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

[TheJason]

I guess that’s why we have defense attorneys, prosecutors, and juries. I’ve been a LEO and wish stupidity was a crime but atlas it’s not.

Here is my defense, his bullet ricocheted after passing thru the first bull killing the second.

Prove me wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.

It. Doesn’t. Matter.

You may be an LEO but when it comes to this I’d say you don’t know what you don’t know.

Call FWP enforcement tomorrow and ask them if:

Over limit is strict liability and if shooting more than one elk is illegal.

 

[Addicting]

It. Doesn’t. Matter.

You may be an LEO but when it comes to this I’d say you don’t know what you don’t know.

Call FWP enforcement tomorrow and ask them if:

Over limit is strict liability and if shooting more than one elk is illegal.

You are right , it doesn’t matter.

 

[mtmuley]

I guess it largely depends on whether the legislature and FWP have any commitment and resolve to improve public land hunting. If they do, then from a resource standpoint this slides down the priority scale some. I’d they don’t, I think the importance increases.

Irrespective of resource impact, I absolutely think it’s the right think to do.

And you have seen the commitment to improve public land hunting here in Montana. This draw blood deal is way down the list. At least for me. mtmuley

 

[idahohuntr]

I do not support creating a law like this. I think honest hunters who make a rare mistake and put great effort into recovering their game should decide for themselves if they want to pursue another animal. It may even lead to lower recovery (and more animals killed) because now a hunter who doesn't see the animal fall in sight may be even less inclined to look for blood - and just report it as a 'clean miss'.

If we are going to start down the rabbit hole of legislating stuff like this - why not just set laws on the ranges people are allowed to shoot? Rifle - 250 yards max. Archery 40 yards max...would be easier to enforce...its obviously a rhetorical question and I'm not advocating for it, but I see such an 'ethical range law' the same as the proposed 'blood draw' rule.

And while I'm opining, I do think State's need to strictly regulate and/or eliminate tags used for commercial tv/media. All these content creators who have any kind of sponsor or produce content for $$ should be limited to a very tiny fraction of OTC/available tags and none for the limited draw/quota areas. Content creators buying limited tags and applying their entire staff, friends, family, etc. so they can produce some content needs to stop as it almost certainly has reduced opportunity for average jane/joe. This explosion in commercialization of hunting is a plague and we need to all but eliminate folks who are getting limited tags with the primary purpose of producing commercial content. As folks start engaging legislators in coming sessions this is an area I hope to see pushed. I know I'll be talking to my legislators.

 

[Raisin Bran]

I do not support creating a law like this. I think honest hunters who make a rare mistake and put great effort into recovering their game should decide for themselves if they want to pursue another animal. It may even lead to lower recovery (and more animals killed) because now a hunter who doesn't see the animal fall in sight may be even less inclined to look for blood - and just report it as a 'clean miss'.

If we are going to start down the rabbit hole of legislating stuff like this - why not just set laws on the ranges people are allowed to shoot? Rifle - 250 yards max. Archery 40 yards max...would be easier to enforce...its obviously a rhetorical question and I'm not advocating for it, but I see such an 'ethical range law' the same as the proposed 'blood draw' rule.

And while I'm opining, I do think State's need to strictly regulate and/or eliminate tags used for commercial tv/media. All these content creators who have any kind of sponsor or produce content for $$ should be limited to a very tiny fraction of OTC/available tags and none for the limited draw/quota areas. Content creators buying limited tags and applying their entire staff, friends, family, etc. so they can produce some content needs to stop as it almost certainly has reduced opportunity for average jane/joe. This explosion in commercialization of hunting is a plague and we need to all but eliminate folks who are getting limited tags with the primary purpose of producing commercial content. As folks start engaging legislators in coming sessions this is an area I hope to see pushed. I know I'll be talking to my legislators.

Laws aren’t made for honest, law abiding citizens!

This law that we are all theorizing on is for those that choose to do something less than above reproach of the normal established standard of conduct. Situational Ethics.

I really believe what we are seeing in hunting now days along the ethics front is a decline in the moral standards of our society. A willingness to look the other way because “you do you” is the normal mentality without any cause & effect.

