Stolen Opportunities....a very sad elk tale. We must do better!

[wyoelkfan15]

I'm in support of regulations like this. I think overall it would help reduce wounding mortality. I do wonder how effective it would be, especially with the further commoditization of our wildlife, an elk tag in Wyoming is likely going to cost non-residents upwards of $2000. How many guys paying that much money for an out of state tag are going to adhere to a draw-blood law, knowing how much money they have into it.

 

[Addicting]

I've had to ask this of myself, and I rhetorically ask it here, "When something goes wrong, even though I was 99% sure when I pulled the trigger or released the arrow, and I spent hours or days looking for that animal, do I deserve to hit as many animals as I want, until it all finally goes right? If so, how many do I deserve to hit and not recover before it is no longer appropriate, one, two, four, six, more?"

Deserve is the wrong word, same as comparing percentage to public safety crimes.

The second part is it depends. What % of harvest did the Biologist allocate to wounding loss?

You support science in all the other things you do. Please start this conversation there before talking to a Legislator.

I agree with others that Education may be your Huckleberry verses a law.

 

[Raisin Bran]

I find it hard to believe a law imposed to stop people from wounding/not recovering game would have stiffer penalties than already in the books poaching laws.

I do not see how this (just like any other game laws) will stop someone from lobbing shots into a herd of elk. Not to mention have enough evidence to stand up in a court of law. Would I punch my tag if it was in the book? Yep.

This will have a far greater impact on those of us doing everything right versus those guys who are thinking, “I don’t know… let’s send one and see what happens.”

Fair assessment however going back to the original story on this thread that started the conversation if you recall, the hunters were identified and admitted to being there and sending the shots. So in this particular case a law would work. In theory.

 

[Addicting]

Fair assessment however going back to the original story on this thread that started the conversation if you recall, the hunters were identified and admitted to being there and sending the shots. So in this particular case a law would work. In theory.

Not if they didn’t know they hit a different animal, which they didn’t. This proposed law wouldn’t effect that situation at all.

 

[FREAK]

Good to hear comments counter to what I've proposed. A common statement is that the law would be unenforceable.

Since wardens tell us they think they catch less than 5% of poaching crimes, using that same "it's unenforceable" rationale, it seems we should get rid of season dates, bag limits, restrictions on party hunting, shooting from highways, wanton waste, and most of our other rules, as 95% of people who violate those laws are not getting caught. There's not a lot on our books, whether hunting related or otherwise, that has a high apprehension rate.

Laws build the social norms, expectations, and help form the behavior of 98% of the citizens who follow our laws. Laws change as society and behavior changes. Maybe I live in a different world, but in my adult life, the trend toward long-bombing with any hunting tool, bow/muzzy/shotgun/rifle, has increased dramatically and our laws that represent the social norms for hunting have not kept up with this new trend that seems to make it cool to brag about how long of a shot someone made (even if we don't hear about how many wounded animals it took to finally recover one). Maybe I'm an old school putz, but I'm sick of the shit I hear and see and the impact that is having on the resource. And there is no doubt the folks who produce media content around long shots at living targets have a lot of responsibility for this change in hunting behavior and the ever-evolving norms and expectations of hunting.

If we are going to deem laws unnecessary due to something less than 100% apprehension, what laws would be deemed worthy? Only 6% of rapists ever spend a day in jail and I doubt anyone wants to lessen the laws related to that crime.

The idea of such a proposal is not that it will keep 100% of the people from shooting a second, third, or fourth elk or deer. But, it will probably keep 80% of people from killing that second, third, or fourth elk or deer if something goes bad. It will also give people reason to learn more about tracking a hit animal. We all hear of folks who say, "I looked all over hell after the shot" yet when you piece together their timeline for the rest of their story/day, they looked for about a half hour. Given the increase in total wounding loss as more and more folks overestimate their talents, this idea, even with 50% compliance, would results in a lot more animals still standing and making it through hunting season. That's a help to the resource.

