Dude blasts skiers Malamute with an assault rifle

[SB]

Man that is messed up beyond words. Having had several Mals they are the best dogs ever.

I would have capped the asshole and left him there for the wolves to eat.

[that dude who did that thing]

We're teh fucktards who are actually managing wolves in our backcountry. How is the California populace managing wolves? That's right, you're sticking with the eradication job your forebears did. Nice. Now, go back to your traffic jam and let those of us who actually love the wildlands enought to maintain some take care of them.

[liv2ski]

We're teh fucktards who are actually managing wolves in our backcountry. How is the California populace managing wolves? That's right, you're sticking with the eradication job your forebears did. Nice. Now, go back to your traffic jam and let those of us who actually love the wildlands enought to maintain some take care of them.

Now who is being ignorant and generalizing? Show me the last time a wolf was blasted in CA. You retards are lining up to hunt them and will shoot anything remotely resembling one. I would have no issue with wolves being reintroduced here, as this is a big state with lots of room for every creature. No traffic jams for me either dipshat.

[that dude who did that thing]

You don't blast wolves because you don't fucking have any, dipshit. We manage to have enough to hunt. Now, which state is doing the better job?

So, when you have wolves living in your area, talk to me. Until then, shut your trap, dipshit, you do NOT know what you're talking about.

[Harry]

From the second article:

Law Enforcement says: "it is illegal to shoot a game animal on a road, but since he shot a domesticated pet it is legal"

WTF ?

[that dude who did that thing]

From the second article:

Law Enforcement says: "it is illegal to shoot a game animal on a road, but since he shot a domesticated pet it is legal"

WTF ?

Yep, that's pretty fucked. Dogs are considered personal property only, in Montana and lots of other states, for that matter.

If somebody accidentally shot your flower pot, it wouldn't be a crime, either (assuming it occurred in a place where discharging firearms was not prohibited).

[crashtestdummy]

I have had 3 wolf hybrids, they were truly amazing animals. I will no longer own one, but only because of all the armed morons that will shoot first, without any thought of what else is going on.

Two years ago I was walking my dogs and within minutes of each other they were both caught in leg hold traps. Suffice it to say, those traps will never catch another animal. Western states have some really fucked up laws about animals.

[gretch6364]

Sad story for sure. I agree...what is up with there being no laws about shooting domesticated pets?

There are some other post mixed in about this, but if you just read the first article posted, it mixes up some of the details.

The truth:

20 yards, not 15
Not an assualt rifle
The shooter stopped and ask what he do to help and appologized and the owner told him to leave


The shooter is an idiot and did not identify his target and it is probably best when you have an animal that looks anything like a wolf or husky to put a orange vest on them during wolf hunting season...or any hunting season for that matter.

And is the reference about another dog being shot this:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/wol...a4bcf887a.html

A non-collared wolf hybrid stalking horses?

[FreakofSnow]

Sad story for sure. I agree...what is up with there being no laws about shooting domesticated pets?

There are some other post mixed in about this, but if you just read the first article posted, it mixes up some of the details.

The truth:

20 yards, not 15
Not an assualt rifle
The shooter stopped and ask what he do to help and appologized and the owner told him to leave


The shooter is an idiot and did not identify his target and it is probably best when you have an animal that looks anything like a wolf or husky to put a orange vest on them during wolf hunting season...or any hunting season for that matter.

And is the reference about another dog being shot this:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/wol...a4bcf887a.html

A non-collared wolf hybrid stalking horses?

gretch definitely hit some of the points that are being overlooked by most. I don't agree with the "hunters" action and think he should have slowed down a bit. A couple more points:

1. Its hunting season in Montana!!! All animals and people for that matter should be wearing ORANGE if you're in the wood! Don't want to wear it? Well, you my friend are taking a known risk
---There are smart hunters and dumb hunters, play to lowest common denominator

2. There are numerous wolf packs and sightings in that area he was skiing in, wolf hunters are targeting that area. Re: Gretchen's article above--- that hibrid that was shot is about 15 miles away.

[Hugh Conway]

You don't blast wolves because you don't fucking have any, dipshit. We manage to have enough to hunt. Now, which state is doing the better job?

So, when you have wolves living in your area, talk to me. Until then, shut your trap, dipshit, you do NOT know what you're talking about.

Idaho isn't "managing" Idaho has a bunch of dickwads who want to kill shit dominating the dialogue. Oh 20 yards! If you can't tell the difference between a mal and a wolf at 20 yards you shouldn't have a license to hunt.

[that dude who did that thing]

Actually, Hugh, you are quite wrong. So far, the folks "dominating the dialogue" in terms of actually setting policy, are the ones pursuing scientific management of wildlife. We have dipshits dominating the public airwaves from both sides of the debate, but it's legitimate hunters and game managers who are making the decisions.

Nice try, though. I can understnad why a blowhard would want to think that the people blowing hardest are "dominating," even though they aren't.

[Hugh Conway]

Actually, Hugh, you are quite wrong. So far, the folks "dominating the dialogue" in terms of actually setting policy, are the ones pursuing scientific management of wildlife. We have dipshits dominating the public airwaves from both sides of the debate, but it's legitimate hunters and game managers who are making the decisions.

Nice try, though. I can understnad why a blowhard would want to think that the people blowing hardest are "dominating," even though they aren't.

Awww look, it's the TGR lawyer in his prime element - knee deep in shit and douchebaggery, pretending none of it's his and magically his opinion is the right one!

[spook]

Haaaaaaaaayyyy, look, it's Spook, contributing absolutely nothing to a conversations, just casually trying to be funny in a NOT funny thread, just responding to peoples' comments and being a complete and total fuckwad.