 

[mtmuley]

I really believe what we are seeing in hunting now days along the ethics front is a decline in the moral standards of our society. A willingness to look the other way because “you do you” is the normal mentality without any cause & effect.

Yeah right. Stupid shit in hunting has been going on since hunting started. The decline of "ethics" ( hate the term) did not start these days. mtmuley

 

[FREAK]

I do not support creating a law like this. I think honest hunters who make a rare mistake and put great effort into recovering their game should decide for themselves if they want to pursue another animal. It may even lead to lower recovery (and more animals killed) because now a hunter who doesn't see the animal fall in sight may be even less inclined to look for blood - and just report it as a 'clean miss'.

If we are going to start down the rabbit hole of legislating stuff like this - why not just set laws on the ranges people are allowed to shoot? Rifle - 250 yards max. Archery 40 yards max...would be easier to enforce...its obviously a rhetorical question and I'm not advocating for it, but I see such an 'ethical range law' the same as the proposed 'blood draw' rule.

And while I'm opining, I do think State's need to strictly regulate and/or eliminate tags used for commercial tv/media. All these content creators who have any kind of sponsor or produce content for $$ should be limited to a very tiny fraction of OTC/available tags and none for the limited draw/quota areas. Content creators buying limited tags and applying their entire staff, friends, family, etc. so they can produce some content needs to stop as it almost certainly has reduced opportunity for average jane/joe. This explosion in commercialization of hunting is a plague and we need to all but eliminate folks who are getting limited tags with the primary purpose of producing commercial content. As folks start engaging legislators in coming sessions this is an area I hope to see pushed. I know I'll be talking to my legislators.

I wouldn’t loose any sleep if there wasn’t another camera toting YouTuber hunter in Montana shooting a bull at 700 yards . Not having elk meat for a year would be a tough one to swallow if the elk walked off with nothing but a flesh wound.

Sure; if it’s a sport animal like a bear but not one that provides some of the best meat in the world.

 

[Raisin Bran]

Yeah right. Stupid shit in hunting has been going on since hunting started. The decline of "ethics" ( hate the term) did not start these days. mtmuley

Really…..? Out of your own mouth you admitted to hating ethics (hate the term)….??? You must of spoke in haste without really thinking that one through? I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[mtmuley]

Really…..? Out of your own mouth you admitted to hating ethics (hate the term)….??? You must of spoke in haste without really thinking that one through? I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Have a nice evening. mtmuley

 

[Addicting]

Actually you made the point for me. Their negligence in not knowing where they were “throwing” bullets is their guilt and where a law & lawyers would step in to prove otherwise.

I would agree that wreckless discharge of a firearm could be a charge.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

That is depressing

 

[longbow51]

And while I'm opining, I do think State's need to strictly regulate and/or eliminate tags used for commercial tv/media. All these content creators who have any kind of sponsor or produce content for $$ should be limited to a very tiny fraction of OTC/available tags and none for the limited draw/quota areas. Content creators buying limited tags and applying their entire staff, friends, family, etc. so they can produce some content needs to stop as it almost certainly has reduced opportunity for average jane/joe. This explosion in commercialization of hunting is a plague and we need to all but eliminate folks who are getting limited tags with the primary purpose of producing commercial content. As folks start engaging legislators in coming sessions this is an area I hope to see pushed. I know I'll be talking to my legislators.

Good luck. Commercialization has pretty much killed any semblance of solitude while fishing Blue Ribbon streams in MT.

I support you, though. Idaho has done a MUCH better job.

 

[Raisin Bran]

Have a nice evening. mtmuley

Thanks! You too-

 

[FREAK]

Good luck. Commercialization has pretty much killed any semblance of solitude while fishing Blue Ribbon streams in MT.

I support you, though. Idaho has done a MUCH better job.

What are the laws in Idaho? I think commercialization is part of it but it’s almost more of a “death by a thousand lashes” issue with all the little guys posting all kinds of un regulated content. In Matt Rinellas podcast with Randy he talks about the south Madison’s looking like a Rolling Stones concert the last week of rifle elk. He’s not kidding and a lot of that has to do with guys with cameras.

