Came across this last night. Apologize if it has been posted before. A lot of food for thought in it.

http://sports.yakimablogs.com/2008/...-when-hunting-morals-clash-with-the-law/

The story exemplifies the prime reason I have totally negative feelings towards archery hunting, it's alwayw "and he only went 400 yards after I hit him," or something similar. In Montana I saw a similar incident with rifles. A hunter put down a wounded elk near Jardine. Another hunter came up claiming the bull. An altercation ensued, the first hunter who wounded the animal got knocked down the hill with a great right cross and the second hunter kept the bull. He WAS arrested for assault, the first hunter being a lawyer, but that charge was dismissed and he kept the meat. In most states the killing shot gets the game.

In this case I'd say the hunter violated the law in shooting from a power boat. Knowing that I'd have been inclined to park the boat on the side of the river towards where the elk was headed and wait for him. Stay ready to jump in the boat if the wounded bull started drifting downstream and try it again further down, but then I don't know the terrain so who knows? If you violate any part of the law I think you're stuck regardless of circumstances. All they can hope for is an understanding judge.

"The story exemplifies the prime reason I have totally negative feelings towards archery hunting, it's alwayw "and he only went 400 yards after I hit him," or something similar."

Oh, that never happens with rifle hunters.

+1000 but it was a open for a free cheap shot...

BTW read the article, one thing I"ll say from having dealt with a few gut shot deer, and elk are much bigger, we've made the mistake of thinking 4-6 hours is enough time. Its NOT, going at 130 might have been what they had to do, but it certainly was not long enough. Had no one else(how can you control that on public land...) bumped that bull again, and given probably at least 12 hours, he'd have never left bed #2 and been dead in it. Personally if we've been able to see the animal, we never leave visual distance and sometimes have to come back the next morning.

Jeff

Not to stand on a soap box or anything but they did break the law on 2 things,shooting from a motorized vehicle and improper tagging.
I understand they wanted to dispatch the animal as soon as posible,and I understand that his boy couldnot here his yells.I also know that from being in a situation like this you don't think clearly.

I have hunted the breaks in 410 (bowhunting)and it is a zoo and I personaly am happy they made it limited draw for archery but that is beside the point.

Back to the story at hand..Ok the bull was wounded gut shot maybe liver.For one elk are big,big animals and have lots of blood,6 hrs is not a very long time to let him set(MHO).Then they bumped him,to me a he went as far out in the water as he possibly could to avoid danger(they should have backed out and let him go back in the willows).For me if I have a wounded bull standing 60-70 yds away I will fling every arrow I have to put him down(it realy isn't that far if you have a 50 yds pin)next is the dads fault he knowingly got into a boat and powered up stream and drifted by and shot this animal.2 things wrong here he shot from a motorized vehical and the other he did it in front of witneses.(I don't adocate this,but you gotta do what ya gotta do)
Here is how a game warded veiws this BIG BULL,2 guys do what ever possible to harvest it EVEN break the law.To him its the same as driving into yellowstone and tagging out,no grey just black and white.

As for the son he should have never tagged it,exspecialy after people see who shot it(thats bone head).

I know it sucks to watch a trophy get away(wounded is worse) sometimes you have to,unless your willing to deal with the cosquences(sp).
I bet now that they can think about it they would do things diffrent.
Off the box now
BBJ

Remember, they are not guilty until proven guilty or plea guilty. If they plea not guilty it is up to the county attorney to decide if he/she wants to try the case. The prosecution of wildlife offences in Montana depends upon the county attorney. Some county attorney's do not want to waste resources on lengthy and costly trails of this nature.

I think that a jury will have to decide. Unless the game wardens have additional incriminating evidence I think that a Malta Montana jury will find them not guilty.

abc,
It's in their story,it's already admitted that they/he knowingly shot from a motorized vehical,and the son tagged it after the father had killed it.That they can't get around.

As for the transporting,I can see them getting off on that,cause what else are they going to do,get a wanton waste of a game animal ticket.

