While target shooting on public land outside of Helena, Montana, a 27-year old man suddenly found himself taking incoming fire. The Idaho Statesman tells us that the near-victim was setting up fresh targets when bullets began whizzing by him and striking the ground around his feet. Ducking behind trees for cover, the man waited for the shooting to stop before identifying the source of the gunfire; a man in a black Ford F-150.

Confronting the man in the truck, the near-victim was told, “I thought you were bigfoot.” Explaining, as one does, that he is not actually bigfoot but is a standard-variety man out doing some target practice, the shooter said, “I don’t target practice — but if I see something that looks like bigfoot, I just shoot it.”

The shooter left the young man with a little sage advise: wear orange. Yes, well, TTAG’s advice is to observe gun safety rule number four: be sure of your target and what’s beyond it. It’s critical to avoiding unfortunate accidents and staying off our Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day roster.

I’ve certainly never been in the woods of the Northwest looking exactly like Sasquatch. Then again, that’s me in the photo above. It might be time to pick up an orange vest…

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

106 COMMENTS

    • I’m wondering if alcohol was involved.

      As well as the breaking of the 4 rules and reckless endangerment.

      • Did anyone mistake Jeremy in that fur coat for one of the Pevensie children in Narnia?

        I find myself looking for Mr. Tumnus, Mr. Beaver, and a lamp post.

        As a general rule, I don’t shoot at Narnian royalty. That said, a firearm would have been handy for dealing with Jadis of Charn.

        I don’t know what kind of range she had with that statue wand, but a scoped .270 would probably outclass it.

  2. Is BigFoot known to be a murderer? Does he deserve vigilante-style Capital Punishment?

    Do we kill everything we don’t understand?

    • Well, some of us do, but they tend toward the lower rungs of the intellectual ladder. The thing is that when it comes to believing that what you are shooting at is actually a Bigfoot, one has already demonstrated a strong likelihood of not being terribly bright in the first place.

      • I cringe whenever I read a story such as this; albeit, this one is now at the top (maybe I should say bottom) of my list.

        Do we gun-owners have any insight whatsoever what such stories do to our Public Relations cause?

        I immediately recognize that a natural right does not have to stand for a simple-majority vote. Nevertheless, no “parchment barrier” has ever survived without the principled support of a super-majority. Lynching survived until the early 1950s because – until the mid 20’th Century – “good men” would “do nothing”.

        Today we are in a struggle for the defense of the 2A. Too many of us suffer from the delusion that it’s possible to defend that right to arms with rhetoric alone. That’s false. The survival of the 2A right – as a practical matter – turns on the will of a good-strong majority insisting that it be respected in substance. It’s that – or Civil War II.

        The MSM will make sure to publicize every bad-shoot while keeping every DGU at the bottom of the page where the classified ads appear. It’s not enough for each of us individually to behave responsibly; it’s also necessary for us to instill an understanding in others of the importance of maintaining the appearances of the group as responsible.

      • Yeah, just great. Now, all Bigfoot has to do is see this article, start wearing orange and he’ll get away.

    • Killing just to kill doesn’t make any kind of sense to me. If a big foot did exist, then killing it would be the wrong thing to do. I fear the shooter more than any big foot or creature on the planet.

    • If it had been real big foot then there would have been a big argument as to whether the person was justified in shooting it even if it had not threatened him in any way. The State would have been upset with him not having bought a special and expensive permit. The Scientists would have bemoaned the fact that they lost an extremely rare animal that may have been the last of its kind. The anti-hunters would be screaming from the roof tops that this is why hunting should be outlawed and only be permitted by trained government hunters. The list goes on.

  3. “….shoot it….” or

    “….shoot AT (Bigfoot) it….”

    Good thing this idjit doesn’t target practice.

  4. “If I see something that looks like Bigfoot, I shoot at it.”

    What a fucking dope. And then he has the gall to blame the guy for not wearing orange? How about getting positive target ID before firing? Idiot should consider himself lucky that his target didn’t return fire.

    • As a snide aside; how does one positively identify a mythical creature as a target? That is, given it’s a mythical creature one should automatically assume that whatever is about to be shot at, it sure isn’t Bigfoot.
      Or, looked at another way, in the event the target actually is Bigfoot, by what means could one be sure?

