More rage bait: Grizzly claiming your elk and getting a ticket for waste?

[MTLabrador]

They kind of had me with the provocative title, until you get into the details. One of many such cases where they shoot a bull in the evening and decide to just come back in the morning for the head and spoiled meat. Doesn’t look like a bear was on that elk to me, more like coyotes and ravens. Didn’t stop them from taking the time to cut the head off of course.

This Bowhunter Reluctantly Abandoned His Elk Meat After a Grizzly Bear Fed on It. Then Game and Fish Charged Him

After an elk hunter reluctant

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[elkantlers]

I don't hunt areas with grizzly bears so i really don't know about that. But I do know there were three people there and they could have made some very loud noises to alert any critters that may be nearby. Then one person, by himself, while the others watched and continued to make noise, could have taken both hind quarters off with the skin still on and drug them clear out in the open away from the carcass in about ten minutes tops. Probably less time than it took to get the head detached. Then they could have assesed further and taken the backstraps and fronts in about another ten minutes.

Also, I am purely speculating here, but that elk doesn't look like it was ripped open by a bear. It looks like a slice from a knife or maybe even the broadhead.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

The court agreed with the hunter on this one

 

[Wyomufhunter]

Take the head as a trophy and don't bother calling it in to Fish and Game to report the incident... seems pretty sketchy to me.

 

[44hunter45]

The jury has spoken. But there seems a lot of testifying to unprovable statements made by WDFG. That smacks of heresay.

The embedded video advising hunters to let the bear have is certainly compelling as evidence.

Wouldn't you want to call in a warden from he get-go, though? Doesn't say if he notched his tag?

 

[Elky Welky]

I thought the Outdoor Life article on this was very well done, and the jury got it right. Mixed signals from WY Game and Fish on what to do in this situation, but it sounds like he was following the best advice he could and did what he believed was allowed.

That said, ethically, the two things that stood out to me the most were him not calling it in right away, and taking the head. It seems both these actions were legal, but they are a little odd.

I've backed out in the evening to make sure I didn't bump a wounded animal and wouldn't recover them, so zero judgment from me on that.

 

[rogerthat]

I would have salvaged the meat until confronted by the bear. The couple could stand watch while I butchered. That’s the right thing to do. The hide would protect the meat if it was pissed on. I wonder if the meat had soured? Also, just go put another arrow in him. The back out thing is for crappy Eastern whitetail hunters not elk hunters. I could have had those hinds off that thing quicker than the head.

 

[rogerthat]

Also they took the time to cover up the exposed guts for the grip and grin. Really seems like they were looking for an excuse to not pack that meat out imo. This really rubs me the wrong way as a hunter

 

[MTLabrador]

Also they took the time to cover up the exposed guts for the grip and grin. Really seems like they were looking for an excuse to not pack that meat out imo. This really rubs me the wrong way as a hunter

I wasn’t sure if it was the same bull in the grip and grin or not… But I agree 100% on getting the hinds off quicker than the head, and meat already being soured. I also hate the “back out and leave him” idea for elk. You can’t tell me with a straight face you’re recovering good meat by doing that in September. Maybe packing out some sour meat that’s going to get thrown out later.

I’ve seen a few elk torn up by bears, and a bunch that are half gutted by birds and coyotes, and this one looks like the latter. I know @shrapnel posted a good photo of one that a bear actually got. If it was me and I didn’t see a bear actually messing with my elk quarters, I’m going back to get it with my .45-70 and a friend or two before I just leave it.

 

[Elky Welky]

The back out thing is for crappy Eastern whitetail hunters not elk hunters.

I disagree on this point. I once liver hit a bull and found stomach matter on the arrow, so I waited six hours to track and then tracked to within 100 yards of where he fell in some pretty thick stuff when it got too dark to go on. If I had pushed on in the dark and he wasn't dead, he would have blown out of the country and I would have lost the trail. It was late September, getting cool in the mountains, and spitting rain. So I backed out and came back in early. There was some bone rot and that really sucked but we got the whole thing out early the next morning when we found him. Is it preferable? No. But is it sometimes the right call depending on the situation? Yes.

