Podcast on wounding

[BuzzH]

If you don’t think this is happening with high powered rifles I’m not sure what to say. I’ve witnessed more unethical long range shooting with rifles than I care to remember. Equally as bad as wounding with archery. It falls on the hunter not on the weapon used.

Absolutely agree and why I won't be supporting a type-longrangeahole only weapon tag type either.

Should also be against the law for the long range yahoo's to shoot another animal as well.

I will argue all day long with you that its wayyyy less likely for a careful rifle hunter to lose an animal than a careful archery hunter. Primitive weapons just aren't as lethal and much less likely for the hunter to be able to get a quick follow up shot(s) if things go bad. Just a fact.

 

[TheTone]

Question:

Since I posted here on HT the plain truth about having wounded and lost a moose in 2022, despite using two diff tracking dogs on two days and 3+ days trying to find the critter. And then continued the hunt versus choosing to punch the tag. No reason to doubt the moose died, seeing the initial blood, just flat out could not find it.

I definitely received some negative reactions from a few folks, some were outright jerks and just throwing barbs in the hunt thread and via PM. Some merely stated their uninvited view that they would punch a tag if wounded an animal and failed to find it--I have no problem with that as we all make different and equally valid decisions. Not sure if it was because the animal in question was a Big 3 (Moose) that the knee jerk, (pun intended for a couple clowns) reaction and trolling of me that ensued on unrelated threads and even on other hunt forums, or if they would have acted out similarly if it was a deer etc instead of a big 3 critter. One clown trolled me here AND on two other forums cuz he just had to make sure the world knew about the wounding. Do not know the guy and never interacted with him other than his being a troll on this topic.

What are folks thoughts, when you are sharing a hunt story here, on fessing up or not and why, about a wounding and loss and continuing to hunt.


1) Do you support telling it like it is, whatever it is, as long as it was legal? If you lost a wounded animal and continued hunting don't shade the truth and go ahead and own it publicly?

2) Do you share fairly detailed hunt narratives on HT? I think that matters as a grouping factor for responses to the below. Frankly a lot less interested in response to the below from folks who never 'put themselves out there' but instead merely comment on or judge those who do step up to share hunt stories but avoid facing the same scrutiny.

3) Do you support the notion the wounding should not be mentioned at all online and in essence better to shade the truth of how the hunt actually transpired? Basically write up the full hunt and leave out the wounding and loss?

4) Do you think honest accounting on a hunt forum of a wounding loss, genuine effort to retrieve and then continued hunting the tag afterward actually harms hunting and is justification for shading the truth or leaving out that detail?

Personally, my inclination is to continue sharing a daily diary of hunt when I want, the way I want, and whatever happens ends up as part of the story. To me hard lessons learned and anguish experienced during a hunt are just part of it. Some hunts go like clockwork and some get more sideways than we would hope for. In retrospect I wonder if I had written up my moose hunt only after the hunt ended what I would have said about the wounding loss. Believe I would have discussed, but it is a painful memory from the hunt even today, so who can really say.

Earnest perspectives appreciated. Tough question because it deos kinda ask 'How would or have you handled it previously.'

One question I had was you seemed to imply, at least I took it that way, that the first one you shot was found by someone. Was the the case?

I’ve always questioned the draw blood you have to punch a tag laws. It’s such a self policing thing and IMO all but impossible to enforce. That said for idahos big 3 tags I think I could support it. The opportunity on those tags is so limited and animal populations generally pretty small that wounding loss and continuing to hunt really could effect someone else’s opportunities in the future.

 

[DFS]

Absolutely agree and why I won't be supporting a type-longrangeahole only weapon tag type either.

Should also be against the law for the long range yahoo's to shoot another animal as well.

I will argue all day long with you that its wayyyy less likely for a careful rifle hunter to lose an animal than a careful archery hunter. Primitive weapons just aren't as lethal and much less likely for the hunter to be able to get a quick follow up shot(s) if things go bad. Just a fact.

