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]