They did have eyes on this bull when he went down but if his head was still up when it got dark and I couldn't get another arrow in him, I would have done the exact same thing.

 

[Matthew57]

My reading of the article was that the hunter was more concerned with disease than getting confronted by a bear. That's something I hadn't really given much thought to. Quote below:


“A Wyoming Game and Fish official, the [then] warden [for the area], told my friend Mary in 2016, ‘Do not eat any of the meat from an elk that a bear has fed on,’ because of the danger of disease — trichinosis specifically,” says Niziolek. “He said, ‘If you can get in without a bear confrontation, it’s okay to go in and grab the head, but don’t risk it if there’s a chance of a confrontation.’ Because if you do that, then you’re in trouble for harassing an endangered animal and potentially killing it or having it kill you.”

Mary Miles testified about this exchange at trial.

“I was told by the Game and Fish game warden that once a bear bites into an elk … and they urinate and sometimes defecate on the carcasses as well to claim it … the risk of disease is so high, you don’t want to take any of the meat,” she told jurors, according to reporting by the Tribune.

 

[rogerthat]

I disagree on this point. I once liver hit a bull and found stomach matter on the arrow, so I waited six hours to track and then tracked to within 100 yards of where he fell in some pretty thick stuff when it got too dark to go on. If I had pushed on in the dark and he wasn't dead, he would have blown out of the country and I would have lost the trail. It was late September, getting cool in the mountains, and spitting rain. So I backed out and came back in early. There was some bone rot and that really sucked but we got the whole thing out early the next morning when we found him. Is it preferable? No. But is it sometimes the right call depending on the situation? Yes.

They did have eyes on this bull when he went down but if his head was still up when it got dark and I couldn't get another arrow in him, I would have done the exact same thing.

You didn’t know where yours was. Majorly different scenario in my opinion. Leaving an elk in griz country over night is risky.

 

[Elky Welky]

You didn’t know where yours was. Majorly different scenario in my opinion.

Fair enough.

 

[rogerthat]

I had a buddy that got a cow in wy 61 way back in by himself in a blizzard. Gave himself hypothermia getting half out. He realized he f’d up about half way out that night. We waited a day or two to get the rest for the blizzard to end. Nothing but white bones when we went back in a couple days later. That country is different.

 

[TOGIE]

Not eating meat if a bear has messed with it sounds like an old school opinion lacking proper logic that shouldn't be dispensed as official advice from someone representing a wildlife agency.

Now, not messing with a claimed kill out of safety is one thing, but bailing, in part, because you've decided the meat is no longer good (as a matter of opinion, not fact) is an excuse to be lazy and unethical.

I think it all reeks a little.

But maybe all they had to do was prove a bear was, in fact, on it, and perhaps that's what they did. Combined with conflicting agency advice the jury made the right call.

But jury's aren't ruling on ethics necessarily, just the laws on the books. I still don't like it.

 

[Elky Welky]

But jury's aren't ruling on ethics necessarily, just the laws on the books. I still don't like it.

For sure. This.

 

[Sytes]

Reality - if the WGFD published guidance... and beyond a reasonable doubt is not present - it should ALWAYS rule as not guilty. It's how our justice system operates.

 

[El Jason]

den [for the area], told my friend Mary in 2016, ‘Do not eat any of the meat from an elk that a bear has fed on,’ because of the danger of disease — trichinosis specifically,” says Niziolek. “He said, ‘If you can get in without a bear confrontation, it’s okay to go in and grab the head, but don’t risk it if there’s a chance of a confrontation.’ Because if you do that, then you’re in trouble for harassing an endangered animal and potentially killing it or having it kill you.”

That’s not how trichinosis works.

 

[Matthew57]

That’s not how trichinosis works.

I didn't think so, seemed sketchy.