TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Hu ... 01228.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gandpa took his grandson hunting in Oregon and taught his grandson what not to do.

Marine was hiking with a friend. Only crime wearing dark clothes.

I don't know about hunting bear. I always figured you were hunting something else and had to save your life. Is there a bear hunting season, so hikers would know to wear orange vests?

Every time this sort of thing happens, its just more ammunition for the anti gun people.

RIP

philip964 wrote:I don't know about hunting bear. I always figured you were hunting something else and had to save your life. Is there a bear hunting season, so hikers would know to wear orange vests?

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/bear/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

philip964 wrote:Is there a bear hunting season, so hikers would know to wear orange vests?

Every time this sort of thing happens, its just more ammunition for the anti gun people.

RIP

How about hunters being able to tell the difference between a bear and a hiker before pulling the trigger instead? Whatever happened to riflescopes? The notion that I would have to modify my own behavior to make up for the personal deficiencies of a hunter would simply encourage me to stay out of the woods until the season is over.

That's kind of like saying that one shouldn't walk through the "bad part of town" unless you belong there (like a bear belongs in the woods); or unless you have put on some body armor (like a hiker having to wear an orange vest). However, if other denizens of the "bad part of town" behave themselves and don't act the fool, then the body armor isn't necessary. Likewise, if hunters behave themselves and don't act the fool, then hikers don't need to dress for the hunters' convenience. In this case, "behaving themselves" means not pulling the trigger on a target they can't see well enough to distinguish, AND being aware of what lies beyond it.

I realize that wearing blaze orange if you're a hiker makes perfect sense if you know that you're entering a hunting ground during a hunting season, but not all hikers are informed about hunting, nor should it really be their responsibility to keep track of something in which they are not themselves personally involved. Despite the hiker wearing orange or not, the safety of the endeavor is 100% the hunter's responsibility. He's the one with the gun, and he's the one pulling the trigger. He shouldn't do it if he isn't sure of what he's shooting at. It is doubly unfair when you consider that many of those same hunters are wearing camouflage clothing which hides their presence from those same hikers. Maybe the hunters are the ones who should be required to wear blaze orange clothes?

I'm just sayin'....

And I am a hunter, BTW.

It may not be their responsibility but they risk paying the ultimate price. To use your analogy, there are some neighborhoods (and states!) where I have every right to go, but I choose not to go. That's me. You have every right to make your own decisions.

As a ex-scoutmaster I always kept the kids out of the woods during dear season. Too many novices with buck fever.

boba wrote:It may not be their responsibility but they risk paying the ultimate price. To use your analogy, there are some neighborhoods (and states!) where I have every right to go, but I choose not to go. That's me. You have every right to make your own decisions.

I agree. I'm just sad that an allegedly experienced hunter shot something he clearly could not see well. It's like he had buck fever.

kjolly wrote:As a ex-scoutmaster I always kept the kids out of the woods during dear season. Too many novices with buck fever.

It's not always the novices who have it, and that was the point I was trying to make.

Yes, it would have been smart for the dead marine to wear orange in the woods during bear season, but that doesn't make his death his own fault. If there is blame to be affixed, it should rest with the hunter who fired a round that he could not account for fully in a safe direction. The authorities may have decided that he is not criminally liable, but that doesn't lift the moral responsibility from his shoulders, and I would not want to live in his shoes right now—trying to come to terms with having killed a vibrant young man because he didn't have a clear sight picture before dropping the hammer on his target.

kjolly wrote:As a ex-scoutmaster I always kept the kids out of the woods during dear season.

When I was a scout, we thought the woods were the ideal place for "dear" season.

Very unfortunate story. The true tragedy is the unnecessary loss of life, the families involved, and the new reality that the hunters will live with for the rest of their lives.

You don't shoot it if you can't ID it.

"Reconaissance by Fire" does not apply to hunting.

So so so sad. Please everyone if you are going to go hiking wear something bright colored. That does not make it the marine's fault of course, but he is dead and no matter what happens nothing can undo that. So please--wear bright colors. So sad for everyone.

I want to draw another analogy.....