As far as reducing the technology of our hunting tools, that's not going to change the tendency for people to push the limits of whatever technology they have in their hands, which is mostly a case of them pushing the limits of what their individual talent is with the item in their hands, whether a bow, rifle, or muzzleloader. If we made it all traditional self-made bows using cedar arrows or only single shot rifles, with slow cartridges, and buckhorn sights, folks will take shots beyond what their talent level is with that type of tool. And many current hunters would not go look for the wounded one, so long as they can just move along and find another victim.

The point of this is setting the expectation that you need to know your talents and stay well within that talent under whatever conditions you encounter. And, if something does go wrong, as it eventually will, the rest of your hunt is a recovery exercise, not a search for the next animal.

I look forward to more discussion on the idea. I could be convinced otherwise with a compelling argument as to why it will not help the resource that is currently being pressured at an intense level. To this point, I'm still going to meet with some legislators in December about the idea.

I'd be interested in how this idea would be viewed by @Eric Albus and @Big Shooter.

I wouldn't view this law as a "punishment" rather an unecessary over-regulation. I haven't bought ground beef in 5 years, my family prefers elk, including my parents, in-laws, grandparents, friends, ect. Getting an elk every year on public land is hard enough as is. It would be a shame if I couldn't provide that for them beacuse of this law. I've "drawn blood" and with 100% certainy have known it was a non-fatal shot, decided to keep hunting. I've also had where I hit them what I think is fatal and decided that was my tag for the year. I'd rather keep the law as "a harvested animal is a punched tag", and allow social pressures and personal ethics to drive a hunters decsion on weather or not they hang it up for the year. These guys aren't the norm they're horn thirsty unethical hunters that don't respect the game they're pursuing.

What I'd like to see more is the social media guys take the lead and stop lobbing bullets 450,500,600 yards as if it's the new norm for shooting. When you have video's with 100K views you should take that responsibility serious and really consider the influence of that content. The "like" button is what causes people to do dumb stuff and loose their mind over a nice 6 point. Archery shots on quartering too elk and deer, "im good out to 50", "I can't explain what happened," the list goes on and on, almost every other video has something like this. The content online that normalizes this shit is the real problem. My dad's generation would shoot stuff to feed the family. The horns often got cut off and left in the yard as a lawn decoration. My 85 year old neighbor growing up used to hunt north of the musselshell river in Montana. They had a huge ranch up there before he moved out east and settled in Ohio. He told me they would aim for the head to minimize wasted meat and leave the antlers in the field as the women "didn't want those dirty things around the house." Now you see 3x4 raghorns hanging over guys fireplaces, what's caused such a shift?

I'd be more interested in a law that charges social media influencers a HEFTY fee if they create content for profit exploiting public land, public land game, or any other resource owned by the people. That would be a law i'd get behind in a heart beat. This law seems a bit self rightous, and creates more regulation for the guys that hunt for the original purpose of hunting: MEAT!

Let me keep providing elk for my family and do my best to make ethical shots/decisions when afield. As you know the average Joe with family, work, and other obligations doesn't need another law making it harder to get meat in the freezer.

 

[Big Fin]

What % of harvest did the Biologist allocate to wounding loss?

You support science in all the other things you do. Please start this conversation there before talking to a Legislator.

I've done that. Been talking to biologists about it for a long time. The more I talk to them, the more it convinces me that hunters probably don't want to know the number and we don't want the public to know the number.

Since MT FWP doesn't have data on hardly anything, they're not going to be much of a source for wounding loss information. Here is former FWP biologist for 33 years, well respected, and now managing a ranch and he is accumulating research on such.

Craig's link here - https://www.mpgranch.com/dispatches/wounding-loss-during-big-game-hunting-season

For those who find it TLDR, here is something Craig wrote.

