First Big bull down!
skull krazy
7/31/07 3:19pm
Just got wind of the first big bull down for 2007.
It's Nevada's auction tag...435"
Now THAT'S a standard to set so early, geeeez!! ](*,) =D>
It's Nevada's auction tag...435"
Now THAT'S a standard to set so early, geeeez!! ](*,) =D>
21,114
it's very rare, not too mention expensive.
its getting close for us normal guys
9er
Any info on what it was?
9er
Some of these tags like this whether a "super raffle" tag or the Gov. tag in AZ weas extended until July of this year.
PRO
The antlers were/are done growing on the big bulls by now. If you look at the picture, you can see some of the velvet was already starting to peel off.
If they quickly deboned the animal and got it in ice, the meat would/should be fine.
PRO
Porter Mountain residents angry over recent elk hunt
By: Sean Dieterich, The Independent
08/03/2007
Area residents are upset after this large bull elk was shot by a hunter July 26 in their Mountain View Ranch neighborhood. The problem, according to Game and Fish and residents, is that the hunter shot too close to homes. Game and Fish has issued a citation to the hunter, Mike Malik of Michigan, for violating an Arizona law.
Area residents are upset after this large bull elk was shot by a hunter July 26 in their Mountain View Ranch neighborhood. The problem, according to Game and Fish and residents, is that the hunter shot too close to homes. Game and Fish has issued a citation to the hunter, Mike Malik of Michigan, for violating an Arizona law.
LAKESIDE - Some residents near Mountain View Ranch on Porter Mountain Road are distraught and angry after an elk hunt reportedly took place very close to their homes July 26.
Residents in the area awakened that morning to the sound of gunshots. After all was said and done, a large bull elk was killed and the Arizona Game and Fish Department has left to sort things out.
Game and Fish has issued a citation to the hunter, Mike Malik of Michigan. Malik is the owner of Paradice Hunt Club in Davison, a 1,000-acre whitetail deer-hunting region and resort.
Curt Farrier, a resident near the area where the hunt took place, said it all unfolded a quarter-mile from his home. He said he woke up around 5:15 a.m. to the sound of a gunshot. Thinking it was a drive-by shooting at first, he went back to sleep but got out of bed when he decided something wasn't right.
Neighbor Krissie Almour said a phone call woke her up at 5:30 a.m. The call came from neighbor John Babbitt, telling her not to go outside because hunters had shot an elk near her home.
"I was thinking, 'What hunters? Where are the hunters?'" she said.
Around 5:35 a.m., Almour reportedly called Farrier's house to relay the news. Farrier said while his wife talked with her, he heard more gunshots and yelled at the hunters to stop shooting because of other animals in the area. He said the elk finally went down at 6 a.m.
Farrier said during the hunt, the hunter and his outfitter were on private property.
"(The hunter is) supposed to be 440 yards away from a dwelling," he said. "Every place they took a shot was in private land."
Farrier said the first shot happened near a fence separating Mountain View Ranch from the rest of the properties in the area. Since the elk did not go down with the first shot, he said the hunter stalked it as it tried to get away. He said the hunter took the last shots near two houses.
"They got between the houses and shot," he said.
Soon afterwards, Malik, outfitter John McClendon from Cottonwood, Arizona Game and Fish and the area residents converged on the spot where the elk fell and tried to figure out how it all happened. Farrier said many of the residents on scene were those who witnessed the act with no idea of what was going on.
"These people are all watching, freaking out," he said.
Farrier said the outfitter was asked by Game and Fish if they had written permission from the residents to hunt there or if they had informed the residents beforehand and they both replied "no." Game and Fish, having reason to believe the elk was not taken lawfully, confiscated it. Farrier said the head of the elk will be sold at an auction while the meat will be given to a food bank.
Game and Fish said Malik had a special permit to hunt. Public information officer Bruce Sitko said special permits were introduced in the mid-1980s, with two initially given out per year per big game species, such as bighorn sheep, mule deer or elk. He said that the permits are either auctioned off or raffled. Malik's permit was obtained through auction.
"All of the proceeds from those permits go to management for that particular species that permit is sold for," he said.
