Wear your orange/bright colors

Tom Halicki wrote: There's just something about a 7mm round through the guts that I find unappealing.

You hope through the gut. Have you seen what a 7mm round does after it hits bone?

powhound84 wrote: Ignorant and prejudiced. Nice.

^^^^ +1

Does it matter whose fault it was if you're dead?

Try making so much noise, racket and commotion so that all the animals are scared far, far away, then the asshole hunters who are too stupid to know not to hunt where there are lots of other recreationalists will go somewhere else to blow Bambi to smithereens.

Not all hunters are dumb rednecks, anymore than all city tourons are litter bugs. But you'll find plenty of examples to support the stereotype for each. It's for those "rare" instances where the stereotype is true that regulations and best practices are developed.

Be safe, and wear something bright/unusual. Big Bird costume still might get you shot though. lol

The Rare/endangered Giganticus Birdus Erectus

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:Try making so much noise, racket and commotion so that all the animals are scared far, far away, then the asshole hunters who are too stupid to know not to hunt where there are lots of other recreationalists will go somewhere else to blow Bambi to smithereens.

Yup. Airhorns and boomboxes. Bring your most obnoxious friends.

Jeremy in Inyokern wrote:Realizing that some ignoramus with a rifle does have the larger argument in the fight, and my lack of garishness may get me shot, I will still not assume the responsibility for identifying someone else target. The guy with the trigger is responsible to know and apply the four rules. If he is to irresponsible to do that no amount of color, garish or not, is likely enough to save my life for me to change my behavior.

When I was a kid my dad yelled at me for walking in a crosswalk without stopping first. I yelled "BUT I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY!!" He said, "I believe you, but good luck arguing that when you're dead!"

Travis was just trying to look out for the general safety of climbers/hikers with a friendly suggestion. I think you'll find you'll be less likely to be shot if you step off the soapbox for a minute.

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:Try making so much noise, racket and commotion so that all the animals are scared far, far away, then the asshole hunters who are too stupid to know not to hunt where there are lots of other recreationalists will go somewhere else ...

This. 'Smart' hunters don't go anywhere there's people. Defeats the whole finding-wildlife-to-shoot thing. But that's the point I think some are trying to make here, is that someone choosing to hunt where there's other people/non-hunters is probably a few sandwiches short of a picnic. So protect yourself from them by making it harder for them to say "I thought it was a bright orange deer".

Jeremy in Inyokern wrote:Realizing that some ignoramus with a rifle does have the larger argument in the fight, and my lack of garishness may get me shot, I will still not assume the responsibility for identifying someone else target. The guy with the trigger is responsible to know and apply the four rules. If he is to irresponsible to do that no amount of color, garish or not, is likely enough to save my life for me to change my behavior. As to who did or did not mean color I cannot say. All I can say is that that's not what you wrote. Add again that you don't get to choose other peoples words for them. It doesn't work that way. I said garish because I meant garish.

I am greatly amused that you accused hunters of being illiterate, and yet you still haven't understood what was said earlier in the thread: The hunter may see an animal, and no humans around, shoot, miss the animal, and hit a person a few hundred feet behind the animal who the hunter could not see for lack of a garish outfit.

The stereotype is tiredly old. Not even worth the debate.

Matt Wilson wrote: I am greatly amused that you accused hunters of being illiterate, and yet you still haven't understood what was said earlier in the thread: The hunter may see an animal, and no humans around, shoot, miss the animal, and hit a person a few hundred feet behind the animal who the hunter could not see for lack of a garish outfit.

Still the hunter's fault. You are responsible for knowing what is behind your target.

Not the point, though. Fault is a moot point when you're dead.

Matt Wilson wrote: I am greatly amused that you accused hunters of being illiterate, and yet you still haven't understood what was said earlier in the thread: The hunter may see an animal, and no humans around, shoot, miss the animal, and hit a person a few hundred feet behind the animal who the hunter could not see for lack of a garish outfit.

Although this is possible, it's a very low odds possibility (that at the very moment they pull the trigger and miss someone just happens to be in the line of fire). It's more likely they will mistaken a distant rustle as their target, or shoot at something too far away to see clearly. The bright colors at least gives them pause to think and reevaluate.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:Not all hunters are dumb rednecks, anymore than all city tourons are litter bugs. But you'll find plenty of examples to support the stereotype for each. It's for those "rare" instances where the stereotype is true that regulations and best practices are developed. Be safe, and wear something bright/unusual. Big Bird costume still might get you shot though. lol The Rare/endangered Giganticus Birdus Erectus

Big Bird would be a garish outfit to wear trick or treating at the bars tonight.

Natural selection dudes.. If the guy wants to blame everyone for his own mistakes let him. He probably doesn't wear a seatbelt ether.

csproul wrote: Still the hunter's fault. You are responsible for knowing what is behind your target. Not the point, though. Fault is a moot point when you're dead.

