Great look for us real hunters....

[wind gypsy]

Anyone who's seen this knows it's ugly and there are a number of people breaking the law. It's difficult to enforce. It's legal and hard to condemn people in the group who are making a single good shot and legally killing an animal.

Rhetorical question: How many of those 100 hunters do you think shot at multiple elk and knew with certainty they only hit/killed 1? How many do you think knew exactly which elk they shot after the herd turned inside out repeatedly in a shooting galery?

 

[sndmn11]

Rhetorical question: How many of those 100 hunters do you think shot at multiple elk and knew with certainty they only hit/killed 1? How many do you think knew exactly which elk they shot after the herd turned inside out repeatedly in a shooting galery?

The article says one elk went unclaimed, so it would seem you have a factual answer.

 

[wind gypsy]

The article says one elk went unclaimed, so it would seem you have a factual answer.

If there were a way to know the real answer I'd bet the house there were more than 1.

 

[ewade07]

If there were a way to know the real answer I'd bet the house there were more than 1.

Who knows how many were shot and wounded and will eventually die either.

 

[sndmn11]

If there were a way to know the real answer I'd bet the house there were more than 1.

There were citations/tickets issued according to the article. Those kinds of things deal in facts, not guesses or rhetoric or assumptions. According to the article, the number is one elk being left unclaimed.

Who knows how many were shot and wounded and will eventually die either.

In the manners that you wish others to hunt according to your ethics, the same statement can be made. Who knows?

You guys are trying to paint a lot of folks who hunted legally in a bad light because it doesn't fit your own personal opinions. The fact is that all but a few of them did everything by the book within the same legal confines that any other hunter out there does. What hunting means to you does not have to be the same meaning for everyone else, there are oodles of different reasons why a person may hunt, and there are oodles of different reasons why a person chooses to hunt how they do. There's no reason to make a mountain out of a grain of sand because your personal legal choices are different than another person's legal choices.

For the three-ish listed citations that were issued, sure, pile on those folks for being poachers.

 

[Rabbit57]

Years ago, Michael Waddell arrowed a Caribou at 85 yards. I saw the show on that hunt. Great shot! Perfect kill. He practiced at longer distances. Tune his rig for the longer shots. But, he was torn apart for an unethical shot. I thought, shut up! Grumbles were tossing in a bunch of what if’s!
In King Salmon Alaska the know Beaver heard was coming through our area. It was me and 2 others. Max each at that time of year (January) was 5 each. That day came and in 10 minutes we put 8 down. The next day we each totaled our 5 for a combined total of 15.
No caribou wondered off wounded. All recovered.
So who here was there to see all the supposed confusion, blood thirsty unethical hunters and wrongfully multiple shot poor animals?
It is what it is. It was done legally. It was done by locals who hunt and hunt and hunt for game and sport.
Don’t be a snowflake!

 

[ewade07]

So who here was there to see all the supposed confusion, blood thirsty unethical hunters and wrongfully multiple shot poor animals?

You must have missed this part of the article:

"FWP officials said there is evidence that other elk were injured during the incident, but they were not recovered. Authorities are unsure how many other elk might have been injured."

 

[AKDoc]

The core essence IMHO is that hunting is an important and passionate part of life for all of us here...we all obviously share that. I also choose to believe that we all agree our hunting behavior must be lawful. That is our strong common core, but beyond that, the parameters of acceptable hunting behavior starts becoming individually defined...

The reality is that the values we each hold highly in life are not universal across us, nor is there a universal code of specifically and situationally defined/articulated hunting values (ethics?) that we all have pledged to follow as part of obtaining our hunting licenses. Part of me (not the majority of me) wishes there was because in the absence of a universal and pledged code of hunting ethics, the questioning of one another’s hunting behavior seems to most always take-on an interpersonal/judgmental tone, which is seldom (if ever) productive.

Does the OP referenced story bother me? Yes, it sure does...very much.

 

[jmez]

In talking to other bowhunters in the area I hunt elk, I run across evidence every year that elk were injured and not recovered. Generally multiple times.

 

[ewade07]

Seen it before and it's a complete shit show. It isn't hunting, and it's a full on display of complete lack of competence. Dudes (usually very overweight and head-to-toe in camo) bailing out of trucks and emptying mags across the road or while sitting on the should of a gravel County road. Running (well more like waddling) around looking for more ammo. Having no clue which animal they shot at last (or even hit) but more than willing to send a few more out. Unless there's a dead animal, they're too lazy to walk out and look for blood.

It's really the worst of the worst on every level.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Well done.

 

[DudeBro]

The actions of these shooters was stupid based on optics and public opinion alone. That doesn't make it illegal or even unethical. With that in mind, let's take this away from ad hominem attacks and dive into an analysis of the situation.

Let's agree on the following facts here: 1) ~100 persons shot at a herd of elk, 2) ~50 elk were killed, 3) one elk was killed and unclaimed, 4) six people were determined to have broken the law. We don't know the following facts: 1) size of the herd, 2) if individual shooters engaged multiple elk, 3) if other elk were wounded (although there is some evidence there were), 4) whether the shooters were taking well-aimed shots at distances w/in their skillset, 5) whether shooters searched for signs of wounded elk. Many of the posts above are making assumptions about these unknowns.