      On another note, regardless of how one ought to verify whether or not one is about to shoot Bigfoot, the way the fellow in the black Ford is going about it seems likely to result in things like being busted for poaching bear, arrest on man slaughter charges, and a fairly good chance of return fire. In other words, don’t be that guy…

      • Some think people are seeing a few Gigantopithecus or other hominoid species. I’m not making a case for that, but if it were true, I don’t think I’d want to shoot one of the last of a rare species if I didn’t have to. Besides, people who claim to have encountered them say they smell awful. Probably not good eating.

        • I’ve read that as well, it just seems so very unlikely that in all this time with such a dense and highly technical and mobile population of humans that not even so much as a few bones from such a creature have ever been found. One would think a trail cam would have picked one up, hunters would have bagged one, or someone would have hit one with a car on the road by now and settled the matter.
          That aside, I’d be truely torn…part of me, knowing I’ll never be believed without the carcass, and understanding the ramifications of proving the existence of a hitherto unknown great ape species in North America, would be sorely tempted to take the shot.
          Another part of me has the same reservation you expressed, namely, I don’t really want to kill an incredibly rare and unassuming creature giving me no good cause to do it violence, especially when it may be/likely is remarkably intelligent.
          Furthermore, I’m not sure that I wouldn’t hesitate simply because it is so humanoid. I’d really not like to shoot someone dressed up in a monkey suit, and encountering exactly that seems far more likely than encountering a previously undiscovered great ape in NA.
          Going one step further, I don’t think I could shoot chimpanzees, bonobos or gorillas unless it was a defensive action. Too humanoid, too intelligent, I couldn’t feel right about it without a compelling reason to shoot (to defend from attack by it or offer it mercy if severely injured or some such). Given that, I’d be very reluctant to shoot some sort of secretive great ape I found in the woods as well.
          The whole thing raises interesting scientific, social and moral concerns.

          Just as an aside, what are your thoughts on attempting to communicate with such a creature? I think I would feel compelled to attempt communication and try to ascertain just how intelligent the thing is. However, I realize that attempting to open communication puts both Bigfoot and I at increased risk: it might attack me, and I wouldn’t hesitate to kill it in self defense. It’s a bit like the previous conundrum: If I don’t kill it, how will I even prove I saw something, let alone what that something was? In this case if I don’t attempt to communicate, I’ll never be able to determine it’s intelligence, but disturbing it might precipitate a violent encounter.
          Like I said before, it raises some interesting questions.

        • I’m with you that there would be some definitive physical evidence by now, while acknowledging that it’s at least possible that there’s an uncatalogued species running around (especially if it’s at least somewhat intelligent and wants to avoid contact). But yes, seems highly improbable to me.

          “Just as an aside, what are your thoughts on attempting to communicate with such a creature? I think I would feel compelled to attempt communication and try to ascertain just how intelligent the thing is.”

          I’d like to think I’d try to communicate. Honestly, though, if confronted with something completely unknown, and that much bigger and stronger, on it’s home turf, I think I’d freeze, then if anything back away slowly.

        • “… if i see a unicorn im totally killing it”

          Oh yeah. Rhino horn doesn’t really work, that’s just a myth. But ground unicorn horn? That’ll let you go all night, then half the next day.

      • Well Gov. I’d say that returning fire is an excellent way to communicate to the idiot shooting at you that you are not, in fact, a Bigfoot, and that he should desist shooting at you immediately. If, at anytime, the fellow insinuates it’s possible that Bigfoot does sometimes return fire as an excuse for not lifting his fire when you returned it, well, I’m not an attorney, but that sounds like grounds for justifiable homicide to me…

        Random thought: Why is it that I can readily buy a plate carrier in black, brown, olive and coyote but not in safety orange? I assume it is because, generally speaking, if your risk of being shot is so high that it’s worthwhile to obtain and wear body armor the perceived risk originates from intentional acts rather than being misidentified, and higher visibility is a liability. I submit, based on this observation, that one can use the relative availability of brightly colored body armor as a barometer for the foolishness of those who take to the woods with guns: That is: There is an inverse relationship between sales of safety orange armor and the general level of faith in one’s fellow man.
        Consider: Prior to reading the OP, I had never had any desire for safety orange armor. How many more such reports would be necessary to motivate at least one other here to check the availability of safety orange armor? If enough searches for safety orange armor are made, someone will begin to manufacture and offer it. So far the formula works…I think I’ll call it The Bigfoot Hypothesis.