I can’t disagree with that, the amount of careful rifle hunters seems to be declining faster than our mule deer herd though.

 

[Khunter]

I've wanted to comment on your hunt and you seem to want people to...so...

Here's what I think.


2. I believe you aren't willing to accept the responsibility and possible outcome that you self imposed on yourself to hunt a large animal with a bow. You had a choice to use other weapons that are much less likely to have an unfavorable outcome. I have no problem with people wanting more of a challenge by limiting their weapon type, I do have a problem with not accepting ALL the responsibility that comes with that limitation. Part of that should be a requirement that when you draw blood, its done whether you find that animal or not.

3. I do believe you didn't put any thought into how you shooting 2 animals likely meant someone else with the tag didn't get to shoot 1. If you did, I can't recall you ever mentioning that. IMO, that needs to be a consideration, how your actions impact other hunters with that same tag.

4. I'm not sure why the need to shoot another, you weren't going to starve to death or even go without moose meat since you had a second tag in CO for moose.

Finally, I'm not condemning your for shooting 2 as its not illegal (although in my mind should be), and its a personal decision.

What it has reinforced for me, is that I will do everything in my power to NEVER allow an archery only tag to be issued in Wyoming for a big-5 species or really for any other species either (Type 9 elk for example). If the average bowhunter is just going to continue to keep shooting enough animals until they actually find one, well, I'm inclined to not support that non-sense via archery specific tags.

Hunting with a primitive weapon should have consequences for the hunter, because it clearly has consequences for the wildlife and other hunters.

Thanks for responding. These are all fine as they are your opinion, although don't quit your day job to be a mind reader because you read me incorrectly in your assumptions of what I am thinking. You also did not address what I actually invited. Clearly you are in the draw blood/punch tag camp. Personally I would be fine with such a change in regulations. You already stated that position earlier in this thread? Great, so let's move on. Thoughts on 1/3/4?

1) Do you support telling it like it is, whatever it is, as long as it was legal? If you lost a wounded animal and continued hunting don't shade the truth and go ahead and own it publicly?

3) Do you support the notion the wounding should not be mentioned at all online and in essence better to shade the truth of how the hunt actually transpired? Basically write up the full hunt and leave out the wounding and loss?

4) Do you think honest accounting on a hunt forum of a wounding loss, genuine effort to retrieve and then continued hunting the tag afterward actually harms hunting and is justification for shading the truth or leaving out that detail?

 

[JLS]

1. Yes
3. No
4. No, so long as it is approached with humility.

 

[BuzzH]

Thanks for responding. These are all fine as they are your opinion, although don't quit your day job to be a mind reader because you read me incorrectly in your assumptions of what I am thinking. You also did not address what I actually invited. Clearly you are in the draw blood/punch tag camp. Personally I would be fine with such a change in regulations. You already stated that position earlier in this thread? Great, so let's move on. Thoughts on 1/3/4?

1) Do you support telling it like it is, whatever it is, as long as it was legal? If you lost a wounded animal and continued hunting don't shade the truth and go ahead and own it publicly?

3) Do you support the notion the wounding should not be mentioned at all online and in essence better to shade the truth of how the hunt actually transpired? Basically write up the full hunt and leave out the wounding and loss?

4) Do you think honest accounting on a hunt forum of a wounding loss, genuine effort to retrieve and then continued hunting the tag afterward actually harms hunting and is justification for shading the truth or leaving out that detail?

1) Yes, no use hiding from things like that when they happen. I think if you're going to continue hunting after wounding and losing one, you better expect criticism and a healthy dose of it. Rightfully so, IMO.

3)I think it should absolutely be mentioned and like I said in 1...no use hiding the truth. The only person you'd by lying to (shading the truth from) is yourself if you choose not to mention it.

4)Yes I do believe it harms hunting because you had a choice and took the option to kill 2. Like I already said in my last post you made the decision to, at the very least, harm another hunters chances at an animal by killing 2. You've also made the decision to harm the total wildlife population by taking an additional animal.

