What do you guys think?


http://youtu.be/95NUv1bLJTQ

Not for me and I shoot long and shoot heads often.

My heads are limited to 300 yards where I feel comfortable in conditions, gropu size and error size plus time of flight.

Agreed, where I feel comfortable, conditions, margin of error, etc.

Outstanding shot!

I guess I'd rather be lucky than good…

John

That just might not have been luck. Skill rather.

In recognition of this and the very appearant (in the videos) time spent and effort involved in aquiring and honing of the neccessary skills, not to speak of the money in the gear involved and training, I will say, that the attitude conveyed through handle (coldbore miracle), video commentary (gruesome, carnage, general awesomeness...) and shot selection is not my cup of tea.

Do ya'll suppose they would've hung the video if it had been a 900yd gutshot?

CR

Or a lower jaw shot off, or even a miss. miles

I didn't even finish watching it...hate that crap. If you want to take stunt shots like the. the loser, when you f it up, shouldn't be the animal.

Was he even aiming for the head? And if so, why even risk that small of a target at that range? Bad decision even if it had a good outcome.

I agree 100%. I'm calling luck. No one I know would ever take a 900 yard head shot at a Big game animal.

Fotis,



Do you know anyone who can make three consecutive hits on a man sized target at a mile and a half?

coldboremiracle,

Fun shot. It seemed there was a lot of noise considering the suppressor.

It certainly appears some here didn't notice this is the Long Range Hunting forum.

I don’t like head shots on game at ANY range. It is always a lousy percentage shot and results in wounding as often as not.

This is a long range hunting forum and to me when hunting its my responsibility to make a clean kill. That means taking the highest percetage shot no matter what range the animal is at. I would have been much more impressed with that shot had it been a boiler room shot. I tend to doubt people who make gimic shots at long range. “yeah, I meant to do that, really!” sure you did!

Yes I was aiming at the head, which is where it hit. I understand if that's not everyone's cup of tea, but I wouldn't have taken the shot if I wasn't confident that I would hit it. Distance to target is irrelevant without the understanding and practice it takes to make a shot. How many deer get they're jaws blown off at 100yds? I'd say far more than there are at 900yds, for two reasons I suggest; not many people practice hunting at that range, and secondly those that do hunt in the realm of 100 yds are far more numerous a group, and that group likely includes the portion of hunters with shall we say less dedication. Thereby resulting in far more wounded/unrecovered animals.

I certainly dont mean to imply that headshots at this or any distance is unethical, that is up each individual. For every hunter, there is another hunter who disagrees with the first's practices. I only worry about what I can control.

Although this is the Long range Forum, I would think that anyone would care more about the Possible wounding of a fine game animal that might be left to starve to death because of a shot off jaw than trying to impress someone with their prowess /

There is a difference between taking a high percentage shot and an shot like the video portrays.

That wasn,t a portrayel of an ethical hunter taking a reasonable long range shot.
That was a portrayel of an ignorant slob hunter .
Although he has shooting skills he doesn,t care enough about the animals to to care if one starves to death because of a misplaced shot of just a few inches.

In my oppinion only an uncaring idiot would even attempt a shot like that on an unwounded animal.

I think that anyone that thinks that this is fine example of long range hunting needs to reevaluate the whole picture and not just the fact that an animal was killed at long range.

Thats bullchit
Are you saying you can control your bullet at that range to within a couple of inches ? All of the time ,most of the time?
Bullchit

I agree with bcraig. That shot if placed in the boiler room would have been impressive. That shot intentionaly aiming for the head is the ultimate form of hubris. What possible reason is there for taking the lowest percentage shot at any range. If you want to brag and prove how good you are at long range bang steel. I’d be impressed if you were shooting a 5” steel gong at 900 yards, it takes the same amount of skill without the chance of wounding an animal.

There is a difference between a hunter and a shooter. A hunter should respect the animal enough to take the high percentage shot every time.

The time of flight would be somewhere near 1 second. Regardless of how well the shot is placed, alot can happen at the taget distance in one second. The animal can move and make a well placed shot be in a different , undesireable place or a untargeted animal could enter the impact area . Possibly an animal that is not even a legal kill.. I notice in the video the nearest animal to cross after the shot was a smaller bull elk.While a small chance of either it is still a chance. That type of long range shooting may be best reserved for non game targets. While i would like to possess those shooting skills, i would not try to apply it to game hunting. It is a like like shooting when you don't know your backstop.

coldboremiracle,

It's always so illuminating to have yet another long-range hunter justify himself by pointing out how many "average" hunters screw up shots. It's like hearing 10-year-old say to his father, "But all the other kids are doing it!"

Would you still have honored us with the video footage had your bullet found the guts instead?

My guess is no, guts aint too high on the cool factor.....

What isnt my cup of tea is stunt shooting on live, uninjured game. Metal doesnt bleed.



The longer the time of flight, the greater the chance the games movement will change its position and therefore POI. You can dope wind and drop all you want, you cant (accurately) and reliable predict the unpredictable- a turn of the head, a move of the neck.



I'd say you are rationalizing. I would venture that plenty of jaws, legs, & guts have been punched, and plenty of coyotes fed, thanks to the explosion of long range sniper hunting.

Bravo

+1

Excellent analogy.

I think you got lucky.

But, I've been there too, so I'm not going to pull the "holier than thou" card. I simply cannot believe that with a standing broadside shot at a distance of 900 yards that you were aiming for the head. Sorry, not buying it, but congrats on your cow.

Said it better than I could.

There has to be a better way of trying to prove one's manhood than this..........

Evidently my percentage is a lot higher than what you assume. I"ve NEVER lost a head shot. Of course I doubt I've done more than maybe 150 of them. I did make one once that changed HOW I make head shots. Since then I"ve never had to follow one either, only that one. And it wasn't any different than a bad any shot. Follow it up, shoot it a second time and it was done. Nothing to it.

So for me, within my parameters the head is a viable HIGH percentage target that I've never had a failure on.....

900 yard head shooting is [bleep] up.



End of story.

And then came here to brag. Not many posts since he joined. miles

Registered: 02/22/12
Posts: 7
Loc: Utah, north

Operating within your skill level coupled with taking high percentage shots is what it's all about. I don't care if it's 9 or 900, or even 9000 yards a head shot is always a bad choice. To take an already very low percentage shot at long range is even more irresponsible. Believe me I would be just as critical of those "average" 100 yard head shooters too. Hunting isn't the place to show off, do that at the range or when shooting inanimate objects.

If it had been a coyote that's one thing....an elk is something totally different.....
If you got her, I'll bet it was a beatch getting her out....any hero photos of her on the ground?

SamOlson said it best

Could you explain how you were controlling a wild animal at 900yrds?

Looks like you just caught top left side of her head when I froze the frame. If that is where the bullet impacted, Another 2"right she would have been running up the hill with a pierced ear.

Taking head shots on unwounded elk at 900yds is stupid.

Personally I think you went for the chest and missed. The elk was unlucky and had it's head in the way of the bullet.

I watched most of your other videos and nothing there showed a skill level necessary to reliably make first round hits on sub MOA targets at 900yds.

Feel free to hang some other evidence that would show you have in the past proven you have such skill.

With that title I didn't bother to watch.

Why would you shoot at the head when the shoulder/chest area was clearly exposed?!!!! Someone needs to re-examine their thought process.

We have a guy in our hunting club who insists on trying to shoot deer in in the head. I can't tell you how many times several of us have searched through briars, etc. trying to find his "almost good shots".

I agree with Sam & Smokepole!!!!

I don't do it to show off. I do it under controlled shot situations harvesting meat. I don't even call it hunting really. Since that word seems to piss off folks around here for some reason.

Its a clean fast kill. Meat is in better shape. No mess in the cavity to deal with when cleaning.

its how we shot our cows, our hogs etc...

The brain is a BIG target at closer ranges. Its as big as an good sized orange on our deer. If I can't center up an orange then I've no business shooting.

And if the conditions or me isn't right, I'll go to the lungs and deal with the mess.

but to disregard a head shot is a bit arrogant and ignorant. They work wonders and as noted my success is 100% so far. Thats better than a few folks success at ribcage shots.

And the way I set up for my shots, its dead or miss these days. I shoot high on a high target. Only thing that can do is drop the head which is a miss, or go left/right which is a miss also. If I can hit the brain or the skull surrounding it, its DRT.

I still agree 900 under perfect conditions is not the place to do it though.

I can't figure that one out either...This fella seems awful proud of himself in his videos...

Too much Call of Duty...

Hell just froze over, I agree with John.

I'd say his username matches the shot pretty well....

Tanner

His dad posts on the 'Fire too, Coldboremistake.

Hell just froze over, I agree with John. [/quote]

Exactly. I just felt a tremor in the cosmos.

There is a lot more non lethal space on an elk's head, than lethal. A lot of jaw and snout to disfigure if you miss.