I distinctly remember a case in Maine where a hunter shot a women hanging up her laundry in her yard. The jury found he was not at fault.

M Sprague wrote: I distinctly remember a case in Maine where a hunter shot a women hanging up her laundry in her yard. The jury found he was not at fault.

And the law was changed 7 months after that acquittal.

"Seven months after Rogerson’s acquittal, a new law had been crafted and passed by the Legislature. It delineated a standard of conduct that a prudent hunter must abide by, in order to facilitate the prosecution of hunters in shooting deaths.

Included in those standards of conduct is a requirement to identify various parts of an animal before shooting and to know what lies beyond the target before pulling the trigger."
bangordailynews.com/2008/11…

I've been in 5 instances where shots were fired which came close.

1. Mountain biking in Morongo Valley, CA and some guys were firing automatic weapons into the hillside maybe 300 yards below the ridge I was on. The bullets were ricocheting over my head. I did not have bright colors on.

2. I was hiking in Hillbilly Canyon area towards the Rodeo Wall which leads up to the La Madre range in Las Vegas when someone began firing a high caliber rifle across the valley I was in. Bullets were throwing up dust as they struck the hillside opposite me. Signs up in the area saying no shooting.

3, It was winter and we were going into Big Sandy in Henderson, NV to boulder and do some short top ropes. As we turned the corner we saw and heard a couple parked in the bottom of the wash shooting small caliber fully automatic weapons across the rock strewn wash into glass and plastic milk containers. I stopped the Toyota well back and went and talked to them. They were not too accommodating but they did let us hike past and redirected their fire into softer ground. I was a little leery parking the truck where it could have been struck by ricochets. I was not wearing especially bright colors.

4. We were driving out of a slot canyon in the La Madre area (NV) and turning east to go up the main wash when a guy up on the bench across from us was discharging his high powered rifle (think 30-06 or 270 Winchester) across the canyon. The rounds ricocheted off the rocks and blew past the red Toyota close enough you could hear the air trails. I laid on the horn and he rather quickly left his area. I would have liked to get his license plate. Signs everywhere say no shooting,

5. We had launched the Skeeter bassboat at Topock Marsh (Needles, CA) after some guys dressed in full camo had cleared the ramp in their Jon-boat. They moved off into the marsh east of us. About a 1/2 mile down channel they began firing shotguns from inside the tules in our direction. Some pellets landed around us but they were spent. We did not have on bright colors. This is in a protected Flyway/bird sanctuary. In their defense they were not locals. Had Texas license plates. And later they did apologize.

Late September and deer season had just opened that day at Shuteye Ridge. We stopped and talked to 3 parties out scouting with rifles, full camo and quads. Looked like those guys on the TV show. They were all reasonable and receptive. Told them I hadn't seen any recent deer sign around us, which was the truth. Later I did hear a rifle discharge but it was at least a mile from us. I had pink on that day.

When I lived in Morongo Valley, CA some our neighbors would shot off their guns in our low density residential area. Course it's illegal but that didn't deter them; even when I mentioned their 22 caliber bullets had ricocheted and hit the siding on the house. Couple times I hiked up the canyon behind our place to confront the quail hunters who thought it was OK to be hunting near peoples homes.

AWinters wrote: Not true. This is merely a guideline, not a law. If you shoot a (or at a) deer and the round carries on thru or past the intended target and strikes a human, you are not at fault, as long as all other hunting laws are being followed. This would be considered an accident. It is "unlawful to negligently shoot, wound or kill a human being while hunting, or abandon a wounded or killed human being". Keyword: "negligently". Sucks a lot, but accidents do happen. Regarding the poor woman hanging her laundry, this would probably be a case of shooting within 300 feet of a dwelling.. Though it's almost impossible to prove, unfortunately. Fact is most rifle rounds can travel up to two miles, depending on angle of shot, density of woods, etc. If you shoot at a deer on top of a hill and miss, that round is going far. It's terrible practice, but it happens. There have been cases of people hanging out in their back yards being killed by stray, distant bullets. Shitty odds, much less likely than a lightning strike.

I don't care much about the law. If you "accidentally" shoot someone because they were behind your intended target, IMO you are at fault. If your bullet bounces off and hits some random person, IMO you are at fault. The law may say differently, but I disagree.

AWinters wrote: Not true. This is merely a guideline, not a law. If you shoot a (or at a) deer and the round carries on thru or past the intended target and strikes a human, you are not at fault, as long as all other hunting laws are being followed.

I have a friend who shot a legal elk. His round went through the elk and killed the cow behind it that he did not see. He was cited for it, had to go to court, had his license revoked and payed a hefty fine. The law clearly felt he was at fault here and it also should if that had been a human IMO.

csproul wrote: I don't care much about the law. If you "accidentally" shoot someone because they were behind your intended target, IMO you are at fault. If your bullet bounces off and hits some random person, IMO you are at fault. The law may say differently, but I disagree.

The ultimate responsibility lies with the person pulling the trigger.