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

Dinkshooter

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
7,692
Location
Colorado
What a stupid thing to say
Has anyone here ever actually chewed out an unknown Douche Bag who had just lobbed lead(500-600 yards moving) at an elk and wasn't going to follow up on the bull that was clearly hit, laying down, getting up, wobbly head, get up move 30 yards, etc etc?

I have, the look on his face was priceless! It was a "Christmas Story" String of profanity that is still floating around the Colorado Rocky Mountain air. Pretty sure I'm still on that Asswipes people to kill list. F him.

He did however cross the giant valley and put a follow up shot on the bull, and it was over.

What is stoopid? what is sexy?
 

Pucky Freak

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2019
Messages
4,210
Location
Iowa
I’m in favor of copying the AK “blood drawn” law for big game anywhere, for no other reason than to set a standard for our behavior, enforceable or no.

How many rotting carcasses have y’all walked up on where the hunter didn’t even make a half-assed recovery effort? Me, probably 100-150 in my lifetime. Part of that behavior is “because I can”, i.e. perfectly legal to blast away at anything that moves and don’t even bother to check for signs of a hit. Sure, 90% of hunters would still have the same behavior if the law changed as you can’t legislate ethics, but wouldn’t 10% who did change make it worth the while?

Last season I missed a lay-up 200 yard shot at a cow elk and my friend watching through binos says, you missed, shoot again. I was 95% sure I missed, but when the animals moved around after the bang and I could not tell which cow was the one I just shot at, so I opted to let the whole herd take off to private, sealing away my opportunity on an animal. At the end of the day, that’s the kind of hunting I am satisfied with, but for many others there are motivations that push their behavior in a different direction.
 

RealMuddyboots

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
361
My feeling is there already is a law on the books: Every state has a wanton waste law and here is Colorado's. So why do we need something that is already there?

§ 33-6-119. Pursuit of wounded game--waste of edible game wildlife--use of wildlife as bait

(1)(a) Except as provided in section 33-6-116(1), it is unlawful for a person who shoots at, wounds, or may have wounded game wildlife to fail to make a reasonable attempt to locate the game wildlife suspected of injury and take it into the person's possession. A person who violates this subsection (1)(a) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall, with respect to big game, be punished by a fine of two hundred dollars and an assessment of fifteen license suspension points or shall, with respect to small game, be punished by a fine of fifty dollars and an assessment of fifteen license suspension points.

(b) If wounded game goes onto private property, the person who wounded the game shall make a reasonable attempt to contact the landowner or person in charge of such land before pursuing the wounded game.

(c) If the hunter is unaware of the location of wildlife after shooting at it, failing to go immediately to the location of such wildlife when the shot was fired is not a reasonable attempt to locate game.

<Text of (2) effective until March 1, 2022>

(2) Except as otherwise provided in articles 1 to 6 of this title or by rule of the commission, it is unlawful for a person to fail to reasonably attempt to dress or care for and provide for human consumption the edible portions of game wildlife. A person who violates this subsection (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall, with respect to big game, be punished by a fine of three hundred dollars and an assessment of fifteen license suspension points or shall, with respect to all other game wildlife, be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars and an assessment of ten license suspension points.

<Text of (2) effective March 1, 2022>

(2) Except as otherwise provided in articles 1 to 6 of this title 33 or by rule of the commission, it is unlawful for a person to fail to reasonably attempt to dress or care for and provide for human consumption the edible portions of game wildlife. A person who violates this subsection (2) commits a class 2 misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall, with respect to big game, be punished by a fine of three hundred dollars and an assessment of fifteen license suspension points or shall, with respect to all other game wildlife, be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars and an assessment of ten license suspension points.

(3) It is unlawful for any person to use wildlife as bait unless otherwise provided by rule of the commission. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of two hundred dollars and an assessment of ten license suspension points.

Credits
Repealed and reenacted by Laws 1984, S.B.78, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1985. Amended by Laws 2003, Ch. 144, § 10, eff. July 1, 2003; Laws 2019, Ch. 423 (H.B. 19-1026), § 10, eff. July 1, 2019; Laws 2021, Ch. 462 (S.B. 21-271), § 558, eff. March 1, 2022.
 

RealMuddyboots

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
361
Wyoming:

2012 Wyoming Statutes​

TITLE 23 - GAME AND FISH​

CHAPTER 3 - GENERAL REGULATORY PROVISIONS​

23-3-107. Wanton destruction of big game animal; reward.​


Universal Citation: WY Stat § 23-3-107 (through 2012)
(a) No person shall wantonly take or destroy any big or trophy game animal.