Personally no, I do not

Well, we are all assuming that he actually did mean to hit it in the head on purpose as claimed.

What do I think? Think i'm unimpressed ,especially in your need for validation.
cheers.

I guess it can't be done then.

I am curious, which elk were you aiming, sorry couldn't resist asking . Just kidding.

did it once, but not 1.5 miles... something around 1900 yards. Pure fluke, was a group about 10 inches in size on a 55 gallon drum. First round was off for wind, favored next 3 as quick as I could. 50 bmg barrett bolt....no skill involved at all thats for sure. pure luck.

I think you were about 3.5 minutes off.

Or maybe a mil?

Stories like this remind me of gamblers who only tell you when they win. You must be very proud of yourself coldbore.

CBM,

If you took 100 cold bore shots at a 5" round steel plate 900 yards away, what percentage of hits are you capable of?

John

Apples and oranges. The thing about an animal's head is, it's attached to the end of their neck, and it's the part of their body most likely to move. Unless they're asleep.

nice shot, piss poor shot choice.

not gonna stroke your ego like you want. I've met plenty of guys like you, no reasoning with em. SMH.

I hear this all the time. I think this is total BS. Where do you draw the line with species? Are some afforded more mortal status than others? Nobody would have given him crap for shooting a chuck in the head yet here we are crucifying him for a cow elk shot in the head. What's good for the goose is good for the gander or something like that.

I agree the yotes life is like the elks, I 've no problem taking either at times, but its going to be the best effort I have, and the quickest kill I can, or I"m not going to shoot.

Pests and vermin are not attributed the same value or care that a big game animal, pet, livestock, or human being is for that matter.

I don't really care if my mouse trap catches a mouse by the head, chest, guts, or legs- so long as it catches him and he's dead when I find him.

This is exactly the way I look at animal life. They are all the same. I kill freas and I kill game and varmints. Dead is dead.

Someone posted if the shot was 2" to the right, he would have missed. If the elk had wings it wouldn't be an elk. What's mature about a "if"? The shot didn't go 2" to the right. It hit the head.

If you guys ever had to debate this in front of voters you would lose big time (the elk vs coyote guys).

I kill head rice......

With your equipment shown, I ASSUME you practice, and have a range finder that is +,-, one yard. It looks as tho conditions could not have been better, flat light, no marage I could see in the video, but slight elevation on the shot. If you missed high, you missed, low hit her in the neck. I looks like you just cought her in the top of her head, almost a high right miss. To me, conditions would have dictated the shot, and again ASSUME you thought this out.
It worked out for you. Nice job.

Did It? or is there an elk running around with one ear?

Exactly!

Well, it's not the same way state game agencies look at wildlife.

Shoot a coyote and let it lay. Then call your state game agency and tell them you did it.

Then try the same with an elk.

An elk has more value, both in terms of the 150-odd lbs of some of the healthiest meat you can eat, and the $600-800 per head that non-residents are willing to pay for just the chance to kill one.


And PS, by your logic, you'd feel exactly the same about running over an earthworm in your driveway as you would if you ran over your dog.

Is that the case?

Campfire Cabin Fever Season.

Interesting mindset. On the strange side.

Thinking about any big game animal I've killed, I never once thought about anything else as the point of aim but the shoulder area or just behind no matter what range. But then I really can't shoot either

I would not set out to torture a mouse to death OTOH either...

smokepole,



My opinions are not established by other folks, including the game departments. I don't have a dog.

And again, what do game laws have to do with ethics. Where do you draw the line? Is elk not subject to cruelty ethics because it is $600 tag, good eating? Certainly, they are no smarter than a coyote. Feral horses are bigger and smarter than an elk yet afforded NO protection, is it OK to head-shoot them at 1000 yards? Again, where do you draw the line on what it is OK to gut shoot and leave to crawl away vs making every shot the perfect scenario where you can't possibly wound an animal?

If any of you have EVERY wounded an animal, I refer you to the words of the Savior in John 8:7

I have wounded animals that I could not recover, and when the long range videos show up, I always wonder, how many misses or wounding shots were made before a video that was OK to post was made. I am not speaking to this video directly, and frankly I did not watch it. Just talking about things that I see posted often. Most will deny that they ever miss or let animals get away, but it happens. miles

I will happily admit I let alot of them get away. Because I was not comfortable with the shot. Close or far.

Getting to popcorn time already... LOL.

The last deer I killed took me seven minutes before I was comfortable making the shot. And it was only a 276 yard head shot.

I don't believe I raised the issue of ethics, did I? The issue I raised is one of intrinsic value.

I wouldn't personally go for a head shot on a coyote at 900 either. My philosophy is, any animal I shoot will get as humane a death as I'm able to give it.

I am not arguing whether it can be done or not. What I meant was I do not know any "HUNTER" that would attempt it. Body shot yes but WHY a head shot?

Would you? I would never.

Your opinions may not be, but your convoluted logic just was.

I'm not surprised you don't have a dog. If you place the same value on a dog as an amoeba, why not just stick with that?

Costs less to feed, and no vet bills. What's not to like?

They're very difficult to train to retrieve to hand....

rcamuglia



That made me laugh out loud.

He will have to retort with something. He has to have the last word.

Hey coldboremiracle,

Why didn't you include the part in your OP that you did not in fact recover the elk?

Tanner

Ringy, he was laughing at you, not with you.

You been doing some cipherin'?

That would tend to throw a little water on the idea that this particular shot was a good idea....

Huh? Really?

I'm wondering when he'll log back in and tell us how bad it sucked to not find it....

Tanner

C'mon, you gotta be kidding.....

Rung her bell, but nothing but ear or hair huh?

Apparently not?

It doesn't make any sense to video a hunt with the stupid music and the whole 9 yards and not have a shot with the proud hunter sitting next to his trophy.

Nothing but crickets… Imagine my surprise…

John

Awwww.....schit!




Travis

smokepole,

You never let me down.

I think your ego talks you into doing stupid [bleep] up [bleep] on camera so you can post it to youtube for people to tell you what an amazing shot you are. Not enough people liked your video on facebook, so you're [bleep] ass had to sign up on a new forum to get some attention. Tanner did some digging and now your balls are shrinking.

I also think my aim is better than yours and your rifle is gayer than you are. Since you're asking...

I kinda wondered why there were no hero shots with the post. This guy posts all kinda pix over at Snipers Hide but I couldn't find any mention of this elk....

I don't have to, you do an excellent job without my help.

I may be wrong but after watching the video multiple times (50-54 seconds) it looks like he took her left ear off maybe grazing her skull.



As to the shooter! Any pictures of the elk after the kill??????????

DOOOOD, don't do that.

If you took a 900 yard head shot you are at the least a damned fool, for posting a video of your stupidity you are a damned idiot.

I agree with John.

You got lucky. Nothing more. On a broadside elk you managed to clip the head and call it intentional...

I have no problems with long shots as long as they are high percentage shots.

I know a good number of professional shooters (scout sniper instructors, SOTIC trained SF snipers, etc), as well as highly skilled and accomplished civilian LR competition shooters, and not a single one that I can think of would advocate a head shot with such a tiny incapacitation area at such a distance. Not one.

Coldboremiracle

I think that you have to be one of the worst hunters I have ever seen - if you can't get within 900 yards of taking a shot!

Most "proper" hunters try and get "up close and personal" with their targets - maybe you just don't have the skill....why on earth would you make a video of this? - are you needing attention or are you asking for help to become a real hunter?

Kudu11,

Maybe you didn't notice, but you posted in the Long Range Hunting forum. Just a heads up to a new guy.

I don't understand the mindless stupidity and monstrous ego of anyone who would try something as stupid as this,and post it on Youtube with all the production hoopla,knowing the animal was wounded and lost.

I think he needs counseling and should have his hunting license yanked for wanton wasting of game.Pathetic.

Lucky? How? He never recovered it!

It has absolutely nothing to do with getting closer or proper hunters get closer. This is a long range hunting forum . The OP is getting knocked down for taking a very risky, low percentage head shot when he had a broadside body shot available.

Ringman, just a heads up for a guy who doesn't get it. This has nothing to do with being a new guy. The two most accomplished and vocal proponents of long range hunting on the forum have already roundly criticized this bozo.

To me it isn't the distance...it's the shot placement selection, lousy execution,and disregard for the animal.

The deception with the flowery video and failure to recover is deceiving and dishonest. Anybody hawking this kind of garbage has the scruples of a crocodile.

If what Tanner says is true,it takes a lot of nerve to ask us "what we think", deliberately leaving out the part about not recovering the animal.

I agree in general that distance is not the issue. In particular though, if you're gonna do a head shot, you need to get closer.

Posting a video of a risky botched shot is just plain idiotic.

Notice the road on the map, even the laziest road hunter could have strolled a lot closer.

Thinking an updraft along a couple of those ridge lines, might have easily botched that shot....

A quarter MOA load doesn't leave a lot of room for the brain pan at 900. Pretty arrogant to claim confidence on that shot.

