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

The guy is a dick head and a dumb azz, neither of which is illegal. If it is illegal to be a dumb azz then where does the line stop?

I guess we can all just go and sling lead at game, and if we never recover it...Oh well...it made a cool video...right?

No body is saying that, it just isn't illegal to be a jackass.

Actually, 23-20-4 might well apply.

"Reckless" is defined by statute in UT under 76-2-103:



His actions were clearly intentionally and knowingly done. It'd be very hard to argue that his actions were not "reckless" under that statute, and quite possibly "criminally negligent".

If so, then 23-20-4 might well stick.

http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_20_000400.htm


Utah State Legislature


Title 23 Chapter 20 Section 4

Title 23

Wildlife Resources Code of Utah
Chapter 20

Enforcement - Violations and Penalties
Section 4

Wanton destruction of protected wildlife -- Penalties.


23-20-4. Wanton destruction of protected wildlife -- Penalties.

(1) A person is guilty of wanton destruction of protected wildlife if that person:

(a) commits an act in violation of Section 23-13-4, 23-13-5, 23-13-13, 23-15-6 through 23-15-9, 23-16-5, or Subsection 23-20-3(1);

(b) captures, injures, or destroys protected wildlife; and

(c) (i) does so with intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct as defined in Section 76-2-103;

(ii) intentionally abandons protected wildlife or a carcass;

(iii) commits the offense at night with the use of a weapon;

(iv) is under a court or division revocation of a license, tag, permit, or certificate of registration; or

(v) acts for pecuniary gain.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to actions taken in accordance with:

(a) Title 4, Chapter 14, Utah Pesticide Control Act;

(b) Title 4, Chapter 23, Agricultural and Wildlife Damage Prevention Act; or

(c) Section 23-16-3.1.

(3) Wanton destruction of wildlife is punishable:

(a) as a third degree felony if:

(i) the aggregate value of the protected wildlife determined by the values in Subsection (4) is more than $500; or

(ii) a trophy animal was captured, injured, or destroyed;

(b) as a class A misdemeanor if the aggregate value of the protected wildlife, determined by the values established in Subsection (4) is more than $250, but does not exceed $500; and

(c) as a class B misdemeanor if the aggregate value of the protected wildlife determined by the values established in Subsection (4) is $250 or less.

(4) Regardless of the restitution amounts imposed under Subsection 23-20-4.5(2), the following values are assigned to protected wildlife for the purpose of determining the offense for wanton destruction of wildlife:

(a) $1,000 per animal for:

(i) bison;

(ii) bighorn sheep;

(iii) rocky mountain goat;

(iv) moose;

(v) bear;

(vi) peregrine falcon;

(vii) bald eagle; or

(viii) endangered species;

(b) $750 per animal for:

(i) elk; or

(ii) threatened species;

(c) $500 per animal for:

(i) cougar;

(ii) golden eagle;

(iii) river otter; or

(iv) gila monster;

(d) $400 per animal for:

(i) pronghorn antelope; or

(ii) deer;

(e) $350 per animal for bobcat;

(f) $100 per animal for:

(i) swan;

(ii) sandhill crane;

(iii) turkey;

(iv) pelican;

(v) loon;

(vi) egrets;

(vii) herons;

(viii) raptors, except those that are threatened or endangered;

(ix) Utah milk snake; or

(x) Utah mountain king snake;

(g) $35 per animal for furbearers, except:

(i) bobcat;

(ii) river otter; and

(iii) threatened or endangered species;

(h) $25 per animal for trout, char, salmon, grayling, tiger muskellunge, walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and wiper;

(i) $15 per animal for game birds, except:

(i) turkey;

(ii) swan; and

(iii) sandhill crane;

(j) $10 per animal for game fish not listed in Subsection (4)(h);

(k) $8 per pound dry weight of processed brine shrimp including eggs; and

(l) $5 per animal for protected wildlife not listed.

(5) For purposes of sentencing for a wildlife violation, a person who has been convicted of a third degree felony under Subsection (3)(a) is not subject to the mandatory sentencing requirements prescribed in Subsection 76-3-203.8(4).

(6) As part of a sentence imposed, the court shall impose a sentence of incarceration of not less than 20 consecutive days for a person convicted of a third degree felony under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) who captured, injured, or destroyed a trophy animal for pecuniary gain.

(7) If a person has already been convicted of a third degree felony under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) once, each separate additional offense under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) is punishable by, as part of a sentence imposed, a sentence of incarceration of not less than 20 consecutive days.