Data collected during research designed to record wounding loss for deer and elk ranges from 15 to 30%. That means for every 100 deer or elk killed by hunters, 15-30 of those animals die, unrecovered due to wounding loss.
Montana biologists compiled hunter harvest information from 262 radio-collared cow elk and 40 radio-collared bull elk. They identified seven cows and eight bulls as hunter-caused wounding losses. However, identifying the source of mortalities on radio-collared elk was not the primary goal of these telemetry projects; hence these data are anecdotal at best.
Information becomes scarcer regarding deer or elk wounded by hunters but surviving those wounds. They may live a full life, or injury may compromise their ability to evade predation. We don’t know.
Occasionally wounding is an ‘unforced error’. An arrow in flight hits a twig. A rifle scope’s zero-point shifts when a hunter falls and bounces it on the rocks. We don’t control much in the great outdoors. Unfortunate situations happen.

How many of those 15-30% would have thought about their shot selection more if it was not easy to just move on to the next one? How many would have worked harder on their recovery if they knew they couldn't shoot another one? We'll never know.

Yet, if extrapolate those numbers, or any other numbers from the studies on wounding loss, to the amount of recorded harvest data, even at half that rate, and I think the biologists are justified in factoring in wounding loss in their calculations.

 

[mtmuley]

You want us to trust Montana biologists? I know where I am, I don't. And how do they go about calculating wounded and lost game numbers? mtmuley

 

[TheJason]

I trust Craig more than about 99% of the folks on this forum.

 

[TheJason]

Not if they didn’t know they hit a different animal, which they didn’t. This proposed law wouldn’t affect that situation at all.

There is already a law on the books making their situation a violation. Read the link I posted above.

 

[TheJason]

I've done that. Been talking to biologists about it for a long time. The more I talk to them, the more it convinces me that hunters probably don't want to know the number and we don't want the public to know the number.

I would absolutely support a law requiring follow up on a shot. Hard to enforce? Yep. However I get tired of reading the same stupid comments about “hunters sticking together”, yet we bitch and moan about someone proposing we up our game.

How does Alaska FG feel about their black bear law? It’s been on the books for over a decade.

 

[mtmuley]

I trust Craig more than about 99% of the folks on this forum.

Of course you do. I liked him when here in R2. He hasn't been a biologist for a long time. Runs the MPG. I don't think calculating wounding loss is an exact science. And I don't think we need a law. mtmuley

 

[Addicting]

How many of those 15-30% would have thought about their shot selection more if it was not easy to just move on to the next one? How many would have worked harder on their recovery if they knew they couldn't shoot another one? We'll never know.

Yet, if extrapolate those numbers, or any other numbers from the studies on wounding loss, to the amount of recorded harvest data, even at half that rate, and I think the biologists are justified in factoring in wounding loss in their calculations.

I don’t think it’s easy for anyone to just move on to the next. Just as his article talks about, none of us want to wound one and we struggle with it. I would imagine those in that small percentage who don’t may have other mental health issues at play.

He doesn’t recommend a law to fix the problem, he recommends practice. Actually getting real numbers from mandatory game surveys would be the first step. Then integrate that data into hunters Ed. Make all hunters do a quick online class like they do with bear identification or wolf trapping. I bet you get better results than the quagmire a new ethics law creates.

 

[TheJason]

I don’t think it’s easy for anyone to just move on to the next. Just as his article talks about, none of us want to wound one and we struggle with it. I would imagine those in that small percentage who don’t may have other mental health issues at play.

He doesn’t recommend a law to fix the problem, he recommends practice. Actually getting real numbers from mandatory game surveys would be the first step. Then integrate that data into hunters Ed. Make all hunters do a quick online class like they do with bear identification or wolf trapping. I bet you get better results than the quagmire a new ethics law creates.

Based on the number of folks I’ve watched unload a barrage on a herd of elk and then never walk over to look for blood, I think you are highly misjudging how much this bothers hunters.