Those elk were on the move. Given the time of flight of a bullet over 900 yards,there's no way in hell of knowing where that elk's head would be when the bullet got there without a crystal ball.

If he had spent the time doping his crystal ball, he may have made this.

perhaps crystal ball AI?

either way, I'd just like to hear it from the horses mouth if the recovery issue is true, and what was the reason for the post.

She had those guys made, the only reason she held that position for so long.

Being a long range forum should not throw common sense out the window. In fact y'all should condemn all such shenanigans and try to keep others from trying such schitt for the infamy of it. Just as surely as ATV's got a lot of ground posted, slob shooters with a video camera will hurt long range hunters that try to do the right thing. You will all be lumped together. miles

All but one have condemned it.

The thing the stands out to me the most is that he apparently registered here just to show off that shot. I don't think this is the crowd he thought and won't be back most likely.

what a fuggin idiot. Looks like a 1ear'd elk with a close shave on one side

I've got a little bit of "incriminating" evidence screen-shotted, but I'll give coldboremistake the benefit of the doubt and let him come on here and tell the real story.....

Tanner

Should I remind you, you suggested he get closer? That's why I reminded you this is the Long Range Hunting forum. What others posted about the video doesn't change the fact you wanted a hunter, who posted in the Long Range Hunting forum, to get closer.

Dennis, it shows that he registered on 02/22/12, and had 4 posts in Feb. and March of 2012, and then showed back up with this. I have not read his old posts, but they might be interesting. miles

Biggest mistake the douche made was slowing the impact down. Easily visible it was a grazing shot -

Definitely little man syndrome -

And that would be me.
If you read my post, and watched the video, I commented on the TECHNICAL aspect of the shot, and I also made some ASSUMES. If you have not read it, please go back and do so.
Most all but one, me, posts here are on the ETHICKS of the shot. All I will say is that everyone has thoughts on the subject, as some think 25 yrds is sane, others 2500. Ethicks boil down to the indiviual shooter, as it should.
If ethicks are the primary concern, the Long Range Hunting forum should not be promoted here, maybe changed to Long Range Shooting, with no HUNTING videos permitted. I think then most P.& M. would stop, and I could actually learn something.

Thank You

ive got a buddy who will consistently shoot a small cantaloupe at 1000-1200 yards and has shot a 10" group at 2700+ i sent him this video and said "i wouldnt have taken that shot, that guy is a dumbass"

Ringman, you don't need to remind me that I told a guy who took a shot that was obviously beyond his capabilities to get closer.

Looks like coldboremiracle may have found the Campfire didn't warm his, uh, bore. He hasn't been back on-line for almost two days.

The long range forum on here reminds me of lord of the flies , why it even exists on the site is beyond me. None of the cool kids like it , even though they constantly post here. Posting about anything here is like wiping your ass before you crap.

Just like a bank shot, gotta call it before it counts.

I disagree, I've been interested in Long Range Hunting and have read the Forum For Years. Most of what I've learned I consider to be invaluable information.

I've learned from reading the importance of developing skill and things that help considerably to maximize effectiveness such as staying within ones developed skill level.

If I accidentally head shoot an elk at 900 yds from what I have learned because I am a pay attentioner....is I have gone beyond my skill level.

If I am actually aiming for the head I haven't yet learned to maximize effectiveness and would consider myself to be piss poorly instructed. Because I pay attention to intelligent individuals I actually picked up on that little tidbit.

The longest shot I've ever tried is 530 yds and it required one squeeze of the trigger for a successful one shot kill. The shot was easy and I was 100% confident in the rifle, the load, and the conditions or I never would have taken the shot. Previous practice told me I successfully made the shot at the range all year long with zero misses. If I had missed 5 out of 50 shots fired at 500 yds during practice I would have not taken the shot.

I learned these principles from reading the long range forum and it is greatly appreciated and valuable.

Shod

CGPAUL, I went back and read your post.

"It worked out for you, nice job??"

You may want to reconsider. Since it didn't, and it wasn't.

And while you're at it, look up "ethics" in the dictionary. You're confusing "personal ethic" with ethical. Just because someone's personal ethic allows him to botch a questionable shot and post a video, that doesn't make it ethical.

There is no place for this in hunting...shooting yes but hunting NO! I am all for shooting at whatever distances one wants to shoot - at targets. Animals deserve more respect than this and the animals that I see every year in the PA woods that are missing legs, flopping jaws, gut shot (that I find dead) are a small testament to that fact. Are there guys out there that can do this on a fairly consistent basis- sure there are, but they are few - just watch the 1000 yds silhouette matches at Ridgway, PA and see many targets these guys hit (out of 40) and you might get a feeling how many animals get wounded because of some jackass's need to compensate for some shortcoming - hey just my opinion but I think the people that do this are in need of some serious mental help.

PennDog

What you likely see in PA is almost always a result of the short range shooters that most folks are.

I've come to learn that typically when a person shoots longer than they have any business doing, it will result in a complete miss.

Its the weekend warriors that have bore sighted guns, and never practice that bother me WAY more than a good practiced experienced LR shooter.

Yet a top LR shooter will know to never take the shot that was taken here, at least at the head, due to a number of factors.

Fact is even though a lung shot would have been gravy at that distance in those conditiosn, due to the alerted posture of the animal, I"d have never even tried that shot personally. Grazing un alert, sure.

The inbreading in PA causes much of this phenomenon. The truth is the average in bread fella has no business even owning a rifle. Not all men are created equal.

If one can't sucessfully take game at distance you have no business being there.

If one can it is there business to be there. Inbreads need not apply.

Shod

Inbread huh?

A guy named Shodd who signs off as Shod, calling others "inbread" is a [bleep] riot.

Shodd,

If you read my post dumbazz I said there are those that can do it - but the ones that I know that can do it won't because of the respect that they have for the animal (if they HAD too they would and could) - I respect them for that.

p.s. wheat is "inbread"

CGPaul,
We have enough rules already.

Don't try and reason with a guy who's family tree is a telephone pole.

Smokepole,
Check again. I didn't suggest you get closer.

No, I don`t want to reconsider, the technical aspects "worked out". The conditions under which the shot was taken, were IMHO,perfect. I think I also mentioned that I ASSUMED he had thought it out. But, I was not there. Nor was anyone else that has posted here.




As far as "ethics" are concerned,and please excuse my rotten spelling,the only thing here is our "personal" ethics. His personal ethics broke the shot. Mine didn`t nor did yours.

"Ethical", who or what decides that? I don`t have to tell you many that visit this site consider anything remotely resembling long range( I`ll say 150yrds and over) un-ethical, as the dictonary defines it.
Are they right?

No. They too are confusing their own personal ethic with "ethical."

Ethical means only taking shots you can make, regardless of the distance.

Hmmm...so I`m talking to someone that has never done it..or wasn`t that you on the 1082-960 thread?
As someone once said....let your fingers do the shooting. You have not been there.

Until this thread I never gave long range hunting much thought. I must say I am not impressed. If your going to argue some superiority to this form of hunting because of slobs driving deer in Pennsylvania well 2 wrongs don't make a right. 900 yards on a big game animal, really.

You're right, I've never taken a 900 yard head shot. I don't have to. It's unethical and that has nothing to do with the technical aspects.

Shodd is my username and Shod is my real name you stupid Fugger. Kinda like Deflave signs his real name Travis after he posts. Many here actually do this but then it doesn't take a fugging rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Shod

I didn't get past the schitty looking "sniper rifle".

Exactly,

its really an easy to understand concept though a large number of confused individuals will be along shortly to to add to all the confusion and misinterpretation.

Shod

Sounds like you never been to 6...so you don`t know. I think many here don`t.

Good non answer BTW.

Anyone who has been to 6... do know the answer to your question. And its not what you are insinuating.

Shod

Good non-answer to what question?

If you mean this, I have no idea what you're talking about:



Edited to add, I just looked up that thread. I did post a comment on it. My copmment was complimentary. Those guys didn't take head shots.

Is that what you were talking about?

After looking at coldboremiricle's youtube channel, it's plain to see they guy is a shooter. It appears he shoots some precision matches. It's also pretty easy to deduce that he knows how to run a rifle.

Assuming this and knowing what is possible with having some ability, I also deduce that he was trying to shoot the cow in the head.

At our precision match when we have ties, we sometimes have a shoot-off by shooting at the head of a steel IPSC target at 800 yards. The head part of the steel measures 5". It's a "miss and out" sudden death type shoot-off. Last time I hit the head and so did the guy who tied me. I hit it again and he missed, so I won.

Just relating that so that everyone realizes it's not some kind of fantasy or out of the realm of possibility.



Now let's get real.

I have never thought of taking that kind of shot on a big game animal. Anyone who would consciously do so is void of respect for the animal and has some serious ethical issues.

You've got to have enough sense not to assign the same value to a big game animal as a piece of steel or a prairie dog.

