Archery Hunter Killed by ML Hunter

[RMM]

It is a part of Colorado's Hunter's Education course.

Bullets destroy things.

Same with PA

 

[crich]

I walked around with a decoy this weekend. I held it at my side upside down. I also put an orange vest on my pack for increased visibility. Realistically a Colorado muzzle loader has a max range of 100 yards for 99.9% or people. At 100 yards you should be able to tell an Elk from a bow mounted decoy.

I agree. Key word being "should". I dont even trust someone to stop at a stop sign let alone not shoot me and my decoy. Smart move to have it upside down... ultimately this story is a tragedy and im sure it wont be the last unfortunately.

 

[DmrbigEshotT]

I’ve hunted from that trail head before and was almost in that unit this year. Crazy to think.

About 5 miles north of there I was tracking a wounded elk at dusk and I hear a stick break. I look up and here is a guy walking towards me with a muzzle loader slung over his shoulder, no orange on, and unknown to us at the time, a day before season opened.

I may be packing an orange hat next time I’m in CO bow hunting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[woods89]

Using KHNC’s scenario…

If the moose was confirmed to be a moose using something other than a scope, and the rifle was confirmed to be safe, then it’s 100% legitimate to use the scope to measure the rack width.

If a scope was used to confirm the moose was a moose, then that’s not ok.

In my situation, which was the one that started this discussion of destroying objects, the bull had been identified beyond a shadow of a doubt to be an elk.

Also a part of most non-hunting general firearms instruction. Destroy, shoot, maim, kill, all would work there. Terrible to think of what that young man's family and friends are going through right now. Please be safe all.

Those are good rules, because they provide a framework of respect and caution around firearms. However, the devil is in the details. Consider traveling in a vehicle with a firearm.

Do you
-Set it sideways on a seat or in the bed? Do you intend to destroy the things you pass or that pass you?
-Set it barrel forward? Do you intend to destroy your vehicle, your passengers, or yourself?
-Set it barrel backwards? Do you intend to destroy people traveling behind you?
-Set it in some fixture with barrel down? Intend to destroy your vehicle?
-Set it in some fixture with barrel up? Do you know where a bullet fired from said weapon would land at any point in you trip?

Is it somehow better that your firearm is zipped in a case where you can't see it?

What about walking into a gunshow or airport? Barrel up, with the intent of destroying the roof? Barrel down with the intent of ricocheting one off the floor? Carry your case by the handles and cover everyone in the room?

Whether you are aiming it or not the gun is still pointed in that direction.

What about hiking in with a rifle on a sling or Gunbearer? Do you know where a bullet fired from the rifle would land at any point in your hike?

Every single one of us breaks those rules occasionally. One could not use firearms without doing so. Which is why we double and triple check chambers, pull the bolt, break the action, etc. It's also why many of us don't chamber up until we get to very specific situations. Barring that we have to make educated choices about which direction they point. If we use firearms, we will always take on a certain amount of risk. With a layered approach, we bring that down to a very acceptable level.

Am I being a little ridiculous to make a point? Yes.

This has been a great conversation. My apologies to the op for taking it a bit off track, lol!

 

[hobbes]

There should be no overlap weekend's with Muzzel Loader and Archery. With the new technology they might as well hunt with the Rifle Season.

Colorado limits the use of new technology in muzzleloader season. This is the same argument the traditional guys use against the compound shooters.

 

[txhunter581]

One other reason to always carry binocs, especially when using an open sight rifle.

 

[tdhanses]

Yessir you are correct and I do wear orange. My point is that you shouldnt have guys walking around with rifles during archery season. Its archery season for a reason. Bear season is any legal weapon at the same time as deer/elk archery season. Please make it make sense.

I agree, bear rifle season is Sep 2nd through the 30th, archery season should be moved to Aug or Dec.

 

[Gunnersdad49]

In my situation, which was the one that started this discussion of destroying objects, the bull had been identified beyond a shadow of a doubt to be an elk.

Those are good rules, because they provide a framework of respect and caution around firearms. However, the devil is in the details. Consider traveling in a vehicle with a firearm.