But you are right it's up to the courts to decide.
BBJ

I dont' know what all states laws are but there is a somewhat gray area that basically says you have to do everything you can to reduce that game to the bag. Here in TX. But it also says within the law. I"d have done everything I could also as most of us would. You have no clue if the witnesses lied or the father/son lied.... regardless its probably best it be settled in court, I"d like to think the witnesses were jealous azzholes, and the father/son team did the best/right thing.... but a law is a law.

Jeff

Boy that is a tough one because their intent was right but their methods were wrong..umm interesting to see how this plays out.

I'm assuming their side is true and if that is the case I hope the judge goes lightly. No doubt that the issue of who tagged it might get them a fine but I believe they tried to the right thing on the boat and the transport. Sounds like they also fully cooperated.

Every state has a book full of regulations but they never really cover ethics that part is up to us.

Well we all have our short comings, I am by no means perfect, and in a perfect world, every bullet and ever arrow will go to the right spot. As for Ethics, if you have to put them down on paper you are already lost.

"You have to look at a situation, quickly weigh the morals and ethics, be aware of the legalities and then live with the consequences of the decisions you make."

That's from the first paragraph of the newspaper article and just about says it all.

In my experience, a bad shot regardless of weapon has happened to numerous experienced hunters that are honest about their hunting experiences. Bow or gun, doesn't make a difference IMHO. It is part of hunting, like it or not.

Hard to know if we are hearing the entire story at this point. Would seem like most wardens would give some lee way for someone finishing an animal off that would otherwise suffer a long death. Can't say what I would have done because wasn't there.

Discretion in law enforcement is certainly necessary. Since as far as we know, it seems like discretion wasn't used much in this case it leads me to believe there is more to this story. Of course, some law enforcement officers do not use discretion but they are the small minority.

Hope they get off.

They should have known better than to use the boat to kill the elk though and apparently they should have known that the father should have tagged the bull.

Hopefully the lying so called hunters that claimed to have shot the bull from the other shore will get fines for contempt.

As lame at it is they should have persued the elk on foot and shot it with the bow legally.

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that. By far, that was the biggest ethics issue.

Remember, there is only one side of the story being told here.

An unfortunate story all the way around .....

But the fugging squirrel sherrif's ......

Confirms what I already believed ..... Don't ever trust them, and don't ever expect them to understand or help in a bad situation.

My attitude? Always obey the laws the best I can, but if I ever found myself in questionable situation, DO NOT admit to "anything."

If leaving an elk for 12 hours to bleed out is the norm of bowhunting, I will never take it up. If it dies in 6 hours, it will be spoiled rotten in another 6, with no meat to take home.

+1, MuM is the word.



I have to admit, I am hanging up the bow and going to mess around with black powder till my skills and patience get better.
Reasons,
I want the meat - better odds with black powder.
I like to hike all over - cant get that close doing that
I need a lot of practice with angles etc

Paul
Use just a bit of common sense, with a paunch hit thats advisable, with a double lung Iv'e been along with others and watched them fall less than a minute after and arrow did its work... They won't rot that quick because they are not dead yet. Same with a paunch hit with a rifle... you gotta apply sense here and understand what was meant by the comment.

Now as to dying in 6 hours I don't see that happening, but rotting in 6 hours, I've never had the pleasure of an elk, but it won't happen on a deer. And I"ve had moose meat out for well overnight and the night was in the 50s.... no issues.

Jeff

BTW regardless of the law, I'd have tagged the animal if it was my gut shot. All the other arrow did was speed it up, its still mine and I"m damn stubborn and would take that one to court and argue it all the way. On principle, which might not get me far. A paunch hit is a lethal hit, it just takes different recovery methods and time.

I don't know for sure what I would have done in that situation. I believe if I were in the father's position that I would not have been able to ignore the little voice in my head telling me to put the elk down quickly. Floating by in a boat with a motor may or may not have crossed my mind. I don't know for sure. However, ignorance of the law is never an excuse. Tagging? That's another story. I know that in the future, faced with the similar situation, my tag would go on it. For all eternity, from my perspective and that of my family, it would be my son's elk. Heck, he would be happy with that because, from his perspective, he would have the remainder of the season to legally obtain an (another?) elk.