A 900 yard shot to the shoulder as an aimpoint wouldn't raise an eyebrow

Elk with ear



Elk without ear

I suspect some will consider this a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The idea of coyotes being of less value to elk interesting but might not really apply. I have killed a few coyotes a ranges further than this elk but I shot at the biggest vital target in each and every case. The idea being that my goal was to actually kill the coyote and I took the absolute best shot to get that done.



Rick,

I personally believe the OP is lying and did in fact go for the chest and missed high and if we analyze the shot a bunch of factors scream "High Point of Impact".

Uphill angle. Looks to be about 10 degrees and using the .260 Rem at typical conditions for the area is going to give you +or - 1/2 MOA or about 5 inches.

Brush is obscuring the lower 1/3 of the cows chest and centering the visible chest will give a point of aim higher than normal.

Shooting Uphill will give most shooters a higher POI due to lower position of the shoulder on the buttstock. This shooter error is usually more than the incline compensation of the trajectory. It is very easy to have a full 1 MOA shift in the "zero".

The biggest issue is the rock face behind the elk. The Swaro rangefinder the OP used is known for the larger beam divergence and if the elk was centered in the reticle there is no way the return bounce of the laser was not off that rock face.

It is somewhat hard to tell from the compressed depth of field but that face is at least 40yds further than the elk. Could be even more.

A 40 yd miss range is worth 1.5 MOA with the OPs gun and those conditions.

We can see from the trace of the bullet that there was basically zero wind. The shot impacts at the far right side of the head, directly above the center of the visible shoulder.

Either way the OP deserves the schitstorm.

Here ya' go... The whole Youtube Video Production thing just pissed me off more than anything... Fuggin' lame...



Tanner

What a douche.

(Not you Tanner)

And he even posted his shot days later on his FB page. So he either is lying, or took 2 questionable shots!

http://snipershide.scout.com/story/1494824-victory-call

Jesus, a right proper whack-off fest over a spike bull.... Regular old Shakespeare...

Tanner

I'm with Burns on this one- POA was high-shoulder shot, miffed 1-2 MOA high, grazed left side of elk's head.

that might be the worst written article ive ever read lol good god

"a crossed"......."coarsly".

he needs a proofreader......

Agreed. He's sooooooo hungry for rockstar status he's blind to how fuggin stupid he looks. I'd pity him if he wasn't using animals as props in his silly little production.

[bleep] utard...

Laughing.... He's giving you boys a bad name Rosco...

Tanner

Great detective work Tanner. How the heck did you find that?

Take the elk out of the equation and that is still a very tough shot. Being a mere one click off at that range and you will miss by 2.36". Now factor in breathing, wind, and hunting conditions...you are pulling a head shot out of your ass.

I still think he aimed for the chest and missed.

Tanner, that yellow steel hanging at Wolcott is a pain in the ass, and it is only 650yds if you shoot from near the gate. There is always wind there too. I have not hiked out to measure it, but I believe it is only 6-8" across based on my reticle. Do you know how big it is by chance? I am not 100% on that thing yet and it is only 650.

Yes. I saw nothing to indicate precisely where one was aiming. Proably even been done with open sights at some time or another.

This. +1000

I disagree. You have to actually kill something to be charged with wanton waste.

Not true.... Wanton waste can include "wounding". And the actions may also fall under the category of "wanton destruction".

Bob, are you telling me its against the law to wound an animal? If it gets
gets away, how are you wasting it?

You might want to look this one up.

PS, it was a joke.

PSS, after thinking about it, there are no laws against taking a low percentage shot, which is as it should be. It's too subjective. You can't legislate ethics.

And it would be the ultimate slippery slope.

smokepole: I did look it up.

Under the definitions I saw,wanton waste includes both "killing" and "wounding".

Whether this falls into either category depends on all the facts. That's what courts are for.

So, you believe there should be a law against taking low percentage, ill-advised, or risky shots?

That's the real question.

I don't shoot at animals 900yds away, but I don't care if some people choose to do so.

The problem I have with the OP is he made a video in an attempt to suck his own dick. I don't believe for a second he was aiming for that cow's head.

I'm also not saying people can't hit a target that size at 900yds. I'm saying the OP didn't intend to hit that part of the animal when the video was shot.

He can claim he did, but the stench of douche-bag is way too strong in that video.



Travis

scratch-n-sniff video.

damn.

Laffin'....I don't think anything....not for me to decide.I'm not a court of law.

Too lengthy a philosophical/legal conversation.

All I am saying is that the definition of wanton wasting includes both killing and wounding.

Sure it's a slippery slope.Cases involving statutory interpretation in light of conduct is always a slippery slope.It depends on the facts in any given circumstance.

But I think (just my own view) that there is a recognition in the law that game animals are not there simply to serve as our targets of opportunity. We have SOME responsibilities when we pick up a rifle.

BS Bob, you said the guy should be charged with a game law violation. Richard Sherman can't even backpedal that fast.

"Bring ya knife"

LMFFAO, what a fugtard...

CR

I would think this would depend on how, and how hard a person tried to recover the wounded animal. miles

miles that is indeed a factor.

As a hypothetical,how about a situation where the animal is wounded, but recovery is impossible or highly unlikely?

Would that be wanton wasting?

I am not expecting a response from you. I am simply playing "bar exam" Q&A here.

For any interested, here's a thread on Snipers Hide where CBM posted the same video. Be aware the thread is about headshots and is NSFW...

LINKY....

CR

I believe in doing everything possible to recover an animal, but then there is a time that you have to say that it is gone. Most likely if you tried hard and could not recover the animal, it will survive. miles

The guy is more coordinated than Marty Feldman..

"With one eye I looked about the ground beneath me, knowing I would need a spot to shoot from, and now! My other eye stayed fixed upon my target, my mind still evaluating my firing solution."

how about jack?

Picturing that in my mind ,thats funny !

Abbey Normal !

Precision shooting and general awesomeness . This bird is definitely full of himself.

Forgot about that guy, but yeah, he's in the running.

Jack Elam,Definetly one of a kind,played in tons of Westerns

[quote=smokepole]PSS, after thinking about it, there are no laws against taking a low percentage shot, which is as it should be. It's too subjective. You can't legislate ethics.

And it would be the ultimate slippery slope.
Exactly what I`ve been trying to say. It IS the shooters choice.
Thank You

Which most are. I've been told by more than one that it makes them better "hunters".... Crazy....

Legally, yes but that's about it.

And by the way, you must have seen this:



Good non-answer.

I'd guess that he would have since he hit this one in the ear and never recovered the animal.

Tagged before it gets buried. And I agree.

I agree mostly, but I'd qualify that--I don't car how long another guy shoots, provided he can make the shot.

But going back to the title of the thread, hitting a stationary target that size at that distance is different than hitting an animal's head, which is the part of its body most likely to move.

To put it another way, if you can hit an elk head-sized target at that distance, you sure as hell can hit its vitals. So why not just do that.

Either he was aiming at the chest and hit it in the head but didn't recover it and chose to represent it as a head shot on an internet video, or he was aiming at the head and missed.

Either way it's a clusterf*** of the first order.

Well, the OP did ask in the OP, "What do you think?"

guess he got his money's worth there.

Who needs enemies when you're a dipschit with a video camera...

Tanner

I can't believe his lame comment on youtube once it came to light what happened. This kind of thing makes hunters look bad. He should be kicking himself in the ass, not patting himself on the back.

And he needs to take that disgrace of a video down.

That's my biggest problem with it; it makes all hunters look like schit and provides ammo for Anti-Hunters.... I'd take the video down ASAP but the damage is done.

YouTube Comment:

coldboremirakle6 hours ago

Tell the truth? As if I had said something that wasn't true? Looks like the internet police have caught me. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids!
There are plenty of people who know this elk wasn't recovered. Apparently its the first big game animal lost in the history of hunting.(<sarcasm) I dont recall saying I had recovered it.

Holy crap. If he didn't recover it, what could he possibly be proud of? Why would he feel better about that shot, than say breaking a leg or gut shooting it? Wonder what the Fish and Game folks would think of the video...

Amazing...

John

Here is a video we made at a lot closer range. Nothing was harmed in this video...

Obivous that nothing embarrasses this clown.

This is what you get when everyone gets a trophy for participating, he was there and he tried, so he is a winner by his standards.

At least he has an elk ear for his trophy room.

Never understood the fascination with shooting at the part of an animal that darts, bobs, dips and ducks more than any other while offering a relatively small and potentially non-lethal target.

Since it was a request for opinions...

My opinions on 900 yard head shots on game animals in general are:
If you did it and intended to; I'm impressed with the shot.
If you can do it 3 times in a row and intended to; I'm impressed with your shooting skill.
If you didn't intend to but hit there anyway; I'm impressed with your luck.
The fact that you even thought of attempting it does not impress me at all.

Take it for what it's worth.

Good for you calling him out. At first I was surprised he responded until it hit me a moron that would post this video would also be stupid enough to respond.