        • I’m heeled even when I go out to set targets. He at least deserved a slug into his engine block or radiator. I’m sure a four figure mechanic’s bill would go a long way to reminding him not to shoot at bigfoot.

          Never priced plate carriers but I’m guessing it’s the plates, not the carrier that’s expensive. I’d think they’d have a color for every occasion, including shotgun season in Iowa on public land.

    • “Shoot Bigfoot”?? Unless he’s coming for you, what normal person would do that? Shooting pictures would be more fun. Seeing him walking, hunting, eating, building etc would make a great story picture book. I’ve never heard of him attacking. Have any of you?

  5. North Idaho???? Helena Montana is not near the Idaho border, not even close. The Idaho Statesman is a Boise paper, not a Montana paper. So he was outside of Helena, then what about North Idaho.

    • Sorry, I can see how that was confusing. I’m from North Idaho. The photo of me in that faux fur coat was taken in North Idaho like 2.5 years ago. When I was filming those videos I joked about hoping I wouldn’t be shot by someone thinking I was sasquatch. Related by topic, not location.

      • You’re in “faux fur”? You’re kidding right? I hope. There’s nothing more recyclable than real fur. The fake stuff is all plastic/petrol made; never decomposing. I have a 75yo fur coat from an aunt. When it falls apart, I will bury it. Has anyone made a coyote coat?

    • I certainly hope so! I’d vastly prefer to believe the shooter was crocked than the alternative; He actually has a standing intent to fire at anything that may resemble his impression of what a Bigfoot looks like and arrived at said decision after careful and sober deliberation. I mean, the former is just a safety issue, the latter makes me embarrassed to be human…

      • What I want to know is, is this an effective rifle for taking Bigfoot and Bigfoot-like game? If not, what gun/load is recommended for the taking of Bigfoot? In fact, why isn’t that it’s own OP? What gun and gear for a Bigfoot hunt? Inquiring minds want to know…

        • My woods-defense firearm is a catch-all for all four-legged critters in North America — the infamous large revolver with a 6-inch barrel chambered in .44 Magnum.

          I usually load it with 240 grain semi-jacketed softpoint bullets on top of respectable powder loads. That configuration produces a muzzle velocity of about 1,300 fps (900 foot-pounds muzzle energy). In pretty much every conceivable encounter, two hits to vital locations should be able to stop anything in the Lower 48 States.

          And if I were going into grizzly and/or moose territory, I would probably load up with 300 grain hardcast lead bullets which have a muzzle velocity of about 1,200 fps (960 foot-pounds energy). Those should handle anything in the Lower 48 States.

          And I am pretty confident that either load would be pretty effective at stopping a 600 pound ape.

        • Well between the two, I’d rather have my .260 (last year’s model) over this .243 for Bigfoot, but I’d think it’d get the job done. He’s probably no harder to bring down than a large man who’s in good shape and hopped up on adrenaline or any of many less natural stimulants. Still fairly thin front to back.

  9. If one adopts a shoot on sight policy for mythical creatures, this would seem to be a moot policy, given that by definition no shots will ever be fired for such a reason.
    However, if one has a policy of shooting at anything that might be a mythical creature…well then again by definition no shots will be fired.
    But, if one has a policy of shooting at anything that looks like the common description of a mythical creature, one will most assuredly still never shoot a mythical creature, but is apt to shoot a variety of game out of season and the odd human being.
    I’d argue that either of the former two policies are just fine, since no harm will come to any creature, mythical or otherwise, while the latter policy ought to be grounds for immediate arrest for intention of poaching and conspiracy to commit manslaughter.

    Once in a while someone does something that actually makes the antis look (almost) sane. “Seriously, you want ‘that’ guy to have access to firearms?” Personally I’ll take my chances with liberty for all, but…this… just…wow!