For those of you imposing your personal views of ethics and sportsmanship on this situation, what specific aspects trouble you so much? Shooting at a herd? 100 shooters engaging the herd? Or something else? If it is something else and not one of my agreed upon facts above, what is the source of the information you're relying on? Once you have identified what aspect is so troubling, do you propose a change in the law to address your concern?

 

[DudeBro]

I guess I'm "troubled" by the all around douche-i-ness of it. Let alone how unsafe most of those types act. I'm also curious why anyone would jump-in to white-knight those turds. I bet I've driven the road that it happened on, and I've seen it happen in that general area in the past.

I'm not jumping in to white-knight anyone. I opened my comment acknowledging that this was stupid. If this occurred the way the article portrays it, I wouldn't do it or be associated with anyone who does. With that said, I'm challenging commenters to slow down and analyze the facts (rather than assumptions - even if you've seen a circus act similar to this in the past). I'm also challenging commenters to propose solutions that are not based on individual notions of ethics and fair play.

There's a whole bunch of fat, lazy, incompetent shooters that drive the highway almost everyday until the migration happens.

What does fitness and laziness have to do with whether a kill is legal and/or ethical? Would you make the same comments about an overweight hunter who rides a UTV to a glassing spot, makes a clean kill, and drive the UTV to the downed animal?

This has nothing to do with legality.

I think this had nearly everything to do with legality. If the conduct was as bad as commenters are assuming it was, it was either A) illegal and not proven, or B) we should have meaningful conversations about making it illegal. Anything else is just attempts to impose one's individual notions of ethics on the masses.

 

[3forks]

I can guarantee you that even if an event like this is technically legal, if a couple of FWP officers were at the scene before the shooting started - their presence would deter the crowd from doing what they did.

Make no mistake, this isn’t 100 guys lined up and all coordinating to take a careful shot at an animal that only they will be shooting at on the count of three.

This kind of event is the equivalent of Black Friday at Walmart. Everyone is trying to get an animal and trying to beat each other to take the first shot at first animal that steps onto public ground. It‘s absolute chaos.

It seems a lot of posters who don’t live in Montana (or maybe haven’t even visited) don‘t realize is that this event made the headlines and was on local TV news. First, this kind of thing makes real sportsman pissed, but also creates momentum for the anti-hunting activists. The other thing is that Montana is also slowly evolving into places like Colorado and Idaho. Between the influx of transplants and the residents disgusted by this kind of thing, it only expedites Montana eventually becoming overall less hunter friendly.

 

[MTSasquatch]

Buttering my popcorn over here...

 

[ewade07]

I'm also challenging commenters to propose solutions that are not based on individual notions of ethics and fair play.

Isn't being a sportsman based on the notion of ethics? The facts are right there in the article (animals injured and therefore most likely unrecovered, people literally shooting AT EACH OTHER).

 

[Poser]

I suppose there’s a part of me that wants to believe if you put a hunting rifle in the hands of 100 hunters, you are going to get well considered and reasonably accurate shots ~75% of the time or greater. Instead, we end up with real world accuracy numbers that look more like NYPD stats. A bunch of Idaho hunters with long guns shooting in a relatively low stress situation shoot about as accurately as a bunch of city slickers pulling 12 lbs triggers back on handguns in high stress situations

 

[DudeBro]

The facts are right there in the article (animals injured and therefore most likely unrecovered,

Are you implying that shooting at and wounding an animal should be illegal? Or is there something about the way you believe the animal was wounded (likely an assumption) that should be illegal? Based on the article, other than the one dead animal that was unclaimed, we don't know if all other wounded animals were tracked diligently? To say otherwise is an assumption - no matter how warranted said assumption may be.

people literally shooting AT EACH OTHER).

I'd like to hear more discussion of this. Such actions might satisfy the elements of reckless endangerment or similar offenses.

 

[sndmn11]

If there were probable cause for a reckless endangerment type citation, one would have been written.

The article could have been written, "The hunters all exhibited extreme care and regard for the safety of each other, and skillfully were able to harvest their game without any reported injuries or potential safety infringements." Same result, different slant.

This happens in Colorado in some areas as well. Last year I sat with a CPW Officer in the cab of his truck parked in one of a few parking lots at a particular State Wildlife Area right off a well traveled US Hwy. We had spotters on a few hundred elk having a stare down with a dozen hunters. The elk were grazing the field packed tight fully aware of the hunters. In the middle were three bulls the CPW Officer knew well from a few years of watching them, and thought they would be over 350" each. A few 300"+ bulls were scattered throughout. A few cows would peel off and separate themselves enough to get shot, cut up, and the dozen hunters was whittled down to a few within an hour. The CPW Officer said he would get a kick out of this scenario every year because the bull hunters more often than not would go home empty handed waiting on the big antlers, and sunset, single digit temps, or impatience would usually win out. The folks applying for that tag know the kind of hunt they are getting, and that is the type of hunt they want.

Legal hunters trying to impose their own personal beliefs, ethics, and opinions to restrict other legal hunters is a surefire way for more laws to be enacted restricting hunting. Just take a look at what happened with bear hunting in Colorado.

I also think if one believes that game is not wounded throughout the whole spectrum of hunting ethic methods, you are kidding yourself.

 

[Hogguts]

They are not hunters!

 

[Squincher]

They are not hunters!

They put meat on the table didn't they? Must one embrace some artificial philosophical machination to feel better about themselves to be a "hunter?"