That one never gets old, LOL.

The truth about life is some make choices based on moral values that lean toward respect. Unfortunately there are men who exist who believe in the highest of moral value when it comes to hunting yet are married and at the same time sleeping with the neighbors wife.

Moral value is a way of life....not just a way of hunting. If we as hunters wish to pass on Hunting traditions that teach morality lessons it all starts at home.

Shod

Did you shoot across the road too? Kinda looks like it. I think I'll show this video in my next hunter ed class to see what they think.

Read the whole thread watched the video. It's obvious to me the OP does not see anything wrong with his lack of ethical behavior. Some good points were made by various posters about him being guilty of wanton waste. More than a few of you guys are slick with computers and get around real well. When is someone here going to forward the link of the video that documents all of his wanton waste to the game dept. of the state where he did this? Shoot LEO's and the courts bust people all the time for admitting online the brain dead [bleep] they did . When are the outraged posters here going to do what needs to be done to see this guy lose some hunting privileges? WTF chuck?

Show me a state game law that defines wanton waste as shooting at an animal and grazing it. Or defines it as doing what this guy did.

Now I know who has been sneaking on the farm

Bunch of sicko's!

+1

He posted this and asked what we think, knowing that it would spark a lot of controversy, BECAUSE HE HAS MONETIZED THE VIDEO. The more people click on the YouTube video, the more money he'll make off of it from YouTube. He gets a few cents each time someone watches the video.

If by wanton waste, people are referring to what we in Colorado call willful destruction, this certainly does not meet that. Willful destruction is the intentional killing an animal and abandoning the carcass or just taking trophy parts. I assume he also meets Colorado's equivalent of failure to follow up law given that there is a screen shot looking back from what I think is the point of impact to the where he shot from. And if that is the case, pretty much the only laws I can see he MAY have broken would be careless hunting and shooting across a road.

Well, I just checked out the Hide thread. I have taken successful head shots but what is posted there is with out question NOT my style. Personally I don't get the fascination.

There's only one animal that deserves a head shot, and that's only when that's all you can see.

Are all those guys in their teens? WTF

Nothing wrong with shooting meat in the head at sane ranges..But putting it proudly on display like that is pretty sick.

Wonder if they would enjoy watching a few videos of the kill floor in a packing plant.

Wannbe Snipers Hide.

The OP is staff on that site. Pretty sad but then again it is par for the course.

It is funny that now that Scout owns the site the level of Derp has gone from lots to mega load with no stop in sight.

Kids can peruse graphic head shots and update their fantasy football teams with just a few clicks. Winning

Looking back through the thread, I have seen the shot described as a "stunt shot","bad decision","lousy percentage", "[bleep] up","stupid"......there's others and these comments are from some of the more experienced long range shooters on this site.

Would anybody call it reckless?

Perhaps I missed it, but I saw nothing to indicate the person called the shot. Not even sure which elk he was after. I've nailed ground squirrels at 200 with my 22LR. Can I call each shot? Absolutely not. With present costs of 22 LR's today, I'm not even going to try those anymore.

1minute: Page 2 I think....says he was aiming at the head.

They need to work on a kill floor for a few months.

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.

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.

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.

We shouldn't base what is legal and what's not on what the non-hunting populace would deem acceptable. Otherwise running shots would be illegal, shooting trophy bucks instead of meat does would be illegal, etc.

Shodd, from reading your post and others, I believe I'd be one of the few on the jury to listen to and follow the law rather than my own emotional reaction to what this guy did.

If you want to explain what law he broke (I'm talking about the shot selection, not the stupidity of putting it on youtube, or blaze orange, or shooting across the road) and why he broke it (evidence) then be my guest, I'll tell you exactly how I'd vote.

Agreed, and that's not (I hope) what is being discussed here. There are already statutes in UT that may well deal with this specific case. They've been discussed and at no point (at least IIRC) were those discussions in regard to what a non-hunting populace would find agreeable or not.

Last I checked the general populace of this forum does not write, nor enforce UT law.



I call hogwash. The youngins would be like "Cool shot!" and the Libs would be like "You murderer!" Either way, no way you're gonna get a 90% vote on anything.



Chicken-Little much?



If no law was broken, you have to. Otherwise, YOU are the one breaking the law.



Google Communism. Me thinks you need a refresher course.

Shodd, that means a ballot initiative in most states.

Why don't you provide a brief summary of what your ballot initiative would say, in other words, describe what you would make against the law that would specifically apply to what this guy did.

I find this 'all day long' as hard to believe. Also, anyone shooting that far would be going for center mass, if they really knew what they were doing. This was a stupid shot regardless of who shot it. Like John Burns said...why pass up a 2 moa shot for a 1/2 moa target that has a tendency to move quickly and regularly.

"just because you CAN, doesn't mean you should"

Unless part of their goal was to continue participating in a ongoing thread called "headshots" (see one of my earlier posts for a link). An opportunity to get your ego stroked if you can pull it off or lead people to believe you pulled it off.

CR

Yeah...I saw that thread. An interesting take on 'sportsman' in that thread.

Very true. If we're talking about long-range hunting in general though, just because you wouldn't doesn't mean others shouldn't.

Shodd,



Anti-hunters are irrational. If the guy made a perfect center punch on the elk's head the anti's would react the same.

Smokepole has at least one ally here.

We don't need more laws!

Very few have suggested more laws.

The "laws" are already there. And have been for some time.

Yep. Just like laws against employers not paying employees for work done.

We'll know soon enough if any Utah laws were broken.

Anyone care to wager on that? I'm talking about his shot selection, not the blaze orange or the issue of shooting over the road.

I'd wager that he will not be convicted of any offenses because he was stupid enough to take a 900-yard head shot.

Any takers?

Your statement

So you feel that taking a head shot at 900 yds is wrong but on the other hand you feel it would not warrant being against the law? I'm a bit confused

Shod

I'd bet him being an asswipe gets him max fines for a bunch of little things.

He'll be getting harasses for years by the gamies for any tiny thing he slips up on.

As a parent if your child behaved as such do you feel it would warrant zero discipline?

Shod

I think you should've put the effort into getting closer. But then you couldn't show off what a great shooter you are. And trying for a head shot at that distance - if that's what you were even aiming for, which I doubt. It was a real azzhole stunt. And it didn't work did it? Then you're dumb enough to be posting the video.

There's nowhere that smokepole said anything like that.

He's been very consistent in his position that he doesn't think the douchebag's shot broke any CURRENT laws. I've disagreed with that position, and stated why.

As for new laws: none are needed. Enforce the ones on the books. They are there, and if you look at them in the same perspective that I have, then they are sufficient.

None of my sons would take that shot. I've taught them better than that. None of them would take any shot and post it on youtube.

Suckers bet.

No one with a brain would take it...or familiar with legal proceedings. Disposition could include any number of things short of a conviction. Continued without a finding,nolo contendere,among others, come to mind.

Rolling dice on predicting the outcome of any proceedings in a courtroom is for amateurs. The pro's don't do it.

Shod, I've explained this at least once, but I'll give it another shot. So to speak.

Two things: 1) It's un-enforceable; and 2) there's no way to develop a legal standard to cover shot selection that wouldn't outlaw ethical shots by people who have the ability to make them.

Here's another way to say it, which I've already asked but you didn't answer. As far as his shot selection, what did he do that you think should be illegal, and how would you write a law to make it illegal?

Was it the fact that he made a 900-yard shot? Many here would make that illegal; some here could make a 900-yard shot.

Was it the fact that it was a head shot? Many have made those.

Was it the combination of a 900 yard shot and a head shot? Now, I agree that a 900 yard head shot was a poor choice, I think we all do. Posting a wounding shot on youtube was even worse, but like someone said, there's no law against being a dickhead.

Anyway, I can't think of a way to write a legal standard that covers that without outlawing other shots by able shooters who can make them. That would be an unintended consequence that is worse (IMHO) than allowing idiots like this to take 900-yard head shots.

The whole issue is, where do you draw the line, why do you draw it there, and who gets to decide. Like Jordan said, we don't want the general public deciding these things; lots of stuff could be outlawed like running shots.

The distance at which a shot can be made varies with the shooter, the conditions, and the animals themselves. There are too many variables to pick a distance.

But the "why do you draw the line there" is the part that I struggle with. Some will say that shooting an animal at 600 yards is using technology for an unfair advantage. But in my opinion, the same can be said about a 200 yard shot. Are we going to outlaw those? I don't think so. The difference is, many hunters can make a 200 yard shot, so it's OK by them. Most can't make a 600 yard shot, so it's not OK by them. Personally, I'm not smart enough to draw that line.

One of the things I like about hunting is, you're out there on your own, and for some things like shot selection, you are the one who makes the choice. I'd like to keep it that way.

OK Bob, then put your money where your mouth is.

Do you want to bet on whether they will charge him with any offenses that are strictly related to his poor shot selection?