Spots blowing up is one aspect but the more related issue is: Do we need to see another 5 point shot at 700 yards on YouTube? Are all these youtube hunters normalizing “bad” hunting. You watch and absorb enough of it, it almost makes it seem like the norm. I could find 10 links of “shit that went wrong videos” without trying too hard. Guys In my generation grew up watching this stuff and I think are more “influenced” by it then they’d/(we) care to admit.

 

[peterk1234]

Good luck. Commercialization has pretty much killed any semblance of solitude while fishing Blue Ribbon streams in MT.

I support you, though. Idaho has done a MUCH better job.

Do what I do, fish from February through April. It's the only way.

 

[Edwin]

It. Doesn’t. Matter.

You may be an LEO but when it comes to this I’d say you don’t know what you don’t know.

Call FWP enforcement tomorrow and ask them if:

Over limit is strict liability and if shooting more than one elk is illegal.

The fact that this violation is written against duck hunters every day of the season, e.g. 2 ducks with one shot or over on species or hens etc. Probably the most common violation written but somehow doesn't apply to big game, pisses me off. Obviously unique situation where the landowner pieced together the situation and the shooter, but would be very easy to charge. Intentional or not

 

[Addicting]

The fact that this violation is written against duck hunters every day of the season, e.g. 2 ducks with one shot or over on species or hens etc. Probably the most common violation written but somehow doesn't apply to big game, pisses me off. Obviously unique situation where the landowner pieced together the situation and the shooter, but would be very easy to charge. Intentional or not

I would wager that it has to do more with possession than anything. Same as the moose story that was previously posted.

You wing a duck and it flys off then dies later, then continue to shoot your limit no Warden is gonna cite you.

 

[Edwin]

I would wager that it has to do more with possession than anything. Same as the moose story that was previously posted.

You wing a duck and it flys off then dies later, then continue to shoot your limit no Warden is gonna cite you.

 

[Firedude]

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.

I've been thinking about this idea for a few days. Probably best I'd most people did since we're suggesting making something law.

Just a couple ideas to throw out there.

One being I think you're idea, while well intentioned, might have the opposite affect in this particular situation. When I decide to shoot I generally fire one round. Then as I'm readying the second round I reasses and if needed shoot again. I DON'T just think, "he's still up keep shooting." Things take a few seconds to die. There's risk in both not firing another round (losing it) as well as sending more lead downrange (hitting another one, ruining meat, etc.) As of right now if I'm confident in my shot and there's other critters around I simply don't shoot. Miss or hit I had my chance. I've hunted 26 years and lost 2 hit with a gun doing this. (One swam the river and only made it halfway. I've never seen where I went wrong that time.) Now... let's add some pressure of if it runs away and you drew blood you're done. Same situation a bull with cows around now I'm pressured to get that thing on the ground because if I even nicked the brisket and he got away I'm done. Now there's pressure to keep firing. So with that added pressure it seams logical that people are going to panic and keep pulling the trigger. "Get it on the ground, keep shooting, shoot it again, drop it, oh no he's getting away! SHOOT! SHOOT! SHOOT!" Which will inevitably lead to more situations just like the original post.

Another thought being if I HAVE to notch my tag if I hit an animal then I therefore should be allowed more resources for recovery. Get rid of or alter the laws about multiple people shooting the same animal. I get the intent and agree with the intent. But I've seen people go to jail and fined for the tracker finishing off the critter when he jumped it. I was in the courtroom when a judged slammed the hammer down and said, "If the Hunter can't kill it, let it walk away and rot. That's the law." OK judge. If that's what you want that's what I'll do. But I sure as hell am not notching if my buddy 6 feet in front of me cannot legally kill something if it stands up while I'm taking a break and he's just going to go a little further. How many times has one of us been there when a guy barely ahead comes back and says, "I bumped it." Or he's in the line of fire when you see it? Lighten up that law a little for recovery.

I have a few more thoughts but how about we think about those for a bit. I would have stayed out of this one because I live outside of Montana, but I did think about how it may adversely affect behavior. Thought a different angle might be worth 3 minutes of your time.

