Call to Action--Wildlife Department

[WildWill]

The little devil on my left shoulder wants to start another constructive argument. What if you kill something but don't retrieve it. This could be any type of game animal/bird. If you never "harvested" had possession, how could one get a ticket for wanton waste or for not tagging the animal. (This question is just for fun--This is not what I believe in)

In Oklahoma, "reasonable effort to retrieve game" means you must actively try to recover any wounded or killed animal, especially migratory birds, and retain it in your possession, transporting it from the field to your vehicle, home, or designated facility, with examples of failure including leaving it to rot or failing to track it. It's a core part of avoiding "wanton waste," requiring hunters to take steps like tracking and collecting birds and other animals, even potentially pursuing them onto adjacent property (with permission) if necessary.




You have to make a reasonable effort to retrieve your game. Once you hit the property line and couldn't get permission you met the requirements for a "reasonable effort to recover game" so couldn't be ticketed with wanton waste.

 

[bowhunter_82]

In Oklahoma, "reasonable effort to retrieve game" means you must actively try to recover any wounded or killed animal, especially migratory birds, and retain it in your possession, transporting it from the field to your vehicle, home, or designated facility, with examples of failure including leaving it to rot or failing to track it. It's a core part of avoiding "wanton waste," requiring hunters to take steps like tracking and collecting birds and other animals, even potentially pursuing them onto adjacent property (with permission) if necessary.




You have to make a reasonable effort to retrieve your game. Once you hit the property line and couldn't get permission you met the requirements for a "reasonable effort to recover game" so couldn't be ticketed with wanton waste.

Great, explanation. Thank you.

 

[SAJ-99]

The little devil on my left shoulder wants to start another constructive argument. What if you kill something but don't retrieve it. This could be any type of game animal/bird. If you never "harvested" had possession, how could one get a ticket for wanton waste or for not tagging the animal. (This question is just for fun--This is not what I believe in)

This applies more to birds (particularly waterfowl which have Federal rules) than big game, but crippled birds count against your limit. If you don't make a reasonable effort, then it is wanton waste. If you make that effort and don't find it or simply can't retrieve it for some reason, it still counts.

 

[Rack Daniels]

The little devil on my left shoulder wants to start another constructive argument. What if you kill something but don't retrieve it. This could be any type of game animal/bird. If you never "harvested" had possession, how could one get a ticket for wanton waste or for not tagging the animal. (This question is just for fun--This is not what I believe in)

Good argument. This is exciting

 

[Straight Arrow]

Good argument. This is exciting

Nope, there is no constructive argument or exciting issue here. Read WildWill's post #61. He nailed it. It's pretty straightforward.

 

[44hunter45]

The little devil on my left shoulder wants to start another constructive argument. What if you kill something but don't retrieve it. This could be any type of game animal/bird. If you never "harvested" had possession, how could one get a ticket for wanton waste or for not tagging the animal. (This question is just for fun--This is not what I believe in)

Simple enough. "Wanton Waste" hinges on whether you made a reasonable effort to retrieve the meat. (which you certainly did) There certainly may be exception states. You can have a wound loss and not be guilty of wanton waste provided you worked to locate the dead animal. Definitely getting into a bit of YMMV based on the state and individual game warden.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Nope, there is no constructive argument or exciting issue here. Read WildWill's post #61. He nailed it. It's pretty straightforward.

You mean the one I “’d”? Lol
Yeah I saw it alright!

To argue that you can get wanton waste for an animal that ISNT YOURS BECAUSE IT WASNT REDUCED TO POSSESSION is a DAMN good argument in my opinion.

 

[Straight Arrow]

To argue that you can get wanton waste for an animal that ISNT YOURS BECAUSE IT WASNT REDUCED TO POSSESSION is a DAMN good argument in my opinion.

When did that ever happen? Who argued that under what circumstances?

That never happened with bowhunter_82's issue. Nor likely any other time because of WildWill's explanation.

 

[44hunter45]

Legislative changes are never easy, but can be done.

Not sure the taking a warden or sheriff would be something the legislature would be too keen on, in particular the sheriff. Not sure that's a good use of taxpayer money to be spending all season tracking wounded game for hunters via sheriff and wardens. There are solutions to be had, but just from experience you're going to get pushback and lots of questions.

Property lines are something you really have to pay attention to, as in glued to your onx. I wasn't paying close enough attention recently and could have gotten in trouble. Good reminder for me and everyone else to be really careful around property lines, stay glued to the ONX, GPS, whatever. If you're close to a private line make doubly sure you can secure the animal before it reaches the line, etc. Not always as easy as it sounds.

Trust OnX - But read this first. You need to give yourself a buffer even beyond what OnX says is the line.

OnX accuracy

The blue dots are survey pins from a survey done in 2018. The red property line is what onX claims is the property line. Is this lack of accuracy typical? They are bothe 20 to 30 yards off.

www.hunttalk.com

 

[R.K.]

No idea why the landowner moved the deer. From what I gathered from the Warden, the landowner moved the deer a couple of miles from the land it was recovered from and that's where the Wardens met him. From what the Warden told me, the landowner was also hunting the same deer and was just upset that someone else killed it, thus the reasoning why he wouldn't release it and ultimately the Warden having to take it. I do appreciate everyone's input on this situation--Want everyone to know that.

So this is what I was trying to get to.

The landowner should have been ticketed for possession of a deer he did not 1- kill, 2- properly tag.

You’re hosed, but that landowner actually broke the law as soon as he moved the deer off his property. The fact that he wasn’t ticketed is what is bugging me.

 

[bowhunter_82]

So this is what I was trying to get to.

The landowner should have been ticketed for possession of a deer he did not 1- kill, 2- properly tag.

You’re hosed, but that landowner actually broke the law as soon as he moved the deer off his property. The fact that he wasn’t ticketed is what is bugging me.

Correct. I think the intention of the Warden was to not ticket him for illegal possession in hopes he would release the deer, but as soon as the landowner told them he wasn't gong to release the deer--That's when the Landowner should have been ticketed. I raised this same question to the Warden Supervisor in his office a few days after the incident, and he told me he was unaware of this.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I raised this same question to the Warden Supervisor in his office a few days after the incident, and he told me he was unaware of this. But he said the warden's cousin, the landowner who had the deer, handed it over readily after cousin warden told him about a possible ticket.
Ya never know in those Okie small towns.