That's tilting it wayyy in your favor since we all know that LE charges people with violations that they know won't stick all the time.

Let me know. I have $100 that says they won't.

There's nowhere that smokepole said anything like that.

[/quote]

Did I say he said that? I was asking a question to try to better understand where he is coming from.

Shod

Did I say he said that? I was asking a question to try to better understand where he is comming from.

Shod [/quote]

He's been quite plain in what he has been saying and why.

He's been quite plain in what he has been saying and why. [/quote]

My question was quite plain however you implyed that I said the man would not discipline his children when I in fact asked the man whether he would or not.

I was in fact very pleased with the answer smokepole gave and have respect for that.

Shod

I implied nothing. I stated very plainly that smokepole had said nothing like what you questioned, and then said that he'd been very consistent in his positions and his statements. Those are facts, and without need of any implication nor with any made.

You implyed that I implyed that she said that he new somebody that implyed that you were making the implication that no implication was made.

Shod

Thanks Smokepole, I better understand your position and you do make some very good points.

Shod

Pathetic. You call yourself a sportsman? Please never do that again.

more crap


http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f86/685-yards-head-shot-elk-then-800-yard-shot-150318/


2 elk videos both shot badly on the first shot

An insecure male, for some reason they have to try stupid things to make themselves feel better about themselves. It is far better to actually stalk something and get as close as possible.

I don't understand waiting all that time to draw a quality unit in Utah for a trophy animal,and then taking a head shot (first video). Is this some kind of a cult thing in Utah or something, or do these people just need lessons in anatomy and where to aim?

I doubt either of these guys hit where they were actually aiming.

I didn't think so.

I hope no one takes this as defending the OP, are you talking about this particular example, or LR hunting in general? If the latter, "far better" in what way?

Looks like the guy on the second vid took a Texas heartshot at a running bull that went high.

Would love to see OP along with a witness on a 900 yd range, steel targets, elk head size of course, 100 shots.

Anyone venture to guess his score out of 100 shots?

Money talks here..

The 900yd number is really irrelavent. This azzclown is a liar so what makes anyone think he'd be honest with the shot distance? If you're gonna lie about one thing what difference does it make if you lie about two, because after all, liars gonna lie.

CR

That is where the first shot landed for sure. In the elk's azz. No big game animal deserves that.

gerrygoat,



For whom? Maybe you're not aware there are fantastic shooters who also hunt. And this is the Long Range Hunting forum.

Yes it is best to get as close as possible. Sure practise so you can shoot a long ways but it isn't hard to get closer. You have to get to the animal any ways to recover it unless of course someone is like the guy who started this thread and you don't care about wounding animals with stupid shots choices.

I'd go along with it being better to get closer as far as increasing your chances of making a one-shot clean kill, at least for a guy like me. Depending on the distance though, some guys don't have to.

As a general statement I disagree. As far as "better" I think it all depends on why you're hunting. For something like a late season cow or doe permit when the game is skittish from being chased around and you just want to put meat in the freezer closer may not be better. Especially for something like antelope. It may be better to take a 500 yard shot than try to get closer.

I could see in that scenario it might be a bit better to shoot farther out provided a guy has the skill through lots of practice. I will say though a lot of the time guys who shoot extreme distances are doing it just to get their ego stroked, they post up clips on youtube and post in places like here so they can be known as "the man"

Anyway I don't want to go round and round on this people can think otherwise but that is my opinion.

Also I do want to start target shooting at long range because it is fun and it would be great become a better shot.

Personally, I'm not enthralled with that sort of thing either.

I think it's "better" to be good at both, that is, stalking in close and being able to make long shots when needed.

why does the video cut out immediately after the bullet impact?

I've never seen a video that didn't have the animal up close after and at least some talking.....

was it not recovered?
if so, why brag about something like this?

Was not recovered..

Because an elk running up the hill with one ear missing would take away from the general awesomeness.

While being one who likes to shoot at long ranges proficiently, and have taken a couple of good mulies at distance because of necessity, I sum it up this way:I like the ability and option to shoot an animal at distance, all the while stalking as close as possible to make the shot. I much prefer the 150 to 200yd shot any day.

I practice at 500+ yds every time I'm out shooting. I've done it enouph that under 4" groups at 500 yds is nothing any day of the week and twice on Sunday. If I see an animal at 50 yds I shoot it then I eat it. If I see an animal at 500 yds I shoot it and eat it. If i see an animal at 700 yds I stalk to a point that is within 500 yds.I dont try to scare something off by dinking around just to prove my stalking ability if its in my effective range already.

Something else I do and its personal preference is I say a prayer and thank God for the food that has been provided after making a kill. I've never felt any form of excitement in the ending of a life of a critter but rather feel gratitude for the healthy nurishment it provides.

Shod

"Bring ya knife."

Ahhhh, check that, bring ya flashlight........

The fact that the OP has not responded to any inquiries speaks more volume than the shot selection itself....

Mr Woods has nothing more to say it seems. Doesn't like what we think.

I suspect he never actually cared what we think. If a youtube video gets a lot of hits, after a certain point the poster can get paid by sharing in the ad revenues. He was probably trying to promote the video to increase the number of views.

He might by busy with unexpected consequences:

"We have received several complaints about this video and have opened an investigation."

"These long range shooting incidents are generating an increasing number of complaints. Normally this behavior, while unethical in a lot of hunter minds, is not illegal unless there is another violation of law. In this incident, shooting across a roadway."

He may need the money sooner than expected...

Ruh roh!

play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Thanks for posting that piece of good news. Here's hoping the douchbag gets what he deserves.

Coupla nites in the klink with bubba would make Jeff and us happy. However a slap on the wrist is usual. One can hope.

Hmmm...Where did you find these quotes?

Those quotes come from e-mails to people that have reported this douche, or to people that have received a forward from such people.

If you read any of the comments below the video he hit the elk but did not kill it. Not sure why you post a video of shooting at an animal at 900 yards that you wounded and did not recover!

This kind of stupid video makes all hunters look bad!

You do it because it looks like the elk went down, and you hope no one will catch on to the fact that you didn't really kill the elk. Or aim for the head.

Actually, I think he did it for praise on a forum and for a chance to make a little money on YouTube.

Maybe in fact he did kill the elk but for some reason he was on the wrong side of the law by doing so. He backtracked on his story.

There's no law he would've broken by killing it that he wouldn't have broken by shooting at it.

I don't get sucked into stupid bets on internet forums over something as ridiculous as some goon attempting to head shoot elk at 900 yards,and idle speculation over whether I should agree with you as to whether he did something "wrong".

Kids stuff.

If I'm going to bet, it's over something important...especially not with someone who's ego seems wounded because he cited the wrong statute and got called on it.

If you don't get the gist of what I was saying that's your problem.But I can't blame you really because you have no legal training and don't know how to read a statute and apply it to a given set of facts. Others got it right away.

If you need the $100 bucks I'll send it to you.

Bob, you are as FOS as a Christmas turkey. My first offer for a bet was whether the guy would be convicted of a game law violation, which is not "idle speculation over whether the guy did something wrong." It's a black and white, did he break the law question. Those are decided in court, not on the 24hourcampfire. And don't forget that you're the one who said he broke the law, not me.

But you whined that it was a suckers bet, he might not get convicted, blah blah blah......:



So I called your bluff and changed the bet to whether he would simply be charged or not, stacking the odds in your favor if you believe what you've been saying. And what did you do?

You still wouldn't take the bet. Apparently "the pros" (whoever they are) don't bet on anything where you come from. Why go through the long-winded amateur attorney bit on why it's a "sucker's bet" when you're not gonna take the bet in any form?

As far as citing the wrong statute, as I said, I cited the only statute that came up when I searched the Utah code for "reckless endangerment." None came up in the sections that pertain to game laws. You're the one that used the term reckless, not me. And what statutes did you cite? Jack and squat.

And you keep talking about my lack of legal training but here's a news flash Bob: I'm not the one making a legal argument here, and I'm not the one saying that this guy broke the law, that would be you. So what's your legal training?

My argument is common sense, and it goes like this: Only an idiot would think that the act of taking a shot (however ill-advised) at a big game animal you're legally attempting to kill would constitute a crime that meets the criteria for being either reckless or endangerment.

You're legally trying to kill the thing for cryin' out loud. By legally shooting bullets at it. What could you possibly do that recklessly endangers it more than that? As a matter of fact, by taking a head shot at 900 yards instead of getting closer or going for the lungs, this guy was apparently doing just the opposite.

As far as me not getting "the gist of what you were saying" or not knowing "how to read a statute and apply it to a given set of facts," nice try. If "others got it right away," who were they and what did they say that gave you the idea they agree that laws were broken? I must've missed the part where others chimed in and agreed with you, can you show it to me?

You didn't take the bet because you're chicken-sh**. You'd love to prove me wrong and you know it. Kid stuff? Running your mouth and being afraid to back it up, now that's kid stuff.