  10. When I took hunter safety I was honestly shocked at the fact of how much the number of ‘friendly-fire’ accidents dropped after orange was legally required. It was 92% if I remember right.

    One thing about the story, this happened with in two days of today…. unless there is a extended season going on out by Helena hunting season is closed, so the guy that got shot at should not need to wear orange and the shooter is just a dumb-shit that wont identify what he is shooting at.

    There are few things in life that can get me worked up and pissed off…. Not knowing what you’re shooting at is one of them….. This guy better hope he never shoots at me.

    • A few years ago in Maine, a guy was hunting white tail deer. He thought he saw one and took a shot. It moved so he shot again. The “deer” turned out to be a woman wearing a white coat in her back yard. The “hunter” was put on trial for manslaughter. Quite to my surprise, the jury acquitted him.

    • This bring up something that has always bugged me as well. How does anyone hunting get shot by mistake? I can see scenarios where dinguses fall or trip and their firearms discharge at themselves or some poor fool walking with them, but the legit cases of folks shooting at movement is the most bizarre thing to me. Orange should not be required, as it is pretty easy to tell if you have a deer or a human in your scope. I never understood thing. Folks that shoot women walking their dogs in maine because they have “white gloves” that someone thought was a flag should NEVER be written up as an accident. That is criminal negligence each and every time. I will never understand this. if your eyes are so bad, or target so far, or moving, that you cant distinguish where in the family Animalia something is WTF are you doing shooting at it. My college room mate was shot with turkey shot because he was in a bush and calling and the barrel of his shotgun “looked like a turkey neck” according to the shooter. What The Everloving Fck. Yeah were shooting at bushes with skinny black things that stick out of them I guess. Calling it an accident doesnt justify the stupidity of the act.

      • Some years ago one of the guys that worked at the same place I did(different shift, didn’t know him personally) was out bow hunting with his brother. He thought he saw a deer’s antlers through the brush(after sunset) and took the shot. Hit his younger brother (who had his bow slung over his shoulder, looked like antlers he said) in the pelvis and the arrow ripped through his guts. He bled out in just a few minutes. If you think you know what you are aiming at, DON”T FIRE unless you are sure you know what you are aiming at.

      • “Orange should not be required, as it is pretty easy to tell if you have a deer or a human in your scope.”

        I agree, if it doesn’t look like what you’re hunting for don’t shoot, unfortunately wearing orange -or not, it doesn’t seem to matter in some cases- shows you how many shoot-at-the-movement idiots are out there. Case and point the 92% drop of friendly-fire in my state of MT.

        To me there is only two responses to friendly-fire in the field… return fire, and if the person is alive after that, criminal charges.

      • I think you’re right, and perhaps the law needs a reworking: Shooting at movement or patches of color is first of all really bad sport and unethical hunting at best, not to mention extremely unsafe. I believe there is a strong argument to be made that by firing with such poor to nonexistant target identification the shooter may be construed to have committed murder by depraved indifference in the event someone is killed. I suppose there is likewise a good case for argument that wounding someone in such a manner is aggravated battery, at least.

        I think the debate rests on this: Is it that one need only to prove that one did not think one’s target was a person to avoid criminal liability, or ought the burden be that one must first be certain one’s target is not actually a person before firing?
        I believe the latter is a much better standard. It’s nearly criminal stupidity to fire at anything without knowing for sure what it is (cases involving self defense perhaps notwithstanding) but to fire on something without first being reasonably sure that whatever it may be it is not actually another human being seems like the bare possible minimum requirement of target identification.

        For clarity: While it may be bad sportsmanship and an unsafe practice to shoot at unknown objects that regardless cannot possibly be human due to their size, shape, orientation etc, to fire on any object that may actually be human without first performimg due dilligence to ensure said object is not in fact a human is demonstrative of criminal negligence and depraved indifference to human life.

        I don’t know all the relevant laws in every jurisdiction, but I think I’d be fine with calling it murder when someone shoots at something they have so failed to properly identify as to not be certain whether or not it is a person. Put another way, if the law construed firing at shadows or movement or patches of color as demonstrating the willingness to fire on a person if that is what said target turns out to be, and thus constituting manslaughter I think I’d be fine with that.
        To paraphrase Blackstone: It is better that 10 deer be missed than one person hit. If that isn’t a basic part of one’s hunting ethos, one shouldn’t go afield while armed.

