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.
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.
