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

[Addicting]

Montana isn't the place to start a "wound it law" the whole week there's been multiple scenarios posted about flock shots and what happens when people see elk. The fwp can't even police those..... it all sounds like a good idea but good ideas don't mean shit if people aren't going to utilize and abide by it.

PEOPLE LOSE THEIR MINDS..... over trying to fill an elk tag. Let alone if it is a bull.

It sucks, but that's the world we live in

Each of those stories talk about he citations of the people that stayed. All those folks that left may be the guilty party. This as a law is useless in those situations.

More I think about this the more I don’t like it. It’s a law for the already relate abiding citizen. The folks it would be created to address will have a minimal impact.

Plus with the crap storm about tags and over objective elk it will make those arguments even worse. One more legal battle for Grizzly as it may remove a portion of their seasonal feed that would now have to be studied.

 

[MTGomer]

Hopefully some severe consequences for the ones responsible.

I hope so too but in my experience trying to get a different poacher prosecuted up that way, that won’t be the case. Couple grand and 2 years suspension I bet

 

[peterk1234]

Ok here is my rant I live in Pa and think most Pa hunters are fat n lazy wont go more than 100 yrds from trail or field to hunt
I used to be dumb enough to think that some of the guys I know would like to elk hunt and for yrs I would ask them always said oh yea but never gave the effort to go
So where im going with the lazy part also going with shooting ,practice AND FOR GODs SAKE even knowing ballistics of their guns n ammo. I even had a guy tell me he couldnt use my lead sled to sight in his gun due to he needed to sight in for his flinch. Or a guy that went back into a tree to hunt while im still tracking his deer he hit with a bow.
If you cant shoot past 100 yrds DONT if you dont know what a bullet does when it leaves the end of the barrel LEARN . It seems we have sportsman and I think most on here are, or guys that just like to pull the trigger or send an arrow but are to lazy to scout,pratice,shoot,learn to track or just to have some respect for the animal they are after
And I wont even start on the guys that dont check their rifles before each season

The journey is what makes all of this so much fun and gratifying, not the kill.

 

[dgc1963]

The journey is what makes all of this so much fun and gratifying, not the kill.

Amen

 

[DouglasR]

Each of those stories talk about he citations of the people that stayed. All those folks that left may be the guilty party. This as a law is useless in those situations.

More I think about this the more I don’t like it. It’s a law for the already relate abiding citizen. The folks it would be created to address will have a minimal impact.

Plus with the crap storm about tags and over objective elk it will make those arguments even worse. One more legal battle for Grizzly as it may remove a portion of their seasonal feed that would now have to be studied.

Think about the new hunters who’ve never seen uncle Randy’s show and don’t realize the draw blood notch tag method of hunting is the proper thing to do in most cases.
It will set a precedent for the future.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I guess I would see a law like that not as an effective punitive measure, but to make some conversations and education happen among guys and gals who might not have had a strong hunting mentorship, etc.

Some people need a cultural nudge to begin understanding the value of wildlife. There are a lot of hunters between the extremes of those who would always do due diligence, and irresponsible folks who don’t care at all. That’s who this would be for…it pushes them to at least think about it.

Worth it for that? I don’t know. Maybe there’s another way to get at it.

 

[Addicting]

Think about the new hunters who’ve never seen uncle Randy’s show and don’t realize the draw blood notch tag method of hunting is the proper thing to do in most cases.
It will set a precedent for the future.

Proper thing to do?

It’s his choice, there isn’t anything proper about it. Free will gives us the ability to, based off the circumstances, decide what is the proper thing to do.

MT has enough problems with its legal system. It doesn’t need any more feel good laws.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The shooter most definitely broke the law. You are required to make every reasonable effort to follow up your shot and retrieve a wounded animal.

Care to cite the MCA requirement to go look for blood?

 

[Flynarrow]

Thanks to an extreme 2A Legislator's bill a few years ago, the Legislature too away the authority of the FG Commission to regulate any firearm, ammunition or accessory used for hunting. Any change in equipment would have to go through the Legislature now....fat chance.

 

[Big Fin]

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.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It’s worth noting there is no “knowingly or purposefully” clause in this law.

87-6-413. Hunting or killing over limit, MCA

leg.mt.gov

 

[Hammsolo]

My pet named Peeve is getting pissed off. I don’t know if this law would change the situation the way we hope. However, it would do something! I hate when I hear “it is what is is,” from people in situations like this. What do you propose is done?

A yearly 10 minute on-line ethics class based on an agreed upon hunters code prior to getting your tags?

Expanding the requirements of hunter safety to focus more heavily on ethics, and requiring witnesses to come forth or face legal ramifications.

Honestly, I didn’t realize it was this bad. We have hardly any elk in Eastern Washington and I’m sure this is one reason why. I know my friends that own property struggle heavily with poaching.

We have to keep trying, or accept the norm. If we accept the norm we should just shut the eff up.

 

[Addicting]

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.

According to regional biologists, Is the resource suffering population level loss because of wounded animals?

Where does it rate in reasons of mortality?

What percentage of that mortality is needed for the other wildlife that utilize the carcass.

What does science say?

 

[Flynarrow]

For over 20 years I taught bowhunter education. The course (before computerized) was well designed and taught by largely well experienced bowhunters. The emphasis throughout was to only shoot within your effective range....meant that over 90% of your shots had to be in the kill zone. At the end of the classroom part there was a field day. Part of the field day was to have each student pick their effective shooting range at a 3D target. Despite all the emphasis, most students could not hit the kill zone with any of their 3 arrow shots. Sadly I had to conclude we, as instructors, were ineffective in shaping their shot choices. Part of it was the student's failure to admit that their effective range was likely distance in feet....not yards.