Sitko said the Arizona Legislature recently allowed a third permit to be sold. With the permits the hunter is allowed to hunt in designated game management units, as determined species by species by the Arizona Game and Fish Department Commission. A majority of the units are open for a particular species every year, and the permit allows the hunter a yearlong pass to hunt, regardless of the time of year. Malik's permit ran from Aug. 1, 2006 to July 31, 2007.
According to Sitko, Malik was in one the designated areas, but reportedly fired too closely to occupied structures. Farrier said he talked with Malik after the hunt and was told Malik had three previous hunts in Arizona but did not shoot anything. He added that Malik said he felt bad about the whole situation.
Nevertheless, the incident has emotions running high in the area. Farrier said herds of elk are known to run around the area right in their backyard. The elk that was shot was well known to the community.
The thing that has Farrier really mad, he said, is where the elk was shot. The area is not forested, as it is just grassland with a pond in the middle. He likened hunting an elk in an open area like that to shooting in a corral.
Almour said she was angry and sad about many things regarding the incident. She felt her property rights were violated when Malik and his guide wandered onto her land. She was also saddened to learn a hunt was taking place in the same area where her husband Jeff Almour died in a plane crash more than two months earlier.
But what has Almour most upset is that the elk was advertised online. She said the hunter might have been enticed to come out to Lakeside with video of the elk, possibly taken from a resident. She said that action might have put the rest of the herd in jeopardy.
"I felt that elk was pimped out on the Internet and sold to the highest bidder," she said. "It was a blatant misuse of trust and friendship."
Babbitt said Malik contacted him via phone after seeing pictures of the elk on the Internet. He said he let Malik know where the elk was and guided him on the animal's path into the forest.
"I showed him right where the animal goes into the forest," he said. "I wanted to make sure he shot him out in the forest."
Babbitt said he went out with the rest of the residents after the incident occurred and did not go with Malik for the hunt like some alleged. He added that he was just as mad as anyone since the hunter allegedly went onto private property to hunt.
"He just didn't hunt the animal in the forest," he said. "He was too antsy, I guess. He should've gone where I showed him."
Calls to Malik were not returned by press time.
Arizona Game and Fish served Malik with a citation after conducting an investigation of the incident. Game and Fish reportedly determined the first shot from Malik took place 340 yards from Farrier's house, well within the 440-yard boundary. Game and Fish also said the second and third shots were reportedly taken from between two houses, which are only 677 feet apart.
"It's illegal to discharge a firearm within a quarter-mile of an occupied resident while taking wildlife without permission," Sitko said. The law comes under Arizona Revised Statute 17-309 A 4. It is considered a Class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by up to $750 in fines plus 80 percent in surcharges, up to four months in jail and up to two years probation.
Sitko said the investigation is open, so more charges may be pending. Farrier said it doesn't make him feel any better, knowing the hunter is a wealthy man.
"That guy's got enough money to buy his way out of it," he said.
Meanwhile, the residents feel like they are left to pick up the pieces. Farrier said the people in the area "are in such a tizzy." Not only that, he said people all over the state are learning of this incident.
"Everyone from Phoenix to Flagstaff to Prescott knows about this," he said.
Almour said there was nothing to gain from this situation.
"No one won out in the end," she said.
PRO
PRO
I'll say this, the pic of the bull laying in front of the house sure doesn't look good.
It is a sad state of affairs when our most awesome trophys go to the highest bidder and some yahoo from out of state invades peoples neighborhoods guns ablazing.
PATHETIC!!!
Just for one example, where in the story does it say it was killed before legal shooting light? In Arizona the law says that "Legal shooting time is during daylight hours....In general, if you can see well enough to shoot safely, you are legal." I'm not defending the guy, I'm anti-auction hunting anyway, but the fact of the matter is that you don't have any idea what time legal shooting is, and you only have one asleep witness that claims to even know the time of the first shot. Even by his account, 5:00 a.m., it usually gets light enough to shoot about 30 minutes before sunrise. Sunrise in Arizona on that date was 5:36 a.m., and 30 minutes prior to that would have been 5:06 a.m.
Secondly, the article makes a big deal about it being private land. The law in Arizona says that you may hunt private land without permission if it is not legal posted with a certain size of sign, spaced a certain distance apart. Again, not defending his actions, and he probably did lots of things using very poor judgment, but chances are he shot during legal light, and was not trespassing.