Goobster you make every thread funny in a desperate to be needed way.

[GeezerSteve]

. . . scientific management of wildlife.

The guy fired 4 rounds from 20 yards at a dog with a collar. Seems that the science broke down somewhere. If the concept of "scientific management of wildlife" is to be deemed legitimate, this guy needs to be punished or at the very least have his hunting privileges revoked.

[1080Rider]

This is a VERY popular recreation area. Probably the number one spot for cross-country skiing for the Missoula gaper crowd.

This is the thing that pisses me off. I didn't know the area but was assuming it was a pretty populated spot if the guy was talking about running his dogs on a sled (the comment about what if I had a kid in a sled). Why the fuck would a wolf hunter be lurking around this close to a popular trail. Admittedly, i don't hunt, but if I did, I'd get the fuck away from people for several reasons...

[that dude who did that thing]

The guy fired 4 rounds from 20 yards at a dog with a collar. Seems that the science broke down somewhere. If the concept of "scientific management of wildlife" is to be deemed legitimate, this guy needs to be punished or at the very least have his hunting privileges revoked.

I totally agree. I think this idiot has demonstrated that we should have serious doubts about whether he is sufficiently responsible to hold a hunting license.

To play devil's advocate, though, let's say he accidentally ran over your dog with his car. Would you advocate revoking his license to drive? Or are you applying a different standard to hunting than you do to the much more popular activity of driving?

Here's one of the weird things about the current state of the law in most states. If you misidentify your target and you shoot the wrong animal, whether that constitutes a punishable offense (as opposed to merely a civil matter over the economic value of the animal) depends on whether what you shot is considered a game animal. Deer have a greater degree of protection by the state than do dogs. I don't agree with it, that's just the way it is in most places.

[that dude who did that thing]

This is the thing that pisses me off. I didn't know the area but was assuming it was a pretty populated spot if the guy was talking about running his dogs on a sled (the comment about what if I had a kid in a sled). Why the fuck would a wolf hunter be lurking around this close to a popular trail. Admittedly, i don't hunt, but if I did, I'd get the fuck away from people for several reasons...

The area is also known to have wolves, and, in particular wolves that are likely to present management problems. The wolf hunt is extremely controlled, so Montana F&G probably targeted this area for removal of wolves to reduce wolf/human interaction and conflicts.

[spook]

maybe jimspee is only a 3L

[Hugh Conway]

To play devil's advocate, though, let's say he accidentally ran over your dog with his car. Would you advocate revoking his license to drive? Or are you applying a different standard to hunting than you do to the much more popular activity of driving?

Road? You mean a dogpath right? And did he run over the dog 4 times to make sure it's dead? Or is the purpose of this rhetorical genius supposed to convince the schmucks out there in some legal maneuver you picked up reading barbri books?

[GeezerSteve]

Or are you applying a different standard to hunting than you do to the much more popular activity of driving?

Well, for starters, manifestly incompetent drivers should have their licenses revoked. 4 shots at a collared dog from 20 yards = manifestly incompetent hunter.

You're the one who introduced the loaded term "scientific game management." Under that concept, big game hunters are participating in the managed wildlife harvest as de facto officers of the state, and thus should be held to a very high standard, i.e., the same standard as, say, a LEO. If a LEO shot a dog under the circumstances I hope to hell he'd lose his job.

[that dude who did that thing]

. If a LEO shot a dog under the circumstances I hope to hell he'd lose his job.

You might hope so, but he probably wouldn't.

The dog in this story looked an awful lot like a wolf. Have you seen wolves in the wild in the West? Many of them are thriving, have thick, beautiful coats, and look like large dogs (including the several I have seen personally in areas where I hunt deer and elk). I agree the hunter here was an idiot, but he was not an idiot for mistaking a malamute for a wolf. He was only an idiot for shooting before he was absolutely certain.

Scientific management in this context refers to the use of ecological data to determine optimal carrying capacities of the land, and the establishment of hunting quotas and limits to try to achieve those numbers. Scientific does not mean "precise" as you seem to be implying. In fact, scientific management has to assume a certain level of imprecision in using hunters with their wildly varying skill levels as tools of management. That's why Montana will sell something like 5,000 tags but only a couple of hundred wolves will be killed. Scientific management most certainly does NOT make hunters agents or particularly officers of the state. Nice attempt to apply a ridiculous legal standard that has absolutely no application here.

The whole situation is really unfortunate. And if I could personally belittle the hunter who shot this dog, I would. I also would prefer if there were a process to really find out what happened here and determine if this accident should effect his ability to hunt in the future, but I don't believe such a process exists. However, there are idiots on both sides of the wolf debate, and in the middle are a bunch of people who get ignored because their rhetoric is measured and reasonable, who are doing the hard job of making it possible to have both civilization (and the agriculture it requires) and wolves in the intermountain West.

[PNWbrit]

To play devil's advocate, though, let's say he accidentally ran over your dog with his car.

Is it really "accidentally" if he actually deliberately and repeatedly runs over my dog because he can't tell it's not a wolf?

Would you advocate revoking his license to drive?

That aside yes I would advocate revoking the licence of someone who deliberately (and even if only once) ran over a dog. Or a wolf.

[BCJC]

...Montana F&G probably targeted this area for removal of wolves to reduce wolf/human interaction and conflicts.

phew, good thing they saved the day and prevented any unwanted conflicts.

[that dude who did that thing]

phew, good thing they saved the day and prevented any unwanted conflicts.

Yep, certainly a fail on that account.

[Hugh Conway]

Yep, certainly a fail on that account.

so much for the science