Frankly, I don't believe you care what anyone else thinks, you did what you wanted, were fair in the reporting of it. Some are going to be fine with it, some think you didn't make the right call, me being one of them. I don't have to live with your decision, but I can use it to form my future decision making process when it comes to opposing archery only tags...which I will do.

 

[Schaaf]

1) Do you support telling it like it is, whatever it is, as long as it was legal? If you lost a wounded animal and continued hunting don't shade the truth and go ahead and own it publicly?

Yes.

2) Do you share fairly detailed hunt narratives on HT? I think that matters as a grouping factor for responses to the below. Frankly a lot less interested in response to the below from folks who never 'put themselves out there' but instead merely comment on or judge those who do step up to share hunt stories but avoid facing the same scrutiny.

I rarely post entire hunt recaps although do provide bits and pieces over the year. If asked, I would gladly provide a yearly recap with photos and stories. More than any other reason, the main reason I don't include many photos from my hunt is born out of a desire to protect the areas I hunt from google earth hawks and free loaders.

3) Do you support the notion the wounding should not be mentioned at all online and in essence better to shade the truth of how the hunt actually transpired? Basically write up the full hunt and leave out the wounding and loss?

No. I don't believe presenting a false narrative provides any benefit in the long run.

4) Do you think honest accounting on a hunt forum of a wounding loss, genuine effort to retrieve and then continued hunting the tag afterward actually harms hunting and is justification for shading the truth or leaving out that detail?

I think a honest effort to retrieve a wounded animal is commendable from every viewpoint. The decision to continue hunting afterwards opens the door to criticism from a portion of hunters and probably a majority of nonhunters.


Up until 2019 I had never wounded an animal. On September 27th, I put an arrow through this guy's liver at 47 yards. I found the bloody arrow 150 yards away after it was pulled out from the other side confirming chunks of liver.


I spent 10 out of the next 14 days gridding the area with close friends looking for him with no luck. On the second day of searching for him, I had this guy at 43 yards away with my bow in hand and I never thought about nocking an arrow.

I was confident I had killed an elk. Since that day, I bet I've spent 45+ days looking for him and still haven't found him. I have found a total of 7 other dead bulls in that area that were unrecovered. One was a 6 point bull that must have been shot in the last week of archery. I found him the opening week of rifle season and he had been dead for a few days at that point.


A few years before that my brother shot a Whitetail buck on the river bottom that I knew was a poor hit. I think I may have shared that story on here but I ended up finding that deer on the far side of an island in about 2 feet of water with just his g3 and g4 sticking above the water. I pulled him back to shore with my Kayak in December.

My personal opinion is that if I shoot an animal and am unable to recover the animal, Im done hunting on that license.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Question:

1) Do you support telling it like it is, whatever it is, as long as it was legal? If you lost a wounded animal and continued hunting don't shade the truth and go ahead and own it publicly?

Yes. I support telling it like it is even if its illegal. Since we are all going to judge one another according to their actions, might as well get the full, unvarnished truth.

2) Do you share fairly detailed hunt narratives on HT? I think that matters as a grouping factor for responses to the below. Frankly a lot less interested in response to the below from folks who never 'put themselves out there' but instead merely comment on or judge those who do step up to share hunt stories but avoid facing the same scrutiny.

No. I personally find the play-by-play hunt narratives to be akin to putting my nuts in a bench vise.

3) Do you support the notion the wounding should not be mentioned at all online and in essence better to shade the truth of how the hunt actually transpired? Basically write up the full hunt and leave out the wounding and loss?

No.

4) Do you think honest accounting on a hunt forum of a wounding loss, genuine effort to retrieve and then continued hunting the tag afterward actually harms hunting and is justification for shading the truth or leaving out that detail?

No. Telling the truth can cause emotional pain but in the end will allow people to make better choices. (Hopefully) What causes harms to the resource and other hunters is intentionally choosing to use a harder to kill with weapon, knowingly mortally wounding an animal, not finding it (regardless of the effort) and then putting full force into killing another one.