 

[44hunter45]

How would it be enforceable? I can imagine a lot of scenarios where it’s basically going to be on the honor system. Based on the other threads we see about ethics on here I don’t hold a lot of hope on voluntary punching the tag no matter the law.

Even if it is not "enforceable" it will hold sway over what, I hope, are the majority of hunters who are ethical. If that means the law abiding hunters behave better, fewer animals will be wasted. Not perfect, but I think in this case the good outweighs the perfect in terms of reducing wanton waste. Oftentimes the law helps us make the right decision in a grey area.

I've hunted 50 of my 60 years on this earth. More if you count all the innocent song birds I murdered with my BB gun and pellet gun. I started in little early on the deer hunting. I've said on HT before that I did not come from an ethical hunting family. We party hunted and if you could shoot, you were put on the kill box for the drivers pushing the deer in. (BTW - This is why I cringe when Doug Duren extols the virtues of his "Mooching" technique. )

In those years I've been guilty of "bykill" when I didn't realize there was a doe standing perfectly in front of the buck I shot at. Thankfully not a pass-through kill on the buck. (Thank you, Sierra GK frangible bullets...) I've been guilty of failing to "keep hammering" on elk I have blooded, and more recently than I want to admit. I've failed to follow up on a "missed" shot taken. (Young and dumb enough to shoot across the Selway River when I didn't have canoe.) I've hit and lost elk with a muzzle loader. I've tipped over two turkeys with one shot. If I sit here long enough I will remember other bad choices. At some level all these are bad choices rather than accidents. Doesn't every accident start with a bad decision?

Long way to say I'm not virtue signalling. But now at 60, I've come to the place where if I pull the trigger I'm done for the day. If I find blood or hair, I'm going to be tracking. I wounded a cow this year. I spent two days looking for that dead cow, and the rest of the season hunting for that exact cow still alive. In the end, I punched my tag meatless. The truth is that I had a chance to put another one in her when I shot her, but my brain froze up. That's on me.

Let's be honest, any of us who can afford a rifle or modern bow can afford an awful lot of beef. We are not going to starve. Our family will not go hungry if we don't get an animal. I know a lot of guys who brag they only eat game meat. I say BS. If they have a season of tag soup, they will eat beef too. Hunger is a great motivator.

We need to be honest with ourselves first before throwing stones, but having examined ourselves, throw the damned things.

Rant almost over...

These threads always take me to my favorite bitch, hunters who think a muzzle loader, even a .54, will knock an elk on it's ass. They don't. I find dead elk every December and it boils my butt and chaps my hide, in that order exactly. Know your range and follow up on your shots! My local warden probably hates seeing my number when his cell phone dings because he knows I'm sending him pics and a grid location. Some guy will reply to this post that HE shot an elk with a muzzy and it was dead right there. Good for you, two inches one way other the other or ten yards of distance might change your outcome. I've shot a bunch of critters with a .54 and it ain't always a sure kill.

OK Rant over.

Sounds like typical rifle hunters to me, slobs.

It does nothing for our image to the outside world when anyone can come in here to HT and read hunters writing that they shot and lost an animal, but it's their right and the coyotes need to eat, too. It's not that it happens, IMHO, its the attitude we present about it. Then you have the "We knew it was going to be a gunfight." Bullshit. No Kryptek for me ever after that fiasco, and I'm an Idaho product bigot.

I'm past the "hunters sticking together" crap. I will defend cultural practices, but never slobbery or the lowest common denominator. I grew up seeing deer shot with a .22 and an arrow stuck in them in case the warden was encountered. We get slobs because we tolerate slobs. The non-hunting public lumps us in with the slobs because we tolerate the slobs. The non-hunting public does not give two shits when we say, "that guy isn't a hunter, he's a poacher." They don't give two shits whether Dim Dumbo knew or intended to kill a second elk. The Warden in the OP had discretion in citing the offender. None of us can deduce the CO's motives in not citing, regardless of what he said to the OP. We can't get into his head on this.

...Education is where this should start...

Maybe we just make new hunters go through a class. We could call it, "Hunter's Education". We could teach them about target identification, having a solid backstop,shoot-don't shoot situations, hunting ethics and the like.