Do you
-Set it sideways on a seat or in the bed? Do you intend to destroy the things you pass or that pass you?
-Set it barrel forward? Do you intend to destroy your vehicle, your passengers, or yourself?
-Set it barrel backwards? Do you intend to destroy people traveling behind you?
-Set it in some fixture with barrel down? Intend to destroy your vehicle?
-Set it in some fixture with barrel up? Do you know where a bullet fired from said weapon would land at any point in you trip?

Is it somehow better that your firearm is zipped in a case where you can't see it?

What about walking into a gunshow or airport? Barrel up, with the intent of destroying the roof? Barrel down with the intent of ricocheting one off the floor? Carry your case by the handles and cover everyone in the room?

Whether you are aiming it or not the gun is still pointed in that direction.

What about hiking in with a rifle on a sling or Gunbearer? Do you know where a bullet fired from the rifle would land at any point in your hike?

Every single one of us breaks those rules occasionally. One could not use firearms without doing so. Which is why we double and triple check chambers, pull the bolt, break the action, etc. It's also why many of us don't chamber up until we get to very specific situations. Barring that we have to make educated choices about which direction they point. If we use firearms, we will always take on a certain amount of risk. With a layered approach, we bring that down to a very acceptable level.

Am I being a little ridiculous to make a point? Yes.

This has been a great conversation. My apologies to the op for taking it a bit off track, lol!

I understand the concept. It makes me recall the astronaut’s TED Talk on “The Normalization of Deviance.” Worth a listen if you have time.

 

[NB7]

Would standard practice when you get home from work be to draw your pistol and point it at your wife until you can identify she isn't an imposter?

The bullet goes where the crosshairs are. If the legality of an animal has not been identified, why on earth would the crosshairs be on it? It is not a target until it is absolutely identified and verified. That is how things get shot that aren't supposed to be shot like people, or moose instead of elk, or cows instead of bulls, or spikes instead of raghorns.

Don't aim at something you are not certain you want to destroy. Making exceptions to that rule turns hypotheticals into reality. How many tragic stories start with, "But, I...", or, "I was only just...", or, "I do it all the time..."?

Not really sure how you make this leap unless you're more concerned about one's own lack of self control with a loaded weapon. Perhaps the shooter here did not have the self control, we may never know.

Not sure what you mean by "standard practices" and drawing on your wife who may be an imposter, but that's pretty silly. I can tell you this, I have been a LEO for over 18 years, SWAT for 15 of those, been through rifle schools, machine gun schools, loads of tactical training, simunitions and shoot/dont shoot, etc etc etc....and incidentally took hunter's safety 3x (once when I was a kid, then again along with my kids just to go through it with them when they took it). Not everyone who handles a gun is an accident of self discipline waiting to happen. I wasn't talking about just willy-nilly pointing a gun at an unsure target, I'm talking about aiming your scope at a verified animal you may be about to shoot once you finally determine the amount of points on it's rack. And as @Red Letters mentioned, I'm sure more than most hunters have looked through their scope on a VERIFIED animal and then reconsidered taking it. Or watched 2 or 3 animals file past in their scope until the one they wanted came into view and took their shot. Or had their crosshairs trained on an animal waiting for the one behind it to move out of the way.

 

[txhunter581]

Arrest affidavit details fatal hunting incident in Dolores County

An arrest affidavit reveals that two hunters from Pennsylvania were calling in an elk Friday morning in the San Juan National Forest north of Rico when one mistook a bow hunter for their prey and fata...

www.durangoherald.com

Does not appear that a decoy was involved.

 

[Savage99]

Arrest affidavit details fatal hunting incident in Dolores County

An arrest affidavit reveals that two hunters from Pennsylvania were calling in an elk Friday morning in the San Juan National Forest north of Rico when one mistook a bow hunter for their prey and fata...

www.durangoherald.com

Does not appear that a decoy was involved.

Was just about to post this. Haven’t had much details until this reporting on the arrest affidavit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KHNC]

Using KHNC’s scenario…

If the moose was confirmed to be a moose using something other than a scope, and the rifle was confirmed to be safe, then it’s 100% legitimate to use the scope to measure the rack width.