(8) The court may not sentence a person subject to Subsection (6) or (7) to less than 20 consecutive days of incarceration or suspend the imposition of the sentence unless the court finds mitigating circumstances justifying lesser punishment and makes that finding a part of the court record.

Amended by Chapter 250, 2009 General Session

Where in hell did you get that idea? Why don't you do a search for my user name over the last week in this forum (long range) and you can read exactly what I've said about the guy on this thread. It'll take two minutes. If you see anything that indicates to you that I'm "perfectly OK" with it, let me know.





Well, you didn't express it as "your opinion" when you said it. You said he should have his license revoked because it was a "clear case of "game harassment" or "willful waste."

That's not an opinion of what's right or wrong, it goes farther than that when you cite a law and say he should be penalized under that law.

Here's your exact quote:

A man makes a deliberate shot at an elk at less than 50 yards the animal escapes wounded never to be seen again. Do you want him arrested?

Exactly.

Sorry 4ager but I can't agree. Once again, he was lawfully hunting, and shooting at an animal in order to kill it. I've highlighted some language below from the statute you cited. With respect to acting recklessly, what is the substantial and unjustifiable risk that he consciously disregarded? That he would only wound the elk? Hell, he was trying to kill the damn thing. Every time a hunter takes a shot at a big game animal, he/she consciously disregards the fact that they may only wound the animal.

As far as criminal negligence, same question. Plus, what is the standard of care needed when the lawful objective is to kill the animal?

(3) Recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(4) With criminal negligence or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.[i][/i]

In most states he illegally shot from a road way, if not across one.

First quote was to JWP...not you.

Secondly I stated it as an opinion by writing 'I see it no different'. That should clearly denote a opinion.

That's for a court to determine. I know I'd not like to be him sitting in a defendant's seat trying to argue that attempting a 908 yard HEAD shot was not a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ORDINARY hunter would exercise with the circumstances as viewed from the hunter's standpoint.

With hunting and shooting, there is always some degree of risk. It's not that the action need to be riskless in order to be justifiable. It's that the risk not be a gross deviation from the ordinary. That's the burden of proof here: was his action a gross deviation from the standard actions and standard of care of an ordinary hunter in similar situations?

I think one could quite easily argue that an ordinary hunter exercising the normal standard of care in such situations would probably not have attempted the shot at all. Taking a shot in those circumstances would be a deviation from the ordinary standard of care, but not necessarily a gross deviation if the shot itself were placed or targeted where an ordinary hunter would shoot in ordinary situations.

Once you move to taking a shot that an ordinary hunter would likely not take under any but the most extreme circumstance (i.e., a head shot - and again, I'm talking about an ORDINARY hunter, as that's the standard), and you compound that with the ranges involved, a prima facie case for reckless and criminally negligent actions might well be made. If that is made, then the shooter is going to have a very tough time proving that his actions were not, in fact, grossly deviant from the standard of care and standard actions of an ordinary hunter in the same situation.

Honestly, I really do hope that a Utah game warden takes a close look at this [bleep] and his actions and at least tries to make the case against him. That might be what it takes to get through to this dickhead that his actions are irresponsible and WAY outside the bounds. Y'all are right, that there are no laws against being an [bleep], and this guy is certainly that. Now, when that [bleep] takes a potentially grossly deviant, negligent action? Yeah, there might just be a law against those actions.

BTW - anyone see his 400 sq.in. of Hunter Orange as required by law?

http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_20_003100.htm

You are an azzhole of the highest order. Brag about a shot like that with no game recovery. Please leave now.

That's unlawful in UT as well.

http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_050800.htm

76-10-508. Discharge of firearm from a vehicle, near a highway, or in direction of any person, building, or vehicle -- Penalties.

(1) (a) A person may not discharge any kind of dangerous weapon or firearm:

(i) from an automobile or other vehicle;

(ii) from, upon, or across any highway;

(iii) at any road signs placed upon any highways of the state;

(iv) at any communications equipment or property of public utilities including facilities, lines, poles, or devices of transmission or distribution;

(v) at railroad equipment or facilities including any sign or signal;

(vi) within Utah State Park buildings, designated camp or picnic sites, overlooks, golf courses, boat ramps, and developed beaches; or

(vii) without written permission to discharge the dangerous weapon from the owner or person in charge of the property within 600 feet of:

(A) a house, dwelling, or any other building; or

(B) any structure in which a domestic animal is kept or fed, including a barn, poultry yard, corral, feeding pen, or stockyard.

(b) It is a defense to any charge for violating this section that the person being accused had actual permission of the owner or person in charge of the property at the time in question.

(2) A violation of any provision of Subsection (1) is a class B misdemeanor.

