Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting 900 yd head shot Video

No. He took his time, thought it out, lasered the animal, and got set up. And the only thing endangered was the elk.

C'mon.....

So an act isn't reckless if you take your time and are deliberate doing it?

And it can't be reckless because it's an animal at the other end?

smoke pole you seem really resistant to the idea that such an act may have been illegal. Why does that make you nervous?

Doesn't concern me at all....when you have experienced people on here calling the shot selection "stupid"(and more) under the circumstances,, I think we are nudging around the edges of "reckless".

Maybe you are right....maybe this sort of thing is not illegal,aside from the obvious contempt and disdain shown for the animal. But if I were a warden and witnessed something like this, I'd charge the perp and let the prosecutor and the judge sort it all out.

If you think "reckless" doesn''t count and doesn't pertain to conduct toward animals,you need to read the relevant Utah statutes.

Found it macabre to say the least. Like said no issues with head shooting meat animals I get. Posting photos I don't.

Unbelievable.......

It doesn't make me nervous at all Bob, but I can see how you'd be confused.

What makes me nervous is do-gooders trying to legislate what can't be legislated.





Bob, it's common sense. If you're legally shooting at a game animal with intent to kill it, what more can you do to endanger that animal?

But since you asked, I looked up the Utah Big Game regulations brochure and the Utah criminal code on discharge of firearms. Nothing in there about reckless endangerment by discharging a firearm at game animals. I did find this though:

76-5-112. Reckless endangerment -- Penalty.
(1) A person commits reckless endangerment if, under circumstances not amounting to a felony offense, the person recklessly engages in conduct that creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to another person.
(2) Reckless endangerment is a class A misdemeanor




No "maybe" about it Bob. If you want to be sure, look up the Utah regs like I did.

And by the way, "obvious contempt and disdain" is not illegal either. Do you think it should be?

But its ok to have contempt and disdain if its a wolf in your hunting area right? Just curious where some people draw the line.Let the games begin. ED K

I'm not the one who's confused.76-5-112 isn't dispositive.

You got the wrong statute.

Point being it's a little late to worry about the legislature of Utah and other states passing laws that can't be enforced....this stuff is already codified in Utah and other states.

I know in Oregon, the gamies could stick him with "Game Harassment" and I believe there is a statute for intentionally wounding game. Pretty even in my county a jury would fry him for that shot.

So shooting an animal in hunting season is "game harassment"? How do you prove intentionally wounding?

How can anyone that considers themselves a sportsman not condemn this guys actions? He should have license revocations at least for trying to be a hero and attempting a questionable, at best, shot. Trying this very low probability shot on a live animal and not recovering the animal seems like a clear case of "game harassment" or "willful waste" or whatever other moniker one could use. I see this no different than a trophy poacher dropping a deer, snagging the antlers and leaving the meat to rot.

now THAT's a stretch.....

Bob, I have a news flash for you, nothing you've posted is dispositive. I posted the only thing that came up when I searched the Utah code for reckless endangerment.

Maybe you'd like to post the portion of the Utah code you've been referring to that says taking a risky shot at a big game animal during the open season with a valid tag in your pocket is either reckless or endangerment.

More likely, you'll just continue with your opinions, which are not consistent from one post to the next.

Well, you're wrong about this being the same as leaving an animal to rot. Leaving an animal to rot is black and white and enforceable. Either you didn't recover the meat or you did. And I don't know if you've noticed, but the guys saying he did nothing illegal including myself have also roundly condemned this bozo for his actions.

The distinction is, what he did was not illegal. Nor should it be.

The reason being, it's both too subjective/open to interpretation, and unenforceable.

Who gets to say what a risky shot is? Lots of guys would say a 500 yard shot at a broadside animal in perfect conditions is too risky.

I'm friends with a few gamies, they're good guys that seam to do the right thing.

If they could write the for anything, pretty sure they'd go for it. I know a guys that have been written for less.

What was the charge?

Game Harassment. It's written pretty loose.

I can see how a game warden would get ticked off and do that but personally I have a hard time calling an attempted shot on an animal "harassment."

You'd have to prove the guy was trying to wound the animal. I don't see how you could prove that.

His advertised attitude might be enough for a conviction, though I'm no prosecutor and not claiming to be a Leo.

I wonder if a fish cop could make a run at Utah 23-13-13: http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_13_001300.htm

Or, 23-20-3(u): http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_20_000300.htm

So Smokepole...you are perfectly OK with what this guy did? As in the shot, the video, and the lack of recovery?

Also, I am not 'wrong' on 'seeing it as the same as leaving meat to rot'. That was my opinion...And I completely stand by that comment.