Doesn't matter, we'll know soon enough if this guy gets charged. The thing is, I'd rather place a bet, be wrong, and lose than run my mouth, chicken out, and be right.

Lastly, yep I could use $100, please send it to me.

I didn't think so. Apparently, it's easier for me to part with $100 than for you.

There has got to be a support group or something for guys like us that feel the need to compensate.

I feel your pain bud.keep hanging in there.

One hint "Asian" things look more proportion.;)

I was very consistent. IIRC I said that I would "cite" him for it.A "citation" is an accusation by an LEO that you did something in violation of a statute,whether it's speeding with a motor vehicle, soliciting prostitution, whatever.....From there the burden of proof shifts to the government to establish "guilt".

I never said that he was "guilty" of reckless conduct under the applicable statute,but a first year law student could make a plausible argument that his conduct was "reckless" under the statute,sufficient for the issuance of a citation. Cops do it all the time and not all citations result in "convictions". I am not the one who brought "guilt" or "innocence" into the equation;you did,and wanted to bet on it.

I refused to "bet",knowing that there were other steps in the process after the issuance of the citation.A lot of this got lost in your aimless rambling.

Whether his conduct amounted to "reckless" under the statute is a question for a court to decide based on the facts,either through a hearing process, or trial, and the issuance of a citation is the first step in the process. Ever been cited for speeding?If so you are least vaguely familiar with the process.

Again, you are the one who wanted to "bet" on the issue of "guilt" or "innocence",with your "wanna bet wanna bet?" rant,calling me out like you're 10 years old trying to settle some score in a playground,and I might add, getting insulting in the process. I, on the other hand,never offered any opinion on whether he is "guilty" or "innocent";only that he might have violated the statute. This is a subtle distinction that you did not "get" and I think you still don't.

Your nose got out of joint when I simply told you that you had cited the incorrect statute,which 4ager found and posted,and which I had found and reviewed the day before.

You seem to want to continue the rant....whether Utah LEO finds that his conduct violated the "reckless" standard under the statute,or some other violation, is not for me nor you to decide.All I said is that,given the circumstances, I'd cite him and let a court sort it out.

So far all you've shown me is that you are good at taking cheap shots at people over the internet when challenged or when someone disagrees with you.

Don't kid yourself on the $100 bucks. This is just more of your juvenile puff and blow to try to insult me. At some point you have to grow up and develop beyond the"Wanna bet wanna bet wanna bet????" stage....how little kids do things.


PM me an address and I will drop it in the mail for you. If you can't pay it back, don't sweat it.I'll never miss it. I've left bigger tips for people I don't know.

I'll be sure to post on here to let everyone know I sent it out to you. That OK?

IIRC? That's funny, good one Bob. It's still there, takes about a minute to read what you said. First it was this:



Then after putting yourself in the place of the judge and jury, you switched gears and said you "didn't think anything," about what the guy did and that was for a judge or jury to decide. Want me to quote that one too?

Then after your "wanton waste" idea fell by the wayside (how do you "waste" something that was never in your possession?? And I'm the one who doesn't understand the law....) you switched to your "reckless" theme. That's consistent all right.

The only thing consistent about it is you can't wrap your head around the fact that someone can do something that offends you and it's not against the law.

And as far as taking cheap shots at you, that's a good one Bob.

Go back and read your previous post, and then mine. You want to write a post that implies I'm not intelligent enough to understand what you're saying, and then whine about cheap shots?

That's rich. Imbedded in those cheap shots is also a point-by-point rebuttal of your BS post, by the way.

You still haven't said who the "others" were who "got it right away." Who were they Bob, and where did they say they agreed that the guy broke the law?

Or was that just more BS?


One more thing Bob, in reference to this:




As a matter of fact, I have been cited for speeding. I've also been qualified and testified in court as an expert witness on some complex issues involving my interpretation of some fairly nebulous legal definitions, and I served on a jury a year or two ago that decided whether a defendant was guilty of attempted murder in the first degree under two different legal standards, one being depraved indifference and the other being "acting after deliberation." Among other charges.

You may derive your legal understanding from speeding tickets Bob, but I've been involved with a few things that were a little more complicated. So I'm more than "vaguely familiar with the process."

The thing that I cannot really make out on the video is the 'secondary' movement when the animal goes down. The reason why it looks funny is that we cull plenty of animals with head shots for meat processing purposes and when an animal goes down after a good head shot the head does not move ever again. There will be absolutely no movement of the head after a brain shot and the body will drop directly to the ground (Not pretending to be a neurological expert, just what we noticed over the past few years). Sometimes up to 600 animals can be culled in about 4 days (just to give you an idea of the sampling size) and when a bullet hits the brain the head stays on the ground.

I believe the animal's rear could have slipped over a little overhang and pulled the rest of the body backwards but the head not staying on the ground is a little odd. The other scenario could be that the animal fell oddly and somehow thrown it's head upwards but that is just guessing.

Just a final though: What is faster than a regular Elk?


a wounded Elk

Pieter

m77, you may have missed it, but that elk was not recovered. It must've been faster than even a wounded elk.

smoke,

Bob is quite a bit more than vaguely familiar with the legal process.

That may be, I have no idea. Good for him.

Given his vast legal knowledge it's surprising he could be so wrong about whether this guy broke the law, and which laws he broke.

The thing is, he threw off an insulting one liner indicating I'm not familiar with the legal process, and I responded.

At this point, I really don't care, I just want to hear the outcome with this particular Utah hunter.

And I.

I think it SUCKS.

I'd wager heavily that BobinNH is more familar with the legal system than you and by a long shot.

Did I say otherwise?

deleted

Basically you did when emphatically declared that he "is so wrong".

Bullsh**. I said he was wrong on this particular point because he is.

If I was to write a response to your post, it would read exactly like my post above. The one you quoted, or actually mis-quoted. Why don't you read it.

This is your acctual quote,




That is your opinion, not a fact. You have no way to prove it therefore it is only your opinion. Bob's position is also an opinion. But since Bob is acctualy an atourney and makes a living in the legal field, his opinion carries more weight than yours.

Well, you're wrong about that. We do have a way of knowing whether this guy will be charged with any violations. There are a few who post here who are following that.

How about you, do you want to wager on whether this guy will be charged for wanton waste of game or reckless endangerment by virtue of the fact that he took a very low percentage shot at a game animal?

You guys do understand that there are no laws against taking low percentage shots, right?

We will see if he gets charged or not as the State of Utah is looking into the incident.

I didn't think so.

Don't think he broke the law but was an unethical bastard.

Pretty sure I'm endangering every animal I shoot at.... isn't that the point?

Also pretty sure I don't want courts, judges, DAs, or a jury of my "peers" deciding what's "reckless" and what ain't, particularly when it comes to the discharge of a firearm.

Proposal: They should write CBM a $500 ticket.... he can pay it as a 'stupid shot Tax'.... or they waive it if he can hit an 8" plate at same range with a single round.... double it to $1k if he misses. By the same token, they should do the same test for the ass-hat who grass-bags a running bull at 150 yards, then fails to recover it too...... agreed?

They already have the laws in place 4ager posted the correct statue in this thread.

They have a lot of laws... that doesn't make them correct, or effective.

The only thing nearly as effective as punching a dumb-ass in the mouth.... is giving them enough rope to hang themselves.... then punching them in the wallet.

Can't argue with that.

Reckless endangerment applies to people and property, not game animals that are legally being hunted.

jwp, let me see if I've got this straight though: Bob's opinion carries more weight than mine, and he knows way more about the law than I do, but you're not willing to risk, let's say $100 to that effect.

Does that about sum it up?

I don't do head shots. Have seen a bunch taken during culls, have seen hunters take them while hunting and have seen some messed up (hunters that is). A 900 yard headshot is simply out of the question in any normal scenario while hunting for me.

With that....



You "please let there be a law for everything" and "let there be a law against anything I don't like" people are going to get exactly what you want. But it won't be rational, critically thinking people that make the laws. It will be the average, ignorant, emotionally driven people with agendas that make them. We already are a nation ruled by laws yet as a nation have no virtue. I guarantee you that every single person who has stated that he should be charged with some crime due to his shot selection, has a hunting habit that he views as ethical, that hundreds or thousands of people view as reckless, irresponsible or wrong. All of them will believe that it should be illegal. If what you don't like should be illegal, than what they don't like should be illegal. With that, nothing will be "legal". Bad choices are bad choices and should be condemned within the community. Bad ethical choices is not, and should not be up to the government at any level. People always think that they are so different to those that came before them and refuse to acknowledge that humans are humans and their nature remains the same. It is in vogue now to speak about all manner of how the government is out of control and oversteps their bounds, yet fail to see that they themselves caused it by screaming for the "someone" to do something.

Unfortunately because of ego, ignorance and outright shortsightedness The vast majority cannot or will not see it.

There you go smoke pole

Yes, I read those the first time he posted them.

