Leupold Banner

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

Addicting

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
6,252
Location
SW Michigan
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.
Very much sounds like a Jab at me. I absolutely know they have those losses factored into everything. You want to propose a law to try and change them without research on what the effects of removing that food source does. How will that affects ESA grizzlies, ranchers over objective, a severely out dated elk management plan.

I do want to know what those real numbers are, the public should know what those real numbers are.

@JLS
Then please tell me why the Warden didn’t charge them then?
 

MTGomer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Messages
5,002
Location
MT —> AZ
The warden isn’t charging the person because he used his discretion to choose not to. It is illegal in Montana to shoot two elk when you are only licensed to kill one.


I know a person who was cited for doing this exact thing, except at close range in the willows on two bull moose that must have been twin brothers. And this guy self reported immediately and was fully cooperative.
 

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
15,966
Location
Bozeman, MT
Very much sounds like a Jab at me. I absolutely know they have those losses factored into everything. You want to propose a law to try and change them without research on what the effects of removing that food source does. How will that affects ESA grizzlies, ranchers over objective, a severely out dated elk management plan.

I do want to know what those real numbers are, the public should know what those real numbers are.
OK, maybe I missed your original point when you asked it.

Are you suggesting that for support of this idea the data needs to be accumulated that shows to what degree current wounding rates by hunters benefit impact grizzlies, wolves, and ranchers who feel they have too many elk; and to the corollary, how lower wounding rates would be negative to those species/ranchers ?

I suspect I would struggle to get any officials to allocate scarce resources to study the beneficial impacts hunter wounding provides to grizzlies, wolves, or ranchers with too many elk.

If that is the science you want me to provide before seeking more support for this bill, I'm sure such doesn't exist. I suspect it won't ever exist. And my rationale for floating such idea has nothing to do with concern that wounding provides food for grizzlies or wolves, or any concern that higher wounding rates are beneficial to ranchers who claim to have too many elk.

Sorry. I don't have that data and I don't think it exists.
 

FREAK

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2022
Messages
257
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 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.
The point i'm trying to make is: these guys gut shooting bulls way out of range isn't the norm. Social media guys aren't the norm either but they have the greatest influence on "what normal is" and are more responible than anyone for what the image of a hunter has become. I saw that Eric guy from HUSHIN shooting a bull at 80 yards (bow), "that must be normal"...I think if we could make that shit less prevalent as a hunting community, I think it would impact things in the direction you are advocating for. Making it harder for the average Joe to put meat in the freezer is someting I'm not behind. My oppinion may be of the minority and that's fine, just thought i'd give my opposing view.

And i'm deffinately braver behind this keyboard. I'll try and work on that. I cut my teeth learning from content like yours, Eastmans, and some of the other educational content creators. That doesn't seem to be what it's about anymore (again, not directed at you)...
 
Last edited:

Raisin Bran

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2022
Messages
135
Location
Mt
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.
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.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
17,185
Location
Almost Arkansas…..
I don’t care if you believe me or not. Go read the statute I posted. I’ll even link it again.


87-6-413. Hunting or killing over limit. (1) A person may not attempt to kill, take, shoot, or capture or kill, take, hunt, shoot, or capture more than one game animal of any one species in any 1 license year unless the killing of more than one game animal of that species has been authorized by regulations of the department.
 

Addicting

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
6,252
Location
SW Michigan
OK, maybe I missed your original point when you asked it.

Are you suggesting that for support of this idea the data needs to be accumulated that shows to what degree current wounding rates by hunters benefit impact grizzlies, wolves, and ranchers who feel they have too many elk; and to the corollary, how lower wounding rates would be negative to those species/ranchers ?

I suspect I would struggle to get any officials to allocate scarce resources to study the beneficial impacts hunter wounding provides to grizzlies, wolves, or ranchers with too many elk.

If that is the science you want me to provide before seeking more support for this bill, I'm sure such doesn't exist. I suspect it won't ever exist. And my rationale for floating such idea has nothing to do with concern that wounding provides food for grizzlies or wolves, or any concern that higher wounding rates are beneficial to ranchers who claim to have too many elk.

Sorry. I don't have that data and I don't think it exists.
My point is when we talk laws there are a lot of secondary and third order affects at play. So from funding the extra demand on Wardens to more dam suits over ESA recovery plans things could all change. Until that is studied and a solid plan is in place to combat the negative affects new laws are not the answer.

Education is where this should start. If that fails then let’s step up the escalation of force. Jumping straight to legislative action should never be the first option.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your feelings on wounding just not the approach.
 

Addicting

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
6,252
Location
SW Michigan
I don’t care if you believe me or not. Go read the statute I posted. I’ll even link it again.

He wasn’t attempting to take two animals. He accidentally shot a second animal he didn’t know about. There is a difference. Back to guilty intent or reasonable belief his actions would cause the death of more than one animal.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
17,185
Location
Almost Arkansas…..
He wasn’t attempting to take two animals. He accidentally shot a second animal he didn’t know about. There is a difference. Back to guilty intent or reasonable belief his actions would cause the death of more than one animal.
Oh FFS. This is ridiculous. Can you read? It says you may not SHOOT two animals. It’s a strict liability offense with no need for knowledge or intent.
 

woods89

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2021
Messages
513
I'd be pretty hesitant about a law where drawing blood=notched tag. I'd rather let the individual hunter make that call.

I think about @Khunter hunt in relation to this subject. He shot a bull, spent a lot of time looking, brought in a tracking dog, etc, and once all those options were exhausted, made the call to keep hunting. He's obviously a guy very concerned with ethics, and I'm perfectly comfortable with him looking into his soul and making that call. A law like this would shut him down, while most of the problem individuals will go on as usual, as it would be a bear to enforce.

I lost a buck as well this year with a bow. I simply messed up and rushed a shot. I backed out and brought in a dog a few hours later, to no avail. I've tried to learn everything I can from it, and it will change my practice regimen going forward. With due diligence done, I personally don't feel it necessary to notch a tag.
 

mtmuley

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
11,486
Location
montana
To some extent. I’d love to see a law mandating hunters follow up their shots, similar to what the feds require for waterfowl.
Believe me, I understand. I just don't think this is something the Legislature in Montana needs to be concerned with. I don't believe it will make any difference. Just where I am on this issue. mtmuley
 

Addicting

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
6,252
Location
SW Michigan
Oh FFS. This is ridiculous. Can you read? It says you may not SHOOT two animals. It’s a strict liability offense with no need for knowledge or intent.
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.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
17,185
Location
Almost Arkansas…..
Believe me, I understand. I just don't think this is something the Legislature in Montana needs to be concerned with. I don't believe it will make any difference. Just where I am on this issue. 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.
 
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
104,730
Messages
1,732,781
Members
32,743
Latest member
knjax15
Top