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

Come again?

Complete and utter bullsh**.

Show me where I said that.

I do have a different definition of what constitutes "behaving in a reckless manner" though.

It's handling or discharging a firearm such that you endanger people or property.

Not the big game animal you're legally hunting and trying to kill. How do you endanger something you're attempting to kill? Use a bigger gun and kill it deader?

But I will admit, it's funny to hear a layman who's been arguing a legal point talk about how laymen shouldn't argue legal points.

Why don't we just call a 900 yard shot on an unwounded animal a douche move and call it a day.

That may be true, but it's beside the point. The point is, both those guys (and others) can make shots that an ordinary hunter under ordinary circumstances should not attempt.

Agreed, and you're concentrating on one point when it's a two point issue.

It's not that an ordinary hunter couldn't or wouldn't take or make the shot that's the issue. That would be a deviation from the ordinary "man" (hunter) standard of care. Yet, a deviation alone is not sufficient for reckless or criminally negligent. For those to apply, the deviation must be a "gross deviation". So, for Pat or Burns to take a 900 yard broadside shot at an unwounded elk would be a deviation from the ordinary, but that's not what the statute states as necessary for a violation. A mere deviation is insufficient, and simply extending the range (especially when the shooter is known and can prove that they are quite capable at such ranges) is just a deviation.

So, where Pat or Burns could and would take a 900 yard chest shot at a standing broadside, unwounded, elk and that would be a deviation, they would NOT take such a HEAD shot at such an animal. That would be a gross deviation. Why? Well, we've already said that taking a shot at such a range would be a deviation. So, what would make a deviation a "gross" deviation? To have that deviation compounded by another, perhaps more extreme deviation from the ordinary standard of care.

There are very, very few hunters that would every take a head shot. That shot, a head shot, is a deviation. Those that would, take it at MUCH closer ranges than 900 yards (Rost, for example, limits his to 300 and he's literally world-class with a rifle). To take a head shot, at 900 yards, is a deviation upon deviation; a "gross" deviation. That's the bar for reckless and/or criminally negligent, and it just might stick if it's tried on this douche-bag.

I know if I was a Utah CO, I'd damn sure try to make that charge stick. If I was a Utah prosecutor, I'd try like hell to get that conviction. If I were a Utah defense attorney, I'd certainly not like to try to convince judge or jury that my client's head shot at an unwounded elk at 908 yards wasn't a "gross deviation" from the ordinary standard of hunters. As a hunter, I'd certainly not like to be sitting in that defendant's chair trying to justify the same actions.

Link
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting-in-utah/hunting-information/big-game.html
Send these guys an e-mail ask them to pass an opinion. Magnum Man

Best answer yet to these vexing legal issues.

Didn't read all 6 pages.

I looked at the video and stepped through it.

To me, it looks like the shot barely touched the back of the head, rather than a square hit.

I got a hunch the cow was not retrieved.

so how does that make it ok for someone that can't make the shot to wound and not recover an elk in an effort to get hero footage on youtube?

douche move is correct.

That might be good advice for you. On the other hand, there are hunters who, under those circumstance, could make a killing shot all day long.

Did I say it's "ok for someone that can't make the shot to wound and not recover an elk in an effort to get hero footage on youtube?"

No, I did not.

All I've ever said was, what he did, regardless of the ethical issues, should not be against the law.

Do you see the difference?

Killing yes, easily. Head, well yes if it didn't move thats even possible.... but a stupid choice.

That's what I meant.

Count me as sort of confused on your position.

Do you believe targeting the head shot on an unwounded elk at 900yds when the chest is readily available is perfectly A OK???

The only reason for targeting a 1/2 MOA vital target for a 3 MOA vital target is too is to "show off"????

Pick a 1/2 MOA spot on the shoulder of the elk and call your shot there. Seems pretty simple to not make the elk pay for your braggin rights and still have something to "bragg" about.

JohnBurns,

One time I had a boss who said, "So you think you are pretty good a communicating?" I laughed out loud in his face. Often I tell Sue I have lots of problems communicating.

I posted "Killing yes, easily," "That's what I meant," was because making a killing shot at 900 yards in the shoulder/boiler room would be easy for some of our .com friends.

I sure hope that is clear.

Was the conversation in lieu of a paycheck?

Of the people, by the people, and for the people. It seems to me the general populace at least on this forum feel that it should be a punishable offense.

I am also very confident that such a matter put to the general populace would pass as punishable by more than 90%.

Not to mention this type of behavior will most likely have a large effect on the non hunting crowd that at this point are not against hunting. It is the kind of behavior that could finish hunting as we know it.

I believe you'd be one of few men on a jury who would aquit.

Any deviation from the will of the people is called communism is it not.

Shod

Um, no, it isn't. In fact, at it's base it's the exact opposite (that the will of the majority of the people always rule, i.e., tyranny of the majority, is rather akin to Communism).

You had me at Hello

Shod

This has to be one of the stupidest posts I've read here. I've already said the same thing you did in the first sentence posted above.

And if the "will of the people" is to make taking an ill-advised shot at game illegal, why isn't it already illegal? What are you doing sitting at your computer screen, why aren't you out organizing communities to correct this grave injustice?

If this isn't stopped, then it will be up to the individual hunter to decide whether to shoot or not, and we just can't have that. It's communism.

And by the way, you can't judge the will of the people based on an internet thread that's a week old.