To form any sort of reaction based on the typically shoddy reporting of a local news channel looking to amplify a story into ‘controversy’ would be foolish.

For starters:

1) Was there intent on the part of the hunter to deliberately take the moose in front of witnesses out of a desire for provocation? Nothing in the report indicates this. So instead, a few people happened to witness a legal hunt, while they were on mixed-use public lands. It’s just as possible that some other people witnessed it, and thought nothing of it and were not outraged at all, but since they didn’t serve the angle for the story (“a backlash!”), they weren’t interviewed. The reporter said there were “several witnesses.” Yet we only hear from the two campground hosts. How do we know what anyone besides these two, who seem to want to believe that they live in a “nature zoo,” thought of the event?

A news report is very rarely the whole story, but instead select tidbits to support a pre-determined script. Always a good thing to keep in mind when watching so-called reporting like this.

2) One of the witnesses repeatedly asserts that this was a “trophy hunt,” and suggests that the hunter wasn’t keeping the meat. Does she somehow know this for a fact? Did she learn this from talking to the hunter? Or, is she just making an assumption, and if so, based on what, exactly? Colorado, like many states, has laws against failing to “reasonably dress, care for and prepare wild meat for human consumption. At a minimum, the four quarters, tenderloins and backstraps are edible meat.” This was clearly a legal hunt, and the hunter “did everything by the book.” So we have to assume he kept the meat, and that this was not solely a “trophy hunt.” In other words, the witness is spewing a baseless opinion, which the “news” channel dutifully repeats with no further investigation as to its veracity (which would show that she is wrong) because again – it’s a useful inflammatory statement that helps serve the angle for the story.

I’ll say it again – reacting solely to the paltry information in this poorly investigated little news clip would be a mistake.