        Consider this: A person goes into the woods during deer season while wearing a convincingly authentic deer suit, moves in a deer like manner, makes deer like noises and doesn’t respond to being hailed and is then shot after being mistaken for a deer. In this case the shooting is, at least on the part of the shooter, accidental. He believed he had correctly identified the target as a deer, as any reasonable observer would, and in firing, his intention was to shoot a deer. This hunter would be completely blameless.

        Now consider the hunter who shoots at a moving bush in an attempt to harvest a deer. Is it still his intention to shoot a deer, or is his demonstrated intent to shoot whatever was causing the movment of the bush? If that turns out to be a deer, then he is an unethical and remarkably stupid hunter. If, however the bush was moving because it contained a human being, can the hunter be said to have intentionally shot a human? It was, obviously, his intent to shoot whatever was causing the bush to move, and if that is a human, I’d argue he has at least committed manslaughter. The basis for this is that everyone of normal intelligence knows that deer are not the only thing that cause bushes to move, and in firing on the moving bush this hunter has demonstrated the intent to shoot whatever caused the movement, his hope that it was a deer notwithstanding. No one would accept that in shooting blindly into a crowd I was attempting to hit a leprechaun that I hoped was in front of them, such conclusions are patently absurd.

        Going one further, a hunter who shoots at something white and moving in the hope that such thing is a deer demonstrates not his intent to shoot a deer, since seeing only something white and moving, he merely hopes it to be a deer. Such hunter demonstrates his intent to shoot whatever the white moving thing is. If such turns out to be a person, given that a person of normal intelligence ought to perceive that among the things that may be white in color and moving in the woods people are included, this hunter has demonstrated his willingness to shoot a person. Thus, in this case, the hunter makes it clear that he was willing to shoot a person, and intended to shoot whatever the white moving thing was, his hope that it was a deer is totally irrelevant.
        Given these facts, if the white moving thing was in fact a person, I’d argue the hunter is guilty at least of manslaughter, and possibly of murder by depraved indifference. I base this last on the above Re:Blackstone: Harvesting a deer cannot in anyway be construed as a higher priority than ensuring one does not kill another person. Thus given that his pursuit was harvesting deer, his intent was to shoot the white moving thing, in the knowledge that white moving things might be people, and the result was the death of a person, the proper charge is murder by depraved indifference.

        I’m not sure how novel any of these thoughts are vis a vie statute or case law, or if such arguments have ever been attempted by a prosecutor, but given such extreme cases, such as shooting at movement and swatches of color, where the outcome was the death of an innocent person, I think I’d be comfortable seeing such a prosecution attempted.

        As for the hunting of whitetail, I do not think one can properly call firing at movement of flashes of color hunting. Other than dumb and dangerous, what should such an activity be called?
        Whenever I have hunted game of that size I have not only withheld fire until I was certain that what I was targeting was actually the game in question, but until I could target that part of the creature such as to ensure the most reliable, rapid and ethical kill with my chosen weapon.
        Does anyone here shoot ‘at a deer’ generally rather than aiming for some particular part of the animal (such as the vitals)? I’ll admit to hunting squirrels with 20 gauge birdshot and aiming sort of generally at the squirrel (or, at closer ranges, slightly off the body of the squirrel), but deer? Who shoots at ‘the deer’ rather than a defined spot on the deer? Have I been doing it wrong?

        • “Have I been doing it wrong?”

          Nope, you are spot on. As I was reading your comment I kept thinking, “Why would you shoot at a flash of white anyway, that’s it’s ass.” Among the things I try to avoid in the field, chief among them, shooting at another person, is shooting a perfectly healthy deer in the ass.

        • Jeremy, I think it’s a Texas head shot, not heart. At least that’s what the local range caretaker calls it.

    • I’m going to go out on a limb and say that he’s never actually bagged one so the tag is unnecessary.

  12. How much does a bigfoot/unicorn tag cost in Montana? Do you just pay for one, or is there a lottery system?

    • According to the linked news article…

      The 27-year-old from Helena told dispatchers on Monday that a day earlier he had been putting up targets on public lands outside the city when bullets started flying toward him, Lewis and Clark County Sheriff Leo Dutton said in a phone interview with McClatchy.