(b) The director may offer a standing reward not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) to be paid from the game and fish fund for evidence leading to the arrest and conviction of any person violating this section.

(c) The purpose and intent of this section is to protect big or trophy game animals from wanton, ruthless or needless destruction.

(d) Violation of this section constitutes a high misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23-6-202(a)(ii). A third or subsequent conviction within ten (10) years for a violation of this section shall constitute a felony punishable by a fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), imprisonment for not more than two (2) years, or both. For the purposes of determining whether a violation of this subsection is a felony, convictions resulting from the same occurrence shall be considered a single conviction even if the result of the occurrence is more than one (1) misdemeanor conviction. The provisions of W.S. 6-8-101(a) shall not apply to convictions under this section.
 

RealMuddyboots

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
361
Montana:

Montana Code Annotated 2021​

TITLE 87. FISH AND WILDLIFE​

CHAPTER 6. FISH AND WILDLIFE CRIMINAL PROVISIONS​

Part 2. General Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Offenses -- Related Offenses​

Waste Of Game Animal, Game Bird, Or Game Fish​

87-6-205. Waste of game animal, game bird, or game fish. (1) Except as provided in subsection (3), a person responsible for the death of any game animal, game bird, or game fish suitable for food may not purposely or knowingly waste the game by:
(a) detaching or removing only the head, hide, antlers, tusks, or teeth or any or all of these parts from the carcass of a game animal;
(b) transporting, hanging, or storing the carcass in a manner that renders it unfit for human consumption; or
(c) abandoning the carcass of a game animal or any portion of the carcass suitable for food in the field.
(2) A person in possession of a game animal or game animal parts, a game bird, or a game fish suitable for food may not purposely or knowingly waste the game by:
(a) transporting, storing, or hanging the animal, bird, or fish in a manner that renders it unfit for human consumption; or
(b) disposing of or abandoning any portion of the animal, bird, or fish that is suitable for food. For migratory birds, "suitable for food" means the breast meat.
(3) A person responsible for the death of a mountain lion, except as provided in 87-6-106, may not abandon the head or hide in the field.
(4) A person responsible for the death of a grizzly bear wastes the game if the person abandons the head or hide or any parts required by department or commission regulation for scientific purposes pursuant to 87-3-131.
(5) For the purposes of this section, the meat of a grizzly bear or a black bear that is found to be infected with trichinosis is not considered to be suitable for food.
(6) A person convicted of a violation of this section may be fined not less than $50 or more than $1,000 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both. In addition, the person, upon conviction or forfeiture of bond or bail, shall:
(a) forfeit any current hunting, fishing, or trapping license issued by this state and the privilege to hunt, fish, or trap in this state for 24 months from the date of conviction or forfeiture unless the court imposes a longer period; and
(b) pay restitution pursuant to 87-6-905 through 87-6-907.
(7) A person convicted of waste of game by abandonment in the field may be subject to the additional penalties provided in 87-6-901.
(8) Regulations adopted pursuant to this section for game birds may not be more restrictive than comparable federal regulations, except as provided in subsection (2)(b).
History: En. Sec. 11, Ch. 258, L. 2011; amd. Sec. 124, Ch. 258, L. 2011; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 496, L. 2021.
 

RealMuddyboots

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
361
Idaho:
Wanton waste:
Wounding and Retrieving
No person shall wound or kill any big game animal without making a reasonable effort to retrieve it and reduce it to possession. It is unlawful to enter private property that is posted, cultivated or in irrigated pasture without landowner permission to retrieve game, see updated trespass law on page 98.
 

RealMuddyboots

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2021
Messages
361
"87-6-205. Waste of game animal, game bird, or game fish. (1) Except as provided in subsection (3), a person responsible for the death of any game animal, game bird, or game fish suitable for food may not purposely or knowingly waste the game by:"

Anyone who shoots at a game animal is responsible for the results of their actions which includes death of that animal which does require that person to follow up IMO to prevent the "waste" of that animal.
 

JLS

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
17,185
Location
Almost Arkansas…..
"87-6-205. Waste of game animal, game bird, or game fish. (1) Except as provided in subsection (3), a person responsible for the death of any game animal, game bird, or game fish suitable for food may not purposely or knowingly waste the game by:"

Anyone who shoots at a game animal is responsible for the results of their actions which includes death of that animal which does require that person to follow up IMO to prevent the "waste" of that animal.
May be your opinion, but the law does not dictate they go look for the animal. The law, with respect to waste of game, says they may not knowingly or purposely waste a game animal, ie they had to have direct knowledge the animal died.
 

