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?What a stupid thing to say
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."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.
I fully support this @Big Fin , let us know how we can help make it come to fruitionRe-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.
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.
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.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.
Who's going to decide what a marginal shot is?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).
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.Who's going to decide what a marginal shot is?
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.States could offer more opportunity for hunters if they did not need to factor wound loss in their tag allocations.