So what. Wanna take that bet?

Still don't get it I take it.

Actually, I do. Money talks, and bullsh** walks.

No difference in what the 900yd shooter did and what our own John Burns does. Both slobs.

Anyone remember when Dober pointed out the empty shell casings around the shooter on Burns' video? Appeared to be a lot of shooting before the videoed kill. Trial and error? Shoot till it falls and if it don't crawl off, show your big shateating grin on the video?

So far you've done a lot of walking!!!

Just sayin

Shod

Another one of the "there ought to be a law" bunch, it figures.

How about you, you wanna take that bet for $100? So far no one else does.

"Just sayin" is just talk, and talk is cheap. Money talks but I'm thinking you'll walk.

Everyone with any smarts will walk away from betting with another like yourself that fits in that "you can't fix stupid" category"!

Yeah, we know smokepole won't walk. He's made sure he's had the last word of an argument that's been dead for a week or better only four or five times now.

I guess that's how he got to 14,000+ posts!

Maybe you can point out what I've said that is wrong, or stupid.

And if post count matters, with 15 you should probably just shut up and take notes.

Yet, you find it important enough to comment on an argument you're not involved in. From the peanut gallery as it were.

PS, the thread was dead for a while; jwp opened it back up, not me. But as long as people want to comment to the effect that laws were broken, or that there should be laws against this guy taking a low percentage shot, I will gladly respond.

We'll find out relatively soon whether an law was broken. I've stated that I believe that there were.

Sorry, but I don't have the rest of the day to do that! Post count doesn't mean [bleep] and that's why you can refer back to the "can't fix stupid" comment!

I agree that post count doesn't mean sh**.

So why'd you bring it up?

And if you're going to call someone stupid, but can't point to anything they've said that's wrong or stupid, that says volumes.

Which gets back to you being better off keeping your mouth shut and taking notes.

Try reading that response of yours to me and tell me it added anything to this thread, LOL! You're the one who stated that your huge count trumped mine and meant something, so I should pay attention! "Smokeouttheass" would be a better username from what I've seen of your posts so far and I can see from what the other members already mentioned that you're one who has to get in the last word, regardless of what you have to say or how stupid it is just to get it in! Now you can come back with another little ditty or two so you can accomplish that! Bye bye, buy bonds!

Pretty light cartridge for shooting elk at long range.

JD338

Reading is not your strong suit, I see:



No, I didn't. What I said was, "if post count matters, with 15 you should probably just shut up and take notes."

You're an idiot. My response to your calling me stupid was not intended to add anything to this thread, it was meant to put you in your place, which it did.

But as long as we're on that subject, what have you added to the thread?

Let me know when you have a point to make. I don't want to miss it.

I flubbed a 400 yard shot last year due to unseen winds. Vertical position was right where I was aiming but wind drift, calculated later for a 10mph wind, moved impact about 13" toward the rear of the animal. Had it been a head shot it would have been a clean miss. As it was we trailed the elk over one ridge, across a valley and over another ridge before losing the blood trail.

We believe it was a high liver shot, just under the spine and behind the lungs. We will never know for sure but lots of dark blood and the blood we found high up on brush on the entrance side while trailing it support our belief regarding the point of impact.

If I can screw up a broadside shot like that I know I can screw up a much smaller head shot at much closer ranges.

Coyote Hunter,

The difference between you and the OP is that you are:

A. Honest in telling what you think really happened.

B. Humble enough to publicly discuss where you think something went wrong.

C. Are more likely than not going to attempt to use what you learned due to your circumstances and apply that knowledge in attempts at future medium/long distance shooting, whether that means getting closer or taking multiple wind readings to attain a better chance at a high probability shot.

Best of luck on your next elk season!

So, any word from Utah fish and game on this?

You'd think that if they were going to charge the guy with anything, it would've happened, and we would have heard about it by now?

Nothing, huh? I guess that's the answer to the question of what he would be charged with.

That horse done dying months ago. Good job, you got in the last whack.

You heard anything?

Haven't heard but I have used this video in my last two hunter ed classes during the ethics segment. Lots of fun reactions.

Good idea and job.

Did you tell 'em the whole story?

yep, as far as I know. Can't tell them whether he got a talking to by a game warden or not. But certainly let them know he didn't recover it.

Just curious as to how you worked that into the class, and what you said, because there are so many different ways you could go with that.

IMHO, whether he got a talking to by the game warden or not is almost beside the point, except to show that you can do something that's legal but unethical, and vice versa.

As to this entire issue, I have a question and a few observations:

Did he break the law?

He appeared to shoot across the road.

If he did, that would likely merit a citation.

The rest? Here's my observations. Based upon the broadside position of cow lack of mirage in the video and no discernable wind, I think the guy missed two feet high and slightly left on a 900 yard shot to the vitals. Then when he saw the video, he saw an opportunity to claim a 900-yard headshot to either A. make money; B. Pump up his own ego and cred among long-range shooters on a clear miss. (I think both).

Did he waste the meat by not retrieving the game? Possibly but most states have a very low standard, merely stating that the hunter must make "reasonable effort" to retrieve. We don't know what effort the OP made to retrieve.

Most of us have lost game over the years. Just last year, my hunting partner show a cow with a 444 Marlin at 75 yards. We followed the blood trail for over 2 miles until we finally lost the blood trail. We spent 4 hours after we lost the blood trail making careful circles outside the last blood drop, looking for tracks, blood on a leaf, grass or rock and ultimately we found nothing. It happens. You do your best.

The ethics of a 900 yard headshot? Like I said - I don't think he tried a 900 yard head shot. I think he tried a 900 yard chest shot and accidentally shot off an ear. I've missed at 200 yards before. Which brings us to the question - should anyone attempt a 900 yard shot at the vitals? I wouldn't because I can't make that shot. I could make a 500 yard shot in perfect conditions with my 270wsm if I was shooting off a solid base and the animal was motionless. I tried a 700 yard shot when I was 19 and paid for it with a bloody half-moon on my forehead from getting up on the scope and a resolve to never be that stupid again. After that, 400 yards has been my maximum shot attempt. The shooter has to know his limits.

Personally, I think the OP could probably make a 900 yard shot more times than not in those conditions. The issue is, he went all douche'bag and tried to claim a mistake as prowess.

Time of flight is a rarely discussed topic.

Few hunters give it any thought.

It is as much a consideration as any other variable in the equation.

Since the head moves unpredictably, I think TOF for a head shot at that distance takes on more importance than it normally would, relative to the other variables.

Yeah I bring it up when talking about legal, but unethical stuff and ethical but illegal stuff. Young boys are typically the only ones that are interested in the long range stuff. Women are typically disgusted. I also do some neck shot stuff with Hunter Ed Tools and the vast majority have no idea where the actual spine is or how small the brain is in relation to the rest of the vitals. This has just been a fun addition.

[img]https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...20a68fe1ca02ac4b63deb843&oe=55FAD000[/img]

[img]https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...4b1a46a0cf398518ae945e2f&oe=55EE1BE8[/img]

[img]https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...ea221a7eab487dc0201f9765&oe=55FF92AC[/img]


I like head shots. Just saying.

HE'S BACK........

It's a miracle.

URL signature expired is I get on all three links.

Mr. Cold bore " I missed the body of the elk, clipped her ear, and called it an intentional head shot" is back, in the predator, hunting rifles, and back pack hunting forums.

Sadly now he is involving a child in future "Cold Bore self promotions". Kudos for involving a kid in shooting sports, but I actually showed my young hunter this fiasco last year as an example of what not to do, both in shooting, and posting such nonsense online.

Like I stated earlier in this thread, having worked with a good number of scout snipers and SOTIC trained SF guys, and not one that I know would even think to try a 900 yard "head shot" on a big game animal.

Talk about a terrible example for a young hunter.

That YouTube now comes up as private.

I do know a couple of things...

Rifles are capable of shooting .5 or so MOA best case - but wind, and field shooting make that extremely hard to do.. And the target moves as well.

If you can rationalize saying you can hit a vital zone that matches something like that - it's not skill - it's denial

Again- there is a difference shooting in a war, for hunting... There are plenty "to whom it may concern" shots in a war - throwing one of those at an animal that has to live for a live with the results that you don't... ... Well you'd better hope God, Karma or whatnot doesn't return the favor.

Spotshooter,

I don't understand what you're trying to communicate in your post. Would you elaborate, please?

Pretty simple actually.

Those who don't account for making errors - make errors...

Here's a quote for ya to ponder if that last idea was too deep...

"Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.”
- Heraclitus

Just because you can don't mean you should.
I have seen animals suffer untold pain and misery because someone wanted to show off his shooting skills.

I was at a rifle match one time listening to Mid Tompkins talk and he said something to the effect that "nobody can guarantee a first round hit at a 1000+ yards". I figure if he can't do it I probably have no business taking a shot like that.

Sad - I was hoping the State of Utah had a discussion with him.