Addicting

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
6,252
Location
SW Michigan
Back to the original story, they never knew they had hit another animal until told days later. Keep in mind there is a huge difference what / or if it’s a crime in knowing and not knowing.
 

mukbowhunt

Member
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
14
How about putting in writing a limit on how far you can shoot? Maybe 400 yards maximum? Sure it would be hard to enforce but it speaks to Randy’s social norm. 80% would follow.
 

samuel_284Win

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
120
Location
Bozeman, MT
Re-reading the events as written by @Mtnhunter1 got me to call some folks who could get such law passed. I get that wounding can happen. I get that things don't always go as planned. It has happened to me a few times and it flat out sucks. I suspect most of us here have one of those terrible days when things went wrong. Yet, some folks have that problem on a monthly basis.

The amount of wounding loss whispered in secret or known via recoveries like @Mtnhunter1 has written, in both rifle and archery season, is insane. And, from my anecdotal interactions with hunters, it is increasing each year. As Montana population increases and resident hunter numbers continue to rise, the pressure on the resource cannot withstand this number of folks who keep shooting at animals until they finally recover one.

I know it won't stop some folks. But, I suspect having that rule would hopefully cause a bit more consideration before releasing the arrow or pulling the trigger. And, it would likely cause some to brush up on tracking skills and maybe more effort would be invested in finding the animal that was hit than is spent finding the next convenient target.

I'm gonna pursue this further with legislators. If folks gets pissed because such bill gets introduced in the 2023 legislative session, they can send me a PM or email with their complaints. I'm over it.
I fully support this @Big Fin , let us know how we can help make it come to fruition
 

Firedude

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 2, 2015
Messages
349
Back to the original story, they never knew they had hit another animal until told days later. Keep in mind there is a huge difference what / or if it’s a crime in knowing and not knowing.

I think a lot of people have forgot civics class. It's FRIGHTENING honestly.

Your toddler grabs a candy bar and you realize it in the car vs you putting one in your pocket. There's a difference.

You get home and realize something from Home Depot isn't on your receipt vs lying about how much you are taking. There's a difference.

You mistakenly shoot 2 elk vs go out and dump one without a tag and leave it rot... THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

You hit one and spend 2 days looking vs. Shoot at one, shrug, walk away. There's a difference.

You are not entirely free of responsibility in either circumstance but the outcome should never be the same.
 
Last edited:

xcskier_hunter

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
16
I think a lot of people have forgot civics class. It's FRIGHTENING honestly.

Your toddler grabs a candy bar and you realize it in the car vs you putting one in your pocket. There's a difference.

You get home and realize something from Home Depot isn't on your receipt vs lying about how much you are taking. There's a difference.

You mistakenly shoot 2 elk vs go out and dump one without a tag and leave it rot... THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

You hit one and spend 2 days looking vs. Shoot at one, shrug, walk away. There's a difference.

You are not entirely free of responsibility in either circumstance but the outcome should never be the same.
There is definitely a difference between not knowing you've wounded something and leaving it to rot versus knowing you've done so but it is still extremely negligent and these hunters' negligence is not a great excuse in my opinion. So, I do think punishment in a scenario like this is still valid as otherwise what's to stop them and other hunters from continuing this behavior and robbing more ethical hunters of opportunities for years to come.

As it stands now, there are no consequences for those that are willing to take marginal shots at wildlife (except in states like Alaska).
 

woods89

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2021
Messages
513
There is definitely a difference between not knowing you've wounded something and leaving it to rot versus knowing you've done so but it is still extremely negligent and these hunters' negligence is not a great excuse in my opinion. So, I do think punishment in a scenario like this is still valid as otherwise what's to stop them and other hunters from continuing this behavior and robbing more ethical hunters of opportunities for years to come.

As it stands now, there are no consequences for those that are willing to take marginal shots at wildlife (except in states like Alaska).
Who's going to decide what a marginal shot is?
 

xcskier_hunter

New member
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
16
Who's going to decide what a marginal shot is?
The point is not to define what a marginal shot is as that depends on a person’s abilities but to rather encourage high-percentage shots by creating a consequence for wounding wildlife. States could offer more opportunity for hunters if they did not need to factor wound loss in their tag allocations.
 

Addicting

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
6,252
Location
SW Michigan
States could offer more opportunity for hunters if they did not need to factor wound loss in their tag allocations.
Except that other species depend on that factor. Some of which are listed on the ESA. So if you reduce it away after studies are already done, they have to be redone. Not the end of the world but we have created a scenario where it won’t create any easy answers nor be as simple as just making a law to prevent it.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

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