or capture a fish, shellfish, wild animal, bird, or seaweed.

RCW 77.15.160
Infractions.
The following acts are infractions and must be cited and punished as provided under chapter 7.84 RCW:
(2) Hunting infractions:
(b) Unclassified wildlife: Taking unclassified wildlife in violation of any department rule by killing, hunting, taking, holding, possessing, or maliciously injuring or harming wildlife that is not classified as big game, game animals, game birds, protected wildlife, or endangered wildlife.
(c) Wasting wildlife: Killing, taking, or possessing wildlife that is not classified as big game and has a value of less than two hundred fifty dollars, and allowing the wildlife to be wasted.
(d) Wild animals: Hunting for wild animals not classified as big game and, without yet possessing the wild animals, the person owns, but fails to have in the person's possession, all licenses, tags, or permits required by this title.
(e) Wild birds: Hunting for and, without yet possessing a wild bird or birds, the person:
(i) Owns, but fails to have in the person's possession, all licenses, tags, stamps, and permits required under this title; or
(ii) Violates any department rule regarding seasons, closed areas, closed times, or any other rule addressing the manner or method of hunting wild birds.

RCW 77.32.320
Required licenses, tags—Transport tags for game.
(1) The correct licenses and tags are required to hunt deer, elk, black bear, cougar, sheep, mountain goat, moose, or wild turkey except as provided in RCW 77.32.450.
(2) Persons who kill deer, elk, bear, cougar, mountain goat, sheep, moose, or wild turkey shall immediately validate and attach their own transport tag to the carcass as provided by rule of the director.

RCW 77.15.170
Waste of fish and wildlife—Penalty.
(1) A person is guilty of waste of fish and wildlife if the person:
(a) Takes or possesses wildlife classified as food fish, game fish, shellfish, or game birds having a value of two hundred fifty dollars or more, or wildlife classified as big game; and
(b) Recklessly allows such fish, shellfish, or wildlife to be wasted.

[Stein]

"Reckless" is in there, if you put forth a legitimate effort and don't retrieve it, then you are not recklessly wasting game.  I would ask the state for proof that the game was wasted or that I was in excess of my limit.

I think the fishing analogy makes sense, if I hook a fish, fight it and loose it next to the boat is that going on my punch card?  What about if I am forced by law to release it only to have it scooped up by a seal?  How about if a seal takes it off the end of my line?

If I shoot a bird and it goes down, I search and search until I can't find it or have looked everywhere.  There are times with every bird hunter where you hit one, it shows being hit and then flies away never to be seen again.

If the intent of the law was to count anything you hit as possession, it would have likely stated that directly.

Whether or not a guy can afford to go through the courts is another questions.

[Stein]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

The keyword is "take" (harvest isn't in the federal waterfowl regs which states then adopt).

50 CFR 20.24 states "No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit".

"Take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect

So in your instance of a guy sailing birds and not retrieving them not only is he in violation of wastage but also potentially over limit since any birds he shot/wounded/killed counts towards his limit.

Playing devil's advocate here.  By that definition, if you stalk two elk in the same day and don't fire a shot or arrow you have "taken" two elk and are in violation as you attempted to pursue, hunt and shoot them?

[bigtex]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

The keyword is "take" (harvest isn't in the federal waterfowl regs which states then adopt).

50 CFR 20.24 states "No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit".

"Take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect

So in your instance of a guy sailing birds and not retrieving them not only is he in violation of wastage but also potentially over limit since any birds he shot/wounded/killed counts towards his limit.

Playing devil's advocate here.  By that definition, if you stalk two elk in the same day and don't fire a shot or arrow you have "taken" two elk and are in violation as you attempted to pursue, hunt and shoot them?

That's for migratory birds only.

[Oh Mah]

but as was stated by bigtex that would not get a ticket or anything it would be used in court against a poacher or similar not hunting during an open season.out makes sense we all want poachers caught and if these wordings were to go away then poachers that are out poaching but don't shoot an animal but are clearly hunting them would not be grounds for leo to get a search warrant to search a home or whatever.

The more these subjects come up and the more answers brought forward the clearer the reasoning behind the wording becomes.

[Stein]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

The keyword is "take" (harvest isn't in the federal waterfowl regs which states then adopt).

50 CFR 20.24 states "No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit".

"Take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect

So in your instance of a guy sailing birds and not retrieving them not only is he in violation of wastage but also potentially over limit since any birds he shot/wounded/killed counts towards his limit.

Playing devil's advocate here.  By that definition, if you stalk two elk in the same day and don't fire a shot or arrow you have "taken" two elk and are in violation as you attempted to pursue, hunt and shoot them?

That's for migratory birds only.

So if you shoot and completely miss, that counts 1 toward your limit for the day?  If you then creep up on a ditch and three fly away without a shot you are then at 4 taken?

[Oh Mah]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

The keyword is "take" (harvest isn't in the federal waterfowl regs which states then adopt).

50 CFR 20.24 states "No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit".

"Take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect

So in your instance of a guy sailing birds and not retrieving them not only is he in violation of wastage but also potentially over limit since any birds he shot/wounded/killed counts towards his limit.

Great explanation.With this explanation it seems that even shooting at,missing would still be counted.Correct?

By the way the law is written, yes. Now that being said nobody would enforce it that way during an open season. Where it would be used is during a closed season where an officer witnesses someone shooting at ducks and they missed. Just because they missed doesn't mean they weren't "taking" during a closed season.

@stein- here's where that was explained. 

[bigtex]

On two ocassions with big game, I have seen a hunter shoot and not recover his game, only to be cited, when he continued to hunt. The reasoning was harvest does not mean possession. On many occasions from Potholes, to Tule lake to the lower Columbia I have seen waterfowl sailed and not recovered, and then counted toward your bag limit, when checked by the leo’s.
What are your thoughts on this, I can not find anything written.

The keyword is "take" (harvest isn't in the federal waterfowl regs which states then adopt).

50 CFR 20.24 states "No person shall take in any 1 calendar day, more than the daily bag limit".

"Take" is defined as "to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect

So in your instance of a guy sailing birds and not retrieving them not only is he in violation of wastage but also potentially over limit since any birds he shot/wounded/killed counts towards his limit.

Playing devil's advocate here.  By that definition, if you stalk two elk in the same day and don't fire a shot or arrow you have "taken" two elk and are in violation as you attempted to pursue, hunt and shoot them?

That's for migratory birds only.

So if you shoot and completely miss, that counts 1 toward your limit for the day?  If you then creep up on a ditch and three fly away without a shot you are then at 4 taken?

This is why officers have discretion and common sense. No officer or judge is going to say if you flush 10 ducks from a canal that you actually "took" 10 ducks.

[onmygame]

Well, I'm going to be 60 this year, and the terms 'daily limit' as well as 'possession limit' have co-existed in this state for as long as I can remember, and I have been chasing fins, fur and feathers since I was a teen.

For starters, there are Game Fish and Food Fish in this state - and they are considered two entirely different groups - whereas Food Fish that are processed (for storage) such as salmon, tuna, shellfish, most saltwater species that are commercially harvested have NO possession limits, game fish such as steelhead (which are tribally fished commercially but cannot be sold in this state), trout, panfish, etc have a possession limit of two days catch limits.
Same for fur.
In my eyes - as the title suggests - these possession limits keep (or at least attempt to keep) people from racking up hundreds of trout, birds, or maybe several years of venison in the freezer from going to waste.
People over harvest.
People waste.
Its a dang old shame that these rules need to be on the books - but in my eyes - this is why.

[meatwhack]

Why is this in the deer forum?