 

[44hunter45]

Question:

Since I posted here on HT the plain truth about having wounded and lost a moose in 2022, despite using two diff tracking dogs on two days and 3+ days trying to find the critter. And then continued the hunt versus choosing to punch the tag. No reason to doubt the moose died, seeing the initial blood, just flat out could not find it.

I definitely received some negative reactions from a few folks, some were outright jerks and just throwing barbs in the hunt thread and via PM. Some merely stated their uninvited view that they would punch a tag if wounded an animal and failed to find it--I have no problem with that as we all make different and equally valid decisions. Not sure if it was because the animal in question was a Big 3 (Moose) that the knee jerk, (pun intended for a couple clowns) reaction and trolling of me that ensued on unrelated threads and even on other hunt forums, or if they would have acted out similarly if it was a deer etc instead of a big 3 critter. One clown trolled me here AND on two other forums cuz he just had to make sure the world knew about the wounding. Do not know the guy and never interacted with him other than his being a troll on this topic.

What are folks thoughts, when you are sharing a hunt story here, on fessing up or not and why, about a wounding and loss and continuing to hunt.


1) Do you support telling it like it is, whatever it is, as long as it was legal? If you lost a wounded animal and continued hunting don't shade the truth and go ahead and own it publicly?

2) Do you share fairly detailed hunt narratives on HT? I think that matters as a grouping factor for responses to the below. Frankly a lot less interested in response to the below from folks who never 'put themselves out there' but instead merely comment on or judge those who do step up to share hunt stories but avoid facing the same scrutiny.

3) Do you support the notion the wounding should not be mentioned at all online and in essence better to shade the truth of how the hunt actually transpired? Basically write up the full hunt and leave out the wounding and loss?

4) Do you think honest accounting on a hunt forum of a wounding loss, genuine effort to retrieve and then continued hunting the tag afterward actually harms hunting and is justification for shading the truth or leaving out that detail?

Personally, my inclination is to continue sharing a daily diary of hunt when I want, the way I want, and whatever happens ends up as part of the story. To me hard lessons learned and anguish experienced during a hunt are just part of it. Some hunts go like clockwork and some get more sideways than we would hope for. In retrospect I wonder if I had written up my moose hunt only after the hunt ended what I would have said about the wounding loss. Believe I would have discussed, but it is a painful memory from the hunt even today, so who can really say.

Earnest perspectives appreciated. Tough question because it deos kinda ask 'How would or have you handled it previously.'

Since you asked.

I was very plain about drawing blood on a cow elk in 2022. I was inside 100 yards with a rifle and should have been a chip shot. How would I handle it differently? No more neck shots for me. If I had put it into her lungs it would be over now. I needed to examine myself and realize that I had bought into the lie that I was a good enough marksman that I could do the shot. The truth is that the margin of error is so much slimmer that you taking a risk. I used that shot within my confidence zone for decade. But losing even one animal is too much for pride in your marksmanship. @Greenhorn gave me shit a time or two for taking neck shots. You know, he was 100% right.
I've bared my mistakes and the lessons learned.

1. I spent a lot of time looking for the cow and concluded that it was not a lethal hit.
2. My season changed from hunting for ANY cow to hunting for THAT cow. My tag was valid for any sex archery, but
3. I firmly believe that if you can afford an out-of-state hunt you are not going to starve if you do not bring home meat. If you are that poor, don't buy an out of state moose tag, buy a side of beef. You should punch your tag.
4. I am running something like 20 antlered moose draw applications in Idaho and have never drawn. That someone from out of state drew a tag and then killed two chaps me pretty hard. I won't lose any sleep if that hurts your feelings. You made specific choices that led to your wounding and losing a bull. If you are convinced you are right, stand up straight and take a little shit for it. It is quite possible the tag quota in your GMU would have been reduced if the quota had been exceeded. You should be glad that no one else punched a tag.
5. I will always, for myself, limit myself to hunting for the animal I wounded, be it found alive or dead. Even if I get a gimme shot, I will not tag another animal. I had two legal cows inside of 50 yards in the late MZ season and did not shoot. At that point I do not even know if the cow I wounded earlier would be easily identifiable. But you make you rules before you go out, and you stick with them.
6. I'm not better than you, but I'm being honest when I say my feeling about your thread was that it was a shit show. I'm not the kind of person who will buzzkill those that liked it. But it felt to me like I had my hat in my hand while you were throwing your hat in the air.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I've never continued hunting after shooting/wounding another one that I thought was mortally wounded. Unless you count bears - I see no reason to elaborate, right or wrong.

