Ok…

So this in a state that legalized pot.

where’s the question?

It’s been defined as totally legal and righteous kill. What more can be said. There are those who want/wish/will rant no matter the “reality” of a situation where hunting is concerned.

We cannot and WILL NOT win that argument. Theirs is an emotional position and tied to very personal “feelings”. Logic will not prevail.

Debating it is fruitless in my not-so-humble-opinion.

They exist, they’re growing stronger and more vocal. We have to exercise our own control as to where, what and how, even when perhaps.

I take no issue with the hunter’s choices of where or when, but in this case, there was a predictable firestorm potential and it happened.

My thoughts are this will occur more and more over time and we’ve seen the best of what hunting will be when it was respected and a common household activity.

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.

Bruce,

Great, logical, objective views.

I refer back to my comments that logic will never trump hysteria and emotionally driven FEELINGS on this issue and surely not in the media.

Wildlife officials were on the scene and ruled it a righteous take.

Won’t stop the bunny huggars from their rant and they’ll always get face time in the media.

Useless, to debate, IMNSHO– but of course, I personally LIKE your good points!

Smithhammer wrote: 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.

Bingo!

I have this one thought.

In an area like the one where the moose was killed, the animals see humans quite bit. I have been in areas like this and have literally walked up to within 20 yards on moose.

While the kill is perfectly legal, was it fair chase?

My thoughts: 1. Those of us who know nothing more about the event than what was reported in the media are not in a position to pass judgement on the ethical question. 2. Every one of us who has killed an animal with a bow has done something that some people will condemn out of hand, and that someone in the media can report in a negative light. 3. This is a good argument in favor of hunting in the backcountry. Don

jgilmer wrote: I have this one thought.

In an area like the one where the moose was killed, the animals see humans quite bit. I have been in areas like this and have literally walked up to within 20 yards on moose.

While the kill is perfectly legal, was it fair chase?

I understand your point (and agree with it to a certain extent), but as with so many things that we try to define under “fair chase” – at what point do we draw a line? A good number of the deer taken in this country (as well as numerous other species) have also had varying degrees of exposure to humans. And while I agree that some animals can become so socialized that it can hardly qualify as “hunting” at all, I think this would be a really tricky thing to define as part of a functional definition.

I’ve come very close to some moose, even in remote backcountry that I can say with some certaintly have seen very, very few humans. And a number of them have come to me, not the other way around. Especially at this time of year, and especially with bulls, who are so doped up on their own testosterone that they’d give a doorknob a run for its money in the IQ dept. So other potentially mitigating factors in this question could be species and time of year dependent. I’m not trying to obfuscate your point, because I think it’s a good one. Just trying to point out that as with many things, it’s complicated.

And again, I don’t trust a “news” report like that for an objective portrayal of what happened any farther than I can toss it.

Smithhammer wrote:

And again, I don’t trust a “news” report like that for an objective portrayal of what happened any farther than I can toss it.

Agreed brother!!

I detest the “news” almost all I ever hear about is depressing BS they sensationalize just to sell a story.

Smithhammer wrote: 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.

Nuff said!!