- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,373
If you get prosecuted for eating wild game in a survival situation then by definition you also got rescued, so good job, you made it.
The "Law of competing harms" comes into play here. It is against the law to shoot a bear out of season, but if the bear is about to eat you the law recognizes that your situation trumps the game laws. It does put you in the legal position of proving your case. That may be hard to do with death by starvation. "I got lost, therefore I killed a duck in the afternoon" isn't going to cut it. "After subsisting on berries and grasshoppers for a week I managed to kill a duck" is a much better position to be in legally. The duck may have saved your life and that is a legally recognizable good thing.
Mac
The "Law of competing harms" comes into play here. It is against the law to shoot a bear out of season, but if the bear is about to eat you the law recognizes that your situation trumps the game laws. It does put you in the legal position of proving your case. That may be hard to do with death by starvation. "I got lost, therefore I killed a duck in the afternoon" isn't going to cut it. "After subsisting on berries and grasshoppers for a week I managed to kill a duck" is a much better position to be in legally. The duck may have saved your life and that is a legally recognizable good thing.
Mac