I've lost 2 whitetails and 1 mule deer hit with arrows, never continued to hunt or fill those licenses. I've hit 3 elk that were not recovered, one in the hock, one in the shoulder blade and one low in the brisket(rifle). I don't believe any of them died from their wounds. One, in fact was later killed by a friend i was hunting with.

When you shoot bullets or razor tipped arrows at animals, sometimes shit goes south, even when the conditions, angle, ranges, practice, and confidence are all there.

I could have easily been in @Khunter's shoes with MT bighorn sheep a couple years ago. I hit the my ram poorly, even though calm and 100% confident with the shot. Although I didn't have to shoot him again, I had to track him 1/2 mile and thankfully had good snow for it. It could have easily ended differently. I don't think I would have tried to shoot another ram, but I might have shot myself. I didn't see any useful reason to add those details on hunttalk at the time.

 

[woods89]

This is a fascinating topic.

I'm a Midwestern guy, who has hunted some in the West. To me it's impossible to separate population dynamics from this discussion. I get whitetail doe tags for $7 here, am I going to feel strongly about leaving that license unfilled if I can't recover one? Probably not, although it's still very important to avoid that outcome if at all possible.

I can completely see the other side of the issue if it's a population of highly sought after animals with low population numbers. A quota system would probably make the issue even more sticky. A part of me hates to see this become a legal issue, though, although I'm not sure why? Maybe it's because lost animals run a spectrum, not all situations are the same.

I've also been trying to understand my feelings about bowhunting. I would not be anywhere near as astute a whitetail hunter if I had not bowhunted for the last 10-15 years, as there is now way to get that amount of time in the woods with a rifle. But I can't shake the opinion that, although the responsibility is certainly on the hunter, bowhunting is a messier endeavor than using modern firearms. And I have shot a lot of arrows in practice, although with kids it has become harder. It just seems like the uncertainties really pile up with archery gear.

I spent one slow evening in a tree last fall wondering why I have a tendency to look down on crossbows. Here I was feeling like I was on some moral high ground with my vertical compound, when the truth was that 1, my family will eat all the deer I can kill in a fall, 2, it would be 100% legal, and 3, I would almost certainly be eliminating some unknowns that at times lead to bad outcomes. It's certainly shaken some of my feelings about limiting effectiveness. I have admittedly swung more towards rifle hunting in the last 5 years or so, partially because I feel quite a bit more effective with one, and partially because I just really like shooting and hunting with rifles.

 

[RealMuddyboots]

This subject has always been a heart ache for me whether local deer hunting or out west. The "ethical" aspect of this thought has several layers depending on the person. The shot distance is irrelevant, oh craps happen at any distance. The basic assumption for me is a hunter takes a shot they are capable due to equipment and practice. The hey you shot is always going to be there from those who do not subscribe to basic ethical hunting standards. Even doing all the right things, there are so many variables outside our control, wounding is always a potential outcome. The next layer is how far, how long does a hunter pursue the animal? Does the hunter have "sign" of a hit or just track? Does the animal exhibit normal behavior? Is the animal traveling with herd and not lagging? Some might say next layer is the center of this topic if you draw blood you are done. The cost of the tag, non resident expending extraordinary amount of time both personal and with as vacation. Limited draw? One time draw?
I have my own personal standard but I cannot expect someone else to abide by what I have decided what is right for me. There are far too many "right" answers for each individual and I just don't feel like my ethics can be shoved down anyone else's throat.