  14. I get it. The idiot thought that the guy was Bigfoot because he was snacking on Jack Links Beef Jerky. It’s a natural mistake for someone with the IQ of a sea turtle.

  15. Why would anyone be surprised? It’s what you’d expect from an F-150 driver.

    Just kidding, it’s an ok (though inferior :p) truck.

    But yes, this is exactly why we can’t have nice things.

  17. There is no Bigfoot. Just other humans and large land animals that some people inexplicably assign a paranormal appearance/behavior.
    Intentionally hunting one is a waste of time at best and a potential tragedy at its worst.
    Even if they are real, “harvesting” one means knocking down one of a vanishingly small number. And who knows if the surviving members of that species might or might not hold a grudge and become aggressive toward hikers and hunters who are there for legit reasons.
    What a chuckelead!

  18. BIG FOOT IS A FAKE.
    AND ALL THOSE BIG FOOT HUNTER ARE FRAUDS.

    But the only way to really prove that Big Foot does exist is to
    shoot one and bring back a body.

    Two things,
    1. No Body. No Big Foot. Therefore, You are a fraud.

    2. If you don’t want to get mistaken for a Big Foot,
    don’t go dressing up like one. Or you deserved to get shot.

    If some one does see you dressed up like a Big Foot and
    shoots you dead,
    do you think they are going to drag your body in to the law enforcement and
    turn themselves in?

    they are going to bury your body and run to the next State.

  19. His target should have returned fire, at least with a warning shot at the guy’s truck tires.
    But judging from the stupidity of the redneck in the F-150 pickup, he would’ve just yelled, “Bigfoot has a gun!” and redoubled his shooting efforts.

    Why isn’t this titled “Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day”?
    Did he not make the list just because he had such bad aim that nobody was killed?
    Does someone have to be a Darwin Award Winner to get the title “Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day”?

  20. ^^^ This is why I carry a pistol at all times even when at the rifle range. It would have been mag dump time.

  21. From first hand experience I can tell ya that armed people wander around the sticks in Montana and Wyoming black out drunk.

    Chances are the guy with the F150 had a 5th of whiskey in the cup holder next to his Winstons and was probably originally out there to hunt pink elephants.

    He probably saw 2 Bigfoots until he closed an eye to aim…

  22. Yeti isn’t protected in Montana??? Shame on dem…

    BTW- a reposting of the 4 rules wouldn’t appear to do much good- this guy actually thought he was shooting at “Big Foot”. .

  23. “I don’t target shoot , but if I see something that looks like big foot I shoot it” hoo ha, I gotta quit smoking, coughing up chunks o lung laughing so hard. FnA that was a good one.

  24. What would worry me more would be if they’d found a dirt caked shovel and half ‘a sack of quicklime hidden under a tarp in the truck bed. -30-

  25. I must be in a mood or something, but I just had this though: If one were to dress so as to fit the common description of a Bigfoot, and while so dressed one was fired upon by a would be Bigfoot hunter, could one claim self defense in returning fire? Would the Bigfoot hunter face charges for firing on a person dressed as Bigfoot?
    I over think…well everything, but…
    Might there be a case to be made that given encountering a person dressed as Bigfoot is infinitely more likely than encountering an actual Bigfoot, that anyone firing on what they perceive to be Bigfoot ought to be liable for first ensuring that their target isn’t actually a person on pain of being charged with murder, attempted murder aggravated assault or whatever fits based on the outcome of the shooting?

    Put another way: Might a prosecutor not stand a reasonable chance of successfully arguing that since no convincing evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is known to exist, while evidence of people dressing as Bigfoot is commonly available, that any person attempting to shoot what appears to be Bigfoot ought to know that the greater likelihood is that they are attacking a person and are therefore liable for any harm?

    Or yet another way: Might not a person be estoped from arguing as a defense to having shot a person in a Bigfoot suit that they legitimately thought they were actually shooting Bigfoot, since no evidence for the existence of Bigfoot can be produced and no court recognizes the existence of Bigfoot?