Shooting too close to buildings will need to be proven, and appears to be the only law that G&F even says was violated according to the article (even though it alludes to many more that probably actually weren't broken). So let's not inflame the situation, the antis will do that for us. Unless there was an eye witness to the effect that he was less than 440 yards from an occupied building, which I don't believe the article produces, he may have shot legally. Just because you eject a shell casing in a spot doesn't mean that's where he shot. However, also watching a number of AZ G&F hearings over the years while attending Commission meetings, nobody EVER gets off on anything they are charged with in front of THAT group. You are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent beyond a shadow of a doubt! I can't imagine he'll get cleared of this no matter his guilt or innocence.
In my opinion he showed such incredibly poor judgment that he probably deserves anything that happens to him, but I don't think it does any of us any good to read facts into the story that are not in evidence.
Either way it's a fine animal and it's a shame that he's become a part of something like this. If in fact he is taken then he will have been auctioned off twice........ What a shame.
I've noticed you have a tendency to make assumptions, and criticize others with a somewhat abrasive attitude quite often on this board....I guess this is yet another for you. If I'm taking your posts wrong, I apologize.....if not, do we need to get creepingdeath on here to post some rebuttal? :)
As for the AZ bull, I do know a bit about the incident which I will not discuss here. I will say this, don't believe everything you read (as Stickflicker explained) from a newspaper. Unfortunately, they are not always the best source of information in today's anti-hunting world. Lastly, I would predict that at the end of this investigation, the antlers will be returned, and no fines imposed. Time will tell. Until then, you should wait for the FACTS to surface before passing judgment. JMO
CB-
"Obviously the Droptine bull was harvested Thursday morning, 7-25-07. It is a tremendous and unique bull no doubt.
I can say that there were many extra steps taken in the planned hunt of this bull. The finder was given a rush guides license so he could be properly paid for his services. There was supposed to be dialog between him and his neighbor about the upcoming hunt. The guides wanted permission from surrounding property owners. Apparently that conversation never took place between the “Finder” and the neighbor. Unfortunately the expiring bull laid down on the adjoining property.
Before the first shot ever took place two guides/outfitters ranged the nearest occupied structure at a little over 500yrds. The shot was taken and like I mentioned, the bull headed for the next property to lay down.
The guides and hunter were instructed or asked by the game wardens, to move and finish the bull off. This did put them close to the house but presented a safer angle for the shot.
It’s no secret now that the bull was subsequently confiscated by our AZGFD game wardens. This came into play after the warden and a guide walked into the “approximate” area of the shot. The warden came up with a range under ¼ mile from the structure. It’s very easy to lose some yardage in a large meadow with no concrete spot as to where the first shot came from. Like I mentioned both guides that were with the hunter had ranges over 500yrds.
I’ll take the credibility of where my first hand knowledge came over anyone’ at anytime.
All of this will play out in the near future and everyone can judge from there. Just as the guides tried to take as much precaution as possible; the wardens did as well. I’ll be very surprised if anything comes of this. The hunter and guides were able to take field photos and get the great bull to the taxidermist.
There was only one citation written and I’m sure it’ll be fought and rightly so. No guides were issued any citations by the AZGFD.
I hope this helps clear up a little from the guides/hunters side of the story. All I’m asking is to let this thing takes its course and go from there."
We'll wait and see what the final work is.
I will agree with you on one thing. If the hunter is found to have been too close to houses when he fired his rifle then the appropriate fines should be imposed....swiftly and justly with the maximum fine imposed. Unfortunately, no matter what happen (right or wrong) it gave the hunting community the wrong type of headlines in the morning paper.
It is certainly a case of huge bad judgement. It sounds like greed overtook all common sense.
I want to harvest the best animal I can whenever I hunt. When I think back on all my hunts the memory of the animal is always there but just one part of it. Where I hunt, how I hunt, and who I hunt with is as important if not more so the overall experience of the hunt.
I think we can put too much emphasis on score which in turn takes away from the hunt and reverence for the animal.
It's too bad, nobody wins in a deal like this.