You're a tourist, on your way to Seattle from Los Angeles, and you decide to take a drive through Tacoma on the way just to check it out. Now, Tacoma has some really bad parts of town. That's a fact. But there is no way that a tourist from Los Angeles could be reasonably expected to know in advance which parts of Tacoma are dangerous, and which are not. The decision to visit Tacoma was made enroute, spontaneously, armed only with the knowledge that Tacoma exists and that it is located sout of Seattle on I-5.

You get shot in Tacoma by a gang member who couldn't tell if you were a member of his own gang or not, so he fired on the possibility that you were not. Is it your fault for not having thought in advance to research what areas of Tacoma were dangerous and which were not, and for not wearing body armor accordingly, or is it the shooter's fault for dropping the hammer on a target he wasn't sure of?

AFAIK, just as there is no law requiring people to wear body armor in rough neighborhoods—or even to have advanced knowledge of which neighborhoods are rough and which are not—neither is there any law requiring hikers (especially if they are not hunters themselves) to wear blaze orange clothing and to have advance knowledge of hunting seasons and hunting areas.

There are just some degrees of preparation that we cannot credibly expect people to have, particularly things which lie outside their personal experience. What if this marine was a city boy? Someone for whom, outside of the military context, hunting is simply not part of his mental makeup or personal experience? So we have a marine who is home on leave from a combat tour in an active theater of war and who has a reasonable expectation that, while he is home on vacation from that war, that nobody is going to be shooting at him, particularly during a walk through what he believes to be the peaceful and quiet woods where he can enjoy some last hours of peace and quiet before having to return to the war zone.

All I'm trying to say is that, in the big picture, this isn't really the marine's fault for not wearing orange; and legalities aside, it really is the hunter's fault for firing on an unclear target. Like purplehood said, "reconnaisance by fire" is not really a valid hunting method. I think that the hunter in question got himself a bad case of buck-fever and was not in full control of himself when he fired the shot. The consequences to him are life long. He has to live with the knowledge of what he has done. OTH, he gets to live. The marine he killed does not.

The Annoyed Man wrote: It's not always the novices who have it, and that was the point I was trying to make.

Yes, it would have been smart for the dead marine to wear orange in the woods during bear season, but that doesn't make his death his own fault. If there is blame to be affixed, it should rest with the hunter who fired a round that he could not account for fully in a safe direction. The authorities may have decided that he is not criminally liable, but that doesn't lift the moral responsibility from his shoulders, and I would not want to live in his shoes right now—trying to come to terms with having killed a vibrant young man because he didn't have a clear sight picture before dropping the hammer on his target.

That pretty much sums it up in my book. Terrible tragedy for the Marine and his family. Also terrible for the hunter and his grandson who live with the regret. A good reminder for the rest of us. Don't pull that trigger unless you are sure...hunting or self-defense.

philip964 wrote:http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Hu ... 01228.html

Gandpa took his grandson hunting in Oregon and taught his grandson what not to do.

Marine was hiking with a friend. Only crime wearing dark clothes.

I don't know about hunting bear. I always figured you were hunting something else and had to save your life. Is there a bear hunting season, so hikers would know to wear orange vests?

Every time this sort of thing happens, its just more ammunition for the anti gun people.

RIP

There was not an attempt on my part to blame the Marine for any liability for his death, I guess my sarcasm may not have been recognized. My apologies for not being clear and making small light of what is a tragic incident.

I did notice this weekend a photo of Rick Perry hunting in Iowa. It showed he was wearing a coat that was made with yellow patches on the shoulders. Not sure even that would have saved this poor man.

Growing up in Colorado, my father made my brothers and I always wear bright-clothing while hunting.

As he put it, "Animals are color-blind...humans generally are not".

Purplehood wrote:Growing up in Colorado, my father made my brothers and I always wear bright-clothing while hunting.

As he put it, "Animals are color-blind...humans generally are not".

Virginia requires blaze orange on clothing and/or blinds...exception muzzle loading season. For what it's worth, a camouflaged individual will appear as a dark shape to a color blind person. That's why the army started accepting them to combat MOS's.