Outfitters that I have hunted with had draw blood and done. Perfectly fine with their position.

Me personally? If I feel I made mortal shot and failed to recover no matter the circumstances, I would eat the tag. But its not my right to demand anyone else to follow my personal path. Besides that path can get rocky at times....

 

[The Hedgehog]

Better to be safe story…

I was hunting elk with a pal who had a coveted rifle elk permit in 2013. He called opening day of rifle to tell me he'd shot a giant (400++) bull we'd seen during archery and was not finding it. I was hunting with my son elsewhere but I went the next week to help him look for that bull with my girlfriend. We looked everywhere and found no trace of blood, animal, signs of a hit. We spend a full day looking. It was relatively open country. We were convinced he'd just missed. We hunted with him the next day and got into a large group (dozen or more) of bulls, very close. Some we couldn't see, just some antler tips over the hill. My friend was ready to get it over with, and asked which one was the biggest. I suggested waiting until we could see all of them. He didn't want that, and got a solid rest over a rock and lined up on the largest bull we could see, a pretty fair 6 point. At 100 yards I watched for reaction from the bull when he shot and saw nothing. The elk started up over the hill in a mob. A minute later the bulls we couldn't initially see behind the hill stepped out to the left. One was a heavy antlered monster. It stood broadside for quite sometime, and we all looked at each other - "Well, that was maybe not the best idea." My pal reaffirmed his choice, in that he was happy, his hunt was over, it had been a long difficult season, lots of time archery and rifle hunting, etc. Several hours later, we concluded that he once again, completely missed a bull elk with his rifle.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

But its not my right to demand anyone else to follow my personal path.

This is not directed at you specifically @RealMuddyboots , but conceptually, isn’t it our right to a certain extent?

I advocate for policies that line up with my point of view and expectations for other hunters’ actions. I advocate against those that don’t. I don’t really feel like that’s out of line.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Question:

Since I posted here on HT the plain truth about having wounded and lost a moose in 2022, despite using two diff tracking dogs on two days and 3+ days trying to find the critter. And then continued the hunt versus choosing to punch the tag. No reason to doubt the moose died, seeing the initial blood, just flat out could not find it.

I definitely received some negative reactions from a few folks, some were outright jerks and just throwing barbs in the hunt thread and via PM. Some merely stated their uninvited view that they would punch a tag if wounded an animal and failed to find it--I have no problem with that as we all make different and equally valid decisions. Not sure if it was because the animal in question was a Big 3 (Moose) that the knee jerk, (pun intended for a couple clowns) reaction and trolling of me that ensued on unrelated threads and even on other hunt forums, or if they would have acted out similarly if it was a deer etc instead of a big 3 critter. One clown trolled me here AND on two other forums cuz he just had to make sure the world knew about the wounding. Do not know the guy and never interacted with him other than his being a troll on this topic.

What are folks thoughts, when you are sharing a hunt story here, on fessing up or not and why, about a wounding and loss and continuing to hunt.


1) Do you support telling it like it is, whatever it is, as long as it was legal? If you lost a wounded animal and continued hunting don't shade the truth and go ahead and own it publicly?

2) Do you share fairly detailed hunt narratives on HT? I think that matters as a grouping factor for responses to the below. Frankly a lot less interested in response to the below from folks who never 'put themselves out there' but instead merely comment on or judge those who do step up to share hunt stories but avoid facing the same scrutiny.

3) Do you support the notion the wounding should not be mentioned at all online and in essence better to shade the truth of how the hunt actually transpired? Basically write up the full hunt and leave out the wounding and loss?

4) Do you think honest accounting on a hunt forum of a wounding loss, genuine effort to retrieve and then continued hunting the tag afterward actually harms hunting and is justification for shading the truth or leaving out that detail?

