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.