Driver hits, kills moose wounded by hunter in Salcha
Published Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS -- It gives new meaning to the term roadkill.
A wounded bull moose was killed on Monday in Salcha when it ran into the Richardson Highway after being shot by a hunter and was hit by an SUV.
“That’s a new one,” Sgt. Scott Quist with Alaska Wildlife Troopers in Fairbanks said with a chuckle when told of the accident on Tuesday.
It’s the first time Quist, a 16-year veteran, had ever heard of a wounded moose running into the road and getting hit by a vehicle.
Logan Churchwell, 27, of Tok was driving north on the highway in a Mercury Mountaineer at around 12:45 p.m. when a bull moose suddenly ran out of the woods in front of his vehicle at Mile 327. Churchwell was unable to stop and collided with the moose. The moose had run into the road after having just been legally shot by a hunter, according to a report from Alaska State Troopers.
Neither Churchwell nor his passengers, all of whom were wearing seatbelts, was injured.
The dead moose was salvaged and given to the hunter.
Damage to Churchwell’s vehicle was estimated at $5,000.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
This is why the NRA wants hunters to be able to use automatic weapons. Multiple shots would have prevented that very sad damage to the holy SUV.
(Joke- how liberals think conservatives think).
Glad no one was hurt. Yes, safety belts do save lives.
So how far off the road was the hunter and was he shooting towards the highway? Was this moose facing the roadway when hunter shot it? Lucky for the driver the bullet didn't miss the moose. Look at the guy who was shot in the leg recently.
I am wondering if this could be a lawsuit? Since the hunter shot the moose and in return it ran into the road--I wonder if the person in the SUV could sue the hunter? Just asking--if anyone knows.
Aksunshine, the hunter was 1 mile off the road, and the moose was 1 mile and 200 yards, perpendicular to the road and directly in front of an embankment that provided a backstop for the bullet. The hunter was shooting away from the highway.
Moose do not always drop in their tracks when shot.
So usally when you hit a moose the meat is taken away buy the state and given to a charity because it becomes the state propety so couldn't the guy sue the state for there moose running into the road or maybe since God created the moose the guy could sue him,hopefully it wasen't a minority moose and some affirmative action group doesen't get called in,did anyone do a brake inspection on the Mercury or check for recalls,there may be a lawsuit there to,Are we sure the Moose even got shot,maybe it was just a depressed moose and it was a suicide attempt,we should check the moose family background.
Come on lagirl are you serious?
thanks blazer - been hunting for a long time and know that they don't always drop in their tracks. Have also witnessed many 'just' off the road hunters. Sounds like you were there. Just glad the driver/passengers weren't hurt and the hunter got to keep his meat.
Yes, I would think the hunter could be sued...I've seen crazier cases.
I also seen the Mountaineer after the accident and the only thing that was really hurt was the hood on the vehicle. I didn't know there was a moose hit, I actually thought the vehicle broke down. There were 2 vehicles parked by the Mountaineer - 1 in front and 1 in back. I imagine 1 of those belonged to the "hunter" and 1 was a passerby.
Sounds like this hunter was either realllllly close to the road - or a reallllllly poor shot!
Dangerous enough driving around Salcha let alone hunters shooting so close to the road!
Well Maxwell--it was a valid question, but since you are so smart what is the real answer?
lagrl- The auto insurance company might make a claim against the hunter as it was foreseeable that a shot moose would run onto a nearby road. Keep in mind that civil cases are not about punishment but compensating victims to the point where theoretically they are indifferent about the accident (legal view). It is also to provide future hunters with incentives to take the efficient level of precautions when hunting in similar situations; they should internalize probable external costs (economic view).
Well la i never said i was so smart in this area and it was written out as sarcasim as if you couldn't tell,but because of sue happy people out there in search of a quick buck i'm sure it's possable,if a lady can sue a franchise because the coffee was to hot or a burglar can sue a homeowner for falling through a faulty sky light i'm sure this could make the books.
Thanks Sherry29 and Mel for addressing the question. I understand how the auto insurance works as far as being paid out under Comp, but I was wondering about the insurance company--probably they wouldn't sue because it would end up in court and insurance companies tend to loose those so they just pay the claim. It just made me curious about whether the hunter would be negligent.
Had a friend shoot at a moose down near Fort Greely about 25 years ago. He was using a 338 Magnum and he thought he must have missed on his first shot because the moose didn't move so he jacked another round and fired again. Second time the moose stumbled slightly so he jacked a third round and was going to shoot a third time when the moose went down on one knee and then fell over. He didn't fire the third round.
When he got to the scene, he found that he had hit the moose twice in the kill zone but the first round went through the heart/lung area and the moose didn't move. Moose have tremendous stamina and have been known to run a quarter of a mile through muskeg with a fatal wound.
Assuming the hunter did everything right, there's probably no case but as someone noted above, anybody can sue for any reason at all but that doesn't mean they'll get a judgement they like.
Oh my gosh. I have no comment except that I love Maxwell's sense of humor. I will have to follow his comments when I want to be entertained! By the way, I agree with him.
And perhaps the remaining Salcha moose could get a class action lawsuit going against all of the highway drivers that failed to notice which direction their relatives were facing, and therefore, which direction they were going to run while on the highway and were subsequently struck and killed by a negligent driver.
Just because a moose is facing a certain direction, doesn’t mean you can tell which way it will run. There are plenty of drivers that can tell you that, as well as plenty of hunters. Seriously, I really do think it is Mother Nature that should be sued for putting those moose here to begin with!
I believe In order to sue for negligence the injury or damage must be foreseeable, otherwise it is just an accident. (If you are being reckless you could foresee that something bad could happen). In other words the hunter would have had to foresee that his actions could cause the damage it did. I don’t think any reasonable person would have thought shooting that moose so far from the road would cause it to get hit by a car.
I live near there; the Little Salcha River drainage is there. MP 327 is on a very blind curve, and the banks on either side are quite steep.
Foreseeable? Hardly not, short of the moose being shot in the right of way; that's only 100ft. He was probably headed into the Tanana slough right there to hide.
Last summer, a spike bull trotted thru Moose Creek with one antler dangling; lathered up, so he ran quite a distance before we saw him; he was headed for the brush too.
Glad the driver didn't roll his rig there; had one turn away on me at the last second 3 weeks ago and fold my mirror back. THAT was close!!
Any reasonable person SHOULD be cognizant of the moose being on the move during hunting season anyway.
I would think that if the hunter was negligent the troopers would not have given him the meat, and he would have been ticketed at the scene, plus lost a whole lot more.
I've had bad days too, but very few as bad as the day that moose was having.
I hope the driver of the SUV got half the moose for his part in the kill.
leave it to a la person to get the lawyers involved
With tounge in cheek...
Whereas The People's Democratic Republic of Alaska claims to own and manage absolutely everything from space to the center of the earth and every nonhuman denizen thereof...
And Whereas precendent in most places holds that parties who are engaged in animal husbandry of any kind are legally responsible for damamges that their animals may cause...
Therefore, The Peoples Democratic Republic of Alaska is probably liable for allowing its livestock, non-domestication notwithstanding, to run about unfettered on the public highways.
oops! I never claimed to be a typist! Wiseguy maybe...
Sarah would have dropped it with a shot to the head
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.