(3) In addition to any other penalties, the court shall:

(a) notify the Driver License Division of the conviction for purposes of any revocation, denial, suspension, or disqualification of a driver license under Subsection 53-3-220(1)(a)(xi); and

(b) specify in court at the time of sentencing the length of the revocation under Subsection 53-3-225(1)(c).

(4) This section does not apply to a person who:

(a) discharges any kind of firearm when that person is in lawful defense of self or others;

(b) is performing official duties as provided in Section 23-20-1.5 and Subsections 76-10-523(1)(a) through (e) and as otherwise provided by law; or

(c) discharges a dangerous weapon or firearm from an automobile or other vehicle, if:

(i) the discharge occurs at a firing range or training ground;

(ii) at no time after the discharge does the projectile that is discharged cross over or stop at a location other than within the boundaries of the firing range or training ground described in Subsection (4)(c)(i);

(iii) the discharge is made as practice or training for a lawful purpose;

(iv) the discharge and the location, time, and manner of the discharge are approved by the owner or operator of the firing range or training ground prior to the discharge; and

(v) the discharge is not made in violation of Subsection (1).

Amended by Chapter 248, 2014 General Session

I think you're a dip$hit.

WDO

This remains the bottom line for me.

Slob hunting, not unlike the pornography, should be fairly recognizable when you see it.

Looking up statues to somehow defend this chowderhead on a legal basis seems to miss the larger picture here.

TFF...



Travis

If you think that's what I'm doing, then you're the one missing the larger picture. In no way am I defending this guy; I think I called him a bozo and said he should be kicking himself in the ass, among other things. The only thing I'm saying is that what he did is not illegal, and shouldn't be.


If you want proof of that, read this quote from 4ager below. I hate to say it because 4ager is a sharp dude and rarely misses on something like this, but he's way off-base here.

By saying it is or should be against the law to take a shot that an ordinary hunter under ordinary circumstances would not take sinks us all down to the lowest common denominator, and would make guys like scenarshooter and John Burns violators.

Is that what we want?

I respectfully disagree (and appreciate the compliments). It's not that it sinks us to the lowest common denominator. It puts us all equal before the law. Burns and Pat would NEVER take that shot. Ever. Would they take a chest shot at that range, broadside? Yes. Would that be grossly deviant from the standard of care of an ordinary hunter? No, I don't think it would and I don't think that any allegation would ever be made against them.

Again, it'd come down to it being "deviant from an ordinary standard of care" due to the range, but both of those guys can easily prove that they practice at that range and that the shot itself (in their case, a chest shot) was not "grossly deviant".

In the case of the OP, the deviance from an ordinary standard of care is made a "gross deviance" because of the stated shot placement (head). The range is a deviance, but the taking of a head shot over a chest shot is "gross deviance" because the range is one factor and the choice of a head shot over the chest shot is another and even more of an aberration from the ordinary standard of care than the range.

With range, and rangefinders, optics, etc., the ranges of "ordinary standard of care" are being stretched every year. Not long ago, 400 yards might well have been a deviation from an ordinary standard of care. Today? Four hundred is commonplace and 600 isn't far outside the norm, so 900 while a deviation isn't by itself "gross deviation". Now, 900 yards AND the head shot over the chest shot? That's just "gross", in many ways.

Again, this would be something for a UT game warden to consider and for a court to determine. I think a prima facie case for several game law violations could be made against the shooter (use of game for pecuniary gain; failure to wear hunter orange; shooting from or across a roadway; felony willful, reckless, or negligent injury/wasting of a game animal for pecuniary game; etc.). If so, that's for a court to determine, and I guarantee you that none of us would be wanting to sit in his seat if that happens and try to justify taking a head shot at 900 yards, from/across a road, while not wearing hunter orange, and then posting the video for financial gain.

Stupid should hurt. In this case, stupid needlessly hurt that elk instead of trying for a much higher percentage kill shot. In this case, stupid hurts all ethical hunters by putting it out on YouTube. In this case, perhaps, stupid will also come back to hurt the shooter.

(sigh)....I have been very consistent.

By your analysis and conclusion the purchase of a license is tacit approval for a hunter to behave in a reckless manner.

Do your own research. I never tell the "other side" what I am thinking...unless i want to.

And I'm not here to joust with a layperson firmly convinced that he can predict the legal outcome of a set of facts as they relate to a statutory scheme and the particular language of same.

Not even lawyers of long experience can do that. But laypersons look for absolute answers in the law all the time,when, in fact, they rarely exist. Formal education and decades in practice teaches that.