    These facts and arguments are reason enough, I think, to make it wise to have a “Do not shoot Bigfoot unless in self defense” policy.

    In fact, having thought it through, that is my policy: I do not shoot at Bigfoot except in case of self defense. I recommend everyone adopt such a policy at least until such time as the existence of Bigfoot has been reliably proven.

    Shew! I’m glad we got that worked out! How did I make it this long without having worked out a shoot/No shoot policy via a vie Bigfoot? That could have been tragic.

    • “…arguing that since no convincing evidence for the existence of Bigfoot is known to exist,” try using that argument with the California courts whom up held the microstamping requirement in spite of the fact that microstamping does not and is unlikely to ever exist in a functional way.

    • Agreed. Had I been the target I’d have had a hard time not (big) foot stomping the guy. Of course, return fire would have been reasonable as well.

  28. The comment from the shooter would have induced me to beat the holy living sh– out of him. I wouldn’t have taken kindly to being shot at and then hearing the worlds lamest excuse. My blood would have boiled and I would have seen red…which has actually happened to me twice and it’s a strange experience.

    I’m FROM Montana, being born in Missoula. Humans make mistakes, but that wasn’t a mistake, that was irresponsibility and a violation of the basic hunting and firearm safety rules and the those violations endangered OTHERS.

  29. That couldn’t have been Bigfoot. He knows how crazy all y’all are and he wouldn’t show his face EVER.

  31. There are actually 5 rules of gun safety, the 5th being the most important. Use your head before using the trigger.

  32. “I don’t target practice — but if I see something that looks like bigfoot, I just shoot it.”

    Who is that Montana Moron — Frank Drebin?

    Drebin: Well, when I see 5 weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of the park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards. That’s my policy.

    Mayor: That was a Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar, you moron! You killed 5 actors! Good ones!

  33. He should have called the Fish and Wildlife Commission, or whatever it is called there, to report attempted poaching. Let’s see a) shooting out of season, b) not having appropriate permit, quota and/or tags, c) shooting from the right of way of a road d) shooting a juvenile Big Foot (sorry Jeremy, but I would guess that an adult Big Foot would be a bit taller than you), e) shooting under influence (assuming he was drinking)…
    As to hunter orange plate carriers, until they become available you could always use those garbage bag quality ponchos made for hunters to quickly slip on when FWC officers are approaching, “Oh, yes sir officer, I was wearing the required 500sq inches of hunter orange”

    • Attempted, Heck no, I just described poaching. I kept thinking of attempted murder and the bubbles in my boiling blood made the typo happen.

    • Ha! Samsquanch!

      Maybe the best defense against a samsquanch is to give him some liquor and whores?

  37. If you’re stupid enough to see what you think is a mythical bipedal creature and start shooting at it from your pickup truck, you should be thrown in jail for the betterment of society.

      • “Proper Field Dressing and Handling of Wild Game and Fish [and those who hunt mythical creatures]*…remove the genitals from the carcass, leaving the scrotum for sex identification.” From Pennsylvania Game Commission.
        (*ed.)

  38. This is one reason I only shoot on a private range that bars any outsiders. I also have stopped hunting in recent years because of all the idiots out there that even use “sound shots” while hunting. I am not joking and that is what one person told me when he shot at me while hunting. He never apologized and thought it was quite funny when it happened. We had one genius fire off 6 shots at a fleeing deer that ran across a highway and the hunter killed a woman driving to work. We had another genius fire off a muzzle loader in the air and the bullet struck and killed a young girl traveling down a public road. The list goes on. I have seen my area that once welcomed people to hunt private land completely reverse policy and allow no one not even known friends or relatives to hunt on their private lands anymore and who can blame them. The lack of hunting places and even approved ranges has resulted in an entire generation of younger people not ever having owned a gun or hunted. Most gun shows in my area are frequented by people now in their 70’s and 80’s. We are a dying breed about to go extinct and we are being replaced by the video generation. We had one house next door broken into by some kids where guns were in plain site and they never took them. Obviously they had no desire to have anything to do with them or even knew what they were worth. Due to the fact that the guns were modern plastic and stamped sheet metal guns the kids might have thought they were just cheap plastic toys from toys r us. They were only partially wrong.

Comments are closed.