 

[mtmuley]

How in the Hell do guys see so much evidence of hunters releasing a "barrage" of bullets on game? mtmuley

 

[Big Fin]

What I'd like to see more is the social media guys take the lead and stop lobbing bullets 450,500,600 yards as if it's the new norm for shooting. When you have video's with 100K views you should take that responsibility serious and really consider the influence of that content. The "like" button is what causes people to do dumb stuff and loose their mind over a nice 6 point. Archery shots on quartering too elk and deer, "im good out to 50", "I can't explain what happened," the list goes on and on, almost every other video has something like this. The content online that normalizes this shit is the real problem. My dad's generation would shoot stuff to feed the family. The horns often got cut off and left in the yard as a lawn decoration. My 85 year old neighbor growing up used to hunt north of the musselshell river in Montana. They had a huge ranch up there before he moved out east and settled in Ohio. He told me they would aim for the head to minimize wasted meat and leave the antlers in the field as the women "didn't want those dirty things around the house." Now you see 3x4 raghorns hanging over guys fireplaces, what's caused such a shift?

I agree with all of that. I hope you take that up with the folks who are promoting such on their platforms. And the ranges you are stating are on the low end of many of those content platforms.

I'd be more interested in a law that charges social media influencers a HEFTY fee if they create content for profit exploiting public land, public land game, or any other resource owned by the people. That would be a law i'd get behind in a heart beat. This law seems a bit self rightous, and creates more regulation for the guys that hunt for the original purpose of hunting: MEAT!

I don't consider myself a "social media influencer," but I think you are directing that comment at me. If that became the as you want it to be, I'd follow the law, just like I do with the current HEFTY fees I pay for filming on public land. Too bad the compliance rate on film permits is single digits. Given the rationale some have used here you might get push back from them, "Why do we even have this kind of film permit law when compliance is less than 10% and it only impacts guys who follow the rules?"

I think we should have those film permit rules and I'm over $250K in film permit fees since we started this gig. And yeah, it pisses me off when others don't do comply. If you want to work to raise compliance on those existing rules, count me in.

I wouldn't label Alaskans as self-righteous for actually doing something about wounding of bears when they passed this type of law. Alaskans were concerned about what wounding and people continuing to hunt was doing to their bear resource, so they did something about it.

If you want to make this a personal debate about me and our platforms, knock yourself out. I'm floating the idea out there for feedback and discussion. So far, given how defensive some people have gotten in their replies, I'm more convinced to seek change rather than less convinced. Nobody has provided any data that shows wounding loss is NOT a factor biologists take into account to manage the big game resource, yet they ask me to show that it is a factor. When I show that information, then it's not good enough science.

Ok, I get it. Carry on...........

I'll keep folks updated here on HT as to whether or not I find sponsor(s) for this idea and whether or not a compelling case is made that changes my mind.

 

[FREAK]

How in the Hell do guys see so much evidence of hunters releasing a "barrage" of bullets on game? mtmuley

I’m with you, especially when success on public land is around 15% (someone that knows the number please correct)…

 

[TheJason]

How in the Hell do guys see so much evidence of hunters releasing a "barrage" of bullets on game? mtmuley

If you know, you know.

 

[Addicting]

There is already a law on the books making their situation a violation. Read the link I posted above.

Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind."

You would have to prove he knew he was shooting at a different animal after he harvested one. Shooting like he did was stupid but proving he did it knowing or with reasonable belief he had already killed one in court is a whole different ball of wax.

I would say worse he could be charged with was wreck less discharge of a firearm.

 

[TheJason]

Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind."

You would have to prove he knew he was shooting at a different animal after he harvested one. Shooting like he did was stupid but proving he did it knowing or with reasonable belief he had already killed one in court is a whole different ball of wax.

I would say worse he could be charged with was wreck less discharge of a firearm.

You’re wrong. Do some reading on strict liability crimes.

 

[mtmuley]

If you know, you know.

Glad I don't. mtmuley