If a scope was used to confirm the moose was a moose, then that’s not ok.

This is CORRECT. I would never use a scope to identify an animal. Binos or Spotter for sure.

 

[KHNC]

I agree, bear rifle season is Sep 2nd through the 30th, archery season should be moved to Aug or Dec.

or maybe bear season should be moved instead.

 

[Poser]

or maybe bear season should be moved instead.

Barring a return of spring bear hunting, September is the most effective timeframe to hunt bear in CO. Outside of that sept mast feeding frenzy window, bear hunting is almost entirely random and unpredictable. Since Elk can be effectively hunted over a much larger window of time and the CPW has a specified goal of knocking down the bear population a bit, which one of these seasons should be given biological preference if it comes down to one vs. the other?

 

[sndmn11]

Not really sure how you make this leap unless you're more concerned about one's own lack of self control with a loaded weapon. Perhaps the shooter here did not have the self control, we may never know.

Not sure what you mean by "standard practices" and drawing on your wife who may be an imposter, but that's pretty silly. I can tell you this, I have been a LEO for over 18 years, SWAT for 15 of those, been through rifle schools, machine gun schools, loads of tactical training, simunitions and shoot/dont shoot, etc etc etc....and incidentally took hunter's safety 3x (once when I was a kid, then again along with my kids just to go through it with them when they took it). Not everyone who handles a gun is an accident of self discipline waiting to happen. I wasn't talking about just willy-nilly pointing a gun at an unsure target, I'm talking about aiming your scope at a verified animal you may be about to shoot once you finally determine the amount of points on it's rack. And as @Red Letters mentioned, I'm sure more than most hunters have looked through their scope on a VERIFIED animal and then reconsidered taking it. Or watched 2 or 3 animals file past in their scope until the one they wanted came into view and took their shot. Or had their crosshairs trained on an animal waiting for the one behind it to move out of the way.

He said it was not verified, and the reason why he did not shoot. As a seasoned LEO surely to know to identify your target and background before aiming, why would it be any different when hunting? Safe firearms handling should be universal. I have never in my academy, department in services, or NTOA training run across "aim first, then verify" being taught. I have heard the opposite countless times about muzzle discipline and safe firearms handling, literally at every single safety briefing BECAUSE people are human and despite conscious self control sometimes still make mistakes or sub conscious actions override. I think the latter is called muscle memory by many...."decide to shoot, sight alignment, press...." The brain cannot process multiple conscious focused thoughts at once. What is your reaction and the reaction of your team when a member flags another with his muzzle?

The absolute answer is don't point your gun at things you do not want to shoot. The result of following that rule is that things you do not want to shoot, will not be shot by you. If an exception to the rule is made, it opens up the door for things you do not want to shoot to be shot. Making exceptions to rules standard practices because one is hunting, or wants a quick send once verified, or is a super trained demon of a shooter, ingrains unsafe weapons handling and increases the chances of something getting shot that the person did not want to shoot. Just like driving intoxicated every night increases the likelihood of causing a traffic accident.

 

[505Wapiti]

Based on the affidavit details, as mentioned too many times previously to count the sad unfortunate fact is that this ML hunter did indeed break the most important rules of firearm safety… period. In the heat of the moment, he “saw white” and shot. Complete F up to the nth degree. Such a horrible situation. My grandpa always said “it isn’t an accident if it could’ve been prevented.” This was a conscious poor decision.

 

[Red Letters]

He said it was not verified, and the reason why he did not shoot. As a seasoned LEO surely to know to identify your target and background before aiming, why would it be any different when hunting? Safe firearms handling should be universal. I have never in my academy, department in services, or NTOA training run across "aim first, then verify" being taught. I have heard the opposite countless times about muzzle discipline and safe firearms handling, literally at every single safety briefing BECAUSE people are human and despite conscious self control sometimes still make mistakes or sub conscious actions override. I think the latter is called muscle memory by many...."decide to shoot, sight alignment, press...." The brain cannot process multiple conscious focused thoughts at once. What is your reaction and the reaction of your team when a member flags another with his muzzle?