 

[peterk1234]

I think some continuing ed is sensible. It is easy with the availability of learning online. I took the FWP stewardship course figuring it wouldn't hurt to have it when pursuing private access in the future. I have to admit, I learned some really good stuff from that program. 99% is common sense, but some of it I just never thought about our considered. For example, do you clean your truck every time you leave a chunk of land you are hunting? You should. You don't need a boat to carry invasive species from one place to another. I'm very careful when I go rafting. Honestly, never thought about it when going in and out of public land with my truck. I do now.

See? Awareness. I don't think hunters that take irresponsible shots or don't go to great lengths to track are all idiots. I think a lack of education plays a large role. Going on YouTube and watching #Islaythemfromamile is not education. Unfortunately, that's where a lot of learned habits are coming from.

Just like the day that killing an animal doesn't bother me anymore, the day I stop learning, I'm done.

 

[thomas89]

I just can’t let this one go. It still stings to be lumped in with what I feel like are the targeted “hunters” for this proposed idea.

Looking back at my track from the bull I shot and lost.

I first found blood at 1101. I last found blood at 1511. So I looked for 4 hours and some change. I would have searched around the bed (last blood) trying to determine path of travel from there to no avail. I traveled a total of 2.79 miles gridding/doubling back/tracking this bull. Not trying to be a prick, but is that good enough?

Do I think he died that day or the next few? No. Do I think he can survive a winter? Maybe. Just don’t see a ton of three legged elk. Do I think I did my best? Yes. I would have loved to have a more experienced tracker with me to help or if nothing else to bounce ideas off of.

This was out of a herd of chronically over-objective elk. As far as a punishment, I can assure you there haven’t been many days since that I haven’t replayed that situation and all my decisions leading up to and after that shot.

 

[Addicting]

I just can’t let this one go. It still stings to be lumped in with what I feel like are the targeted “hunters” for this proposed idea.

Looking back at my track from the bull I shot and lost.

I first found blood at 1101. I last found blood at 1511. So I looked for 4 hours and some change. I would have searched around the bed (last blood) trying to determine path of travel from there to no avail. I traveled a total of 2.79 miles gridding/doubling back/tracking this bull. Not trying to be a prick, but is that good enough?

Do I think he died that day or the next few? No. Do I think he can survive a winter? Maybe. Just don’t see a ton of three legged elk. Do I think I did my best? Yes. I would have loved to have a more experienced tracker with me to help or if nothing else to bounce ideas off of.

This was out of a herd of chronically over-objective elk. As far as a punishment, I can assure you there haven’t been many days since that I haven’t replayed that situation and all my decisions leading up to and after that shot.

I am there with you on this. I hunt unit 7 in WY for cow elk. This year G&F had planned cull work to reduce the herd. I don’t know the results but absolutely saw the need for it.

I shoot a lot and am very careful about my shots. Our group gets a safety briefing on using multiple shots to eliminate an accidental harvest.

Even with that, I shot a cow last year and had what I feel was a bullet failure. I didn’t shoot again because of the safety briefing and couldn’t identify 100% which one she was. It was a 128 yard shot from the prone position. I group same hole groups at that distance with that rifle. Zero reason she should have made it out of the park she was in. Yet we tracked her for over a mile and came back the next day and looked for another couple hours in the possible draws she may of went. She was not recovered. The rancher insisted I shoot another and I did. He has upwards of 300 elk hitting his hayfield. His cow calf production is severely limited by the elk eating winter hay. He utilizes the programs G&F have and regularly meets with the Biologists. After his family hunt most of the place becomes a BMA. Yet still they cannot kill enough elk.

Criminalizing this would have unintended consequences and not be in the best interest of the ranch, G&F, and the people of WY whose tax money pays all the damages. I cannot imagine MT would be under much different circumstances.

 

[Big Fin]

As far as a punishment, I can assure you there haven’t been many days since that I haven’t replayed that situation and all my decisions leading up to and after that shot.

The idea is not to punish me, you, or anyone, for wounding and losing an animal even when a great recovery effort is made. That's going to happen if a person hunts enough, even with the greatest efforts taken. It has happened to me four times in my hunting life. And like you, I've replayed those situations in my head many times.

What you stated is a great effort for recovery. The idea isn't to "punish" you for the fact that something went wrong or to prevent something from going wrong. It happens.

It's a realization that "shit happens," more and more as folks push beyond their talent levels. And sometimes "shit happens" even when very qualified people do their best and even when a hell of a recovery effort is made. And when that "shit happens," a second or third animal shouldn't be offered up.

Maybe some, and I'm not saying you feel this way, feel that eliminating the legal opportunity to go shoot another one, and maybe another one, is "punishment." I don't see it that way, but maybe some do.

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?"

Given what I read, what I hear, what I see in the field, I'm still comfortable with this idea, even though some qualified folks who had a bad outcome for some strange reason and gave a great recovery effort, like some posting here, might not be allowed to legally go hunt for another critter.

 

[Raisin Bran]

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.

I agree. It’s pretty darn tough to legislate integrity! However this thread started out with a specific story of facts. Within those facts had there been a law of recourse the couple of bone heads that did the shooting could in fact be held accountable.

Whatever is introduced MUST have serious altering consequences for the law breaker. Loss of ALL hunting privileges for life! Zero tolerance Our hunting heritage depends upon it!

 

[thomas89]

Whatever is introduced MUST have serious altering consequences for the law breaker. Loss of ALL hunting privileges for life! Zero tolerance Our hunting heritage depends upon it!

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.”