Personally, my inclination is to continue sharing a daily diary of hunt when I want, the way I want, and whatever happens ends up as part of the story. To me hard lessons learned and anguish experienced during a hunt are just part of it. Some hunts go like clockwork and some get more sideways than we would hope for. In retrospect I wonder if I had written up my moose hunt only after the hunt ended what I would have said about the wounding loss. Believe I would have discussed, but it is a painful memory from the hunt even today, so who can really say.

Earnest perspectives appreciated. Tough question because it deos kinda ask 'How would or have you handled it previously.'

1) Yes
2) No
3) No
4) No

Like others, aspects of your moose hunt haven't sat well with me. But I wasn't in your shoes and honestly am not sure how I would have handled it. I do appreciate the fact that you are open about it, and that you posted this post. I am not a "notch your tag if you draw blood" hunter, but I think it depends on how bad I believe the wound to be.

 

[elkduds]

I spent 10 out of the next 14 days gridding the area with close friends looking for him with no luck. On the second day of searching for him, I had this guy at 43 yards away with my bow in hand and I never thought about nocking an arrow.
View attachment 270145
I was confident I had killed an elk. Since that day, I bet I've spent 45+ days looking for him and still haven't found him. I have found a total of 7 other dead bulls in that area that were unrecovered. One was a 6 point bull that must have been shot in the last week of archery. I found him the opening week of rifle season and he had been dead for a few days at that point.
View attachment 270143



My personal opinion is that if I shoot an animal and am unable to recover the animal, Im done hunting on that license.

The high # of unrecovered (by others) animals I've found while hunting is the 1st reason I'm adamant about reducing wounding. Including this wasted buck I took home for the rack. Shot once through gut and chest during 2nd rifle season in CO unit 471. Some kid volunteered for the grip/grin.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I've got a friend that wounded 4 or 5 bull elk during a single archery season in the canyon south of town. This was over a dozen years ago when there were some elk around. I think the only tough part about it, for him, was not tagging one to take it home.

 

[232401a]

....

4) Do you think honest accounting on a hunt forum of a wounding loss, genuine effort to retrieve and then continued hunting the tag afterward actually harms hunting and is justification for shading the truth or leaving out that detail?

Yes, because the non-hunters and anti-hunters are also reading the thread where you killed two bull moose and the other four hunters killed zero moose. Non-hunters and anti-hunters vastly outnumber you and are involved in the process of regulating hunting and will use your thread as Exhibit A for the next regulation on wounding (or worse).

Did you kill two moose because you are a better hunter than the other four tagholders that all went home empty in your unit? Maybe one of them would have been able to tag out if you hadn't killed an extra bull? Those four guys were almost surely Idaho residents - they probably didn't need an NR rolling in for a two-fer.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Yes, because the non-hunters and anti-hunters are also reading the thread where you killed two bull moose and the other four hunters killed zero moose. Non-hunters and anti-hunters vastly outnumber you and are involved in the process of regulating hunting and will use your thread as Exhibit A for the next regulation on wounding (or worse).

Did you kill two moose because you are a better hunter than the other four tagholders that all went home empty in your unit? Maybe one of them would have been able to tag out if you hadn't killed an extra bull? Those four guys were almost surely Idaho residents - they probably didn't need an NR rolling in for a two-fer.

Says the Troll who shares his low criminal fine rationale for poaching animals in Wyoming wilderness areas..

 

[RealMuddyboots]

This is not directed at you specifically @RealMuddyboots , but conceptually, isn’t it our right to a certain extent?

I advocate for policies that line up with my point of view and expectations for other hunters’ actions. I advocate against those that don’t. I don’t really feel like that’s out of line.

So a persons POV is 100% "right" for everyone else to follow? Seriously? Where do you want to start? Electronics? Long range hunting? Bullets? Archery? Crossbows? ATV's? E-Bikes? You hunt your way, I will hunt mine.

There is only one POV that is right and hopefully I will meet him some day.