The absolute answer is don't point your gun at things you do not want to shoot. The result of following that rule is that things you do not want to shoot, will not be shot by you. If an exception to the rule is made, it opens up the door for things you do not want to shoot to be shot. Making exceptions to rules standard practices because one is hunting, or wants a quick send once verified, or is a super trained demon of a shooter, ingrains unsafe weapons handling and increases the chances of something getting shot that the person did not want to shoot. Just like driving intoxicated every night increases the likelihood of causing a traffic accident.

That is not what he said, he’s even reposted since then.

 

[NB7]

I had crosshairs on a bulls shoulder at 240 yds for over a minute 2 years ago waiting for him to move his head from behind a tree so I could verify legality.

"On a bulls shoulder". Sounds to me he verified it was a real bull, or at least an elk, and not a human. All I'm saying is I have aimed my scoped weapon at what I 100% positively knew was a deer or elk, and then decided not to shoot for one reason or another. Re: my examples above. I'll maintain my position that there was no fault in that.
As far as "flagging team members with one another's muzzles", now that's just comparing apples to oranges here, and I can see this little disagreement is going down a road to nowhere. So I'll concede you the internet win, I know better than to take that road, and frankly don't have the energy or interest to continue it any further.

As @505Wapiti mentions above, sounds like the shooter committed the ultimate f-up, he just saw something and shot. Incredibly stupid, tragic, infuriating and sad. I feel terrible for the family of the victim, and no sympathy for the shooter whatsoever.

 

[sndmn11]

"On a bulls shoulder". Sounds to me he verified it was a real bull, or at least an elk, and not a human. All I'm saying is I have aimed my scoped weapon at what I 100% positively knew was a deer or elk, and then decided not to shoot for one reason or another. Re: my examples above. I'll maintain my position that there was no fault in that.
As far as "flagging team members with one another's muzzles", now that's just comparing apples to oranges here, and I can see this little disagreement is going down a road to nowhere. So I'll concede you the internet win, I know better than to take that road, and frankly don't have the energy or interest to continue it any further.

His words were he was verifying legality of a bull by wanting confirmation of four points. So, right species, (HOORAY!) unknown legality in need of verification. Aim first, evaluate and assess second? Who teaches that? If that flies, then why not aim our firearm at anything and everything, just in case it is a legal target, and then decide if is indeed a legal version of the target species? That is where this is an apples to apples comparison when exchanging "elk" with "wife" or "teammate". You wouldn't dare to aim at the second two every time they came into view while deciding if you could legally pull the trigger.

I knew it was not only an elk, but a bull, and I just wanted that last confirmation of 4 points before I sent a bullet, even though I was 90%+ sure it was.

I had crosshairs on a bulls shoulder at 240 yds for over a minute 2 years ago waiting for him to move his head from behind a tree so I could verify legality.

 

[woods89]

His words were he was verifying legality of a bull by wanting confirmation of four points. So, right species, (HOORAY!) unknown legality in need of verification. Aim first, evaluate and assess second? Who teaches that? If that flies, then why not aim our firearm at anything and everything, just in case it is a legal target, and then decide if is indeed a legal version of the target species? That is where this is an apples to apples comparison when exchanging "elk" with "wife" or "teammate". You wouldn't dare to aim at the second two every time they came into view while deciding if you could legally pull the trigger.

I don't think we're going to agree. I applaud your commitment to safety and welcome a chance to review my own habits but I think we come at this particular situation from slightly different angles.

My point, which I admittedly didn't do a great job of articulating, was that even if this guy had done what we all agree is wrong, which was verify that this was or wasn't an elk over his rifle barrel, but still had taken the time to check for legal antlers, this would have never happened. It appears this individual was not concerned with the minimum point rule at all.

I also feel that there is a vast gulf between my wife and a bull elk that I'm 90%+ sure is legal quarry.

Regardless, as posted above, what a tragedy, and very avoidable. My heart goes out to the victims family.