[waffentomas]

From the Seattle Times

Rockport, Skagit County

A woman hiking on Sauk Mountain near Rockport was shot and killed Saturday morning by a boy who was hunting for a bear, Skagit County deputies said.

The 54-year-old woman, of Oso, Snohomish County, was hiking with a friend and stopped on the trail to put something in her backpack. The boy, who lives near Concrete, mistook the woman for a bear and fired one shot, according to the Skagit County Sheriff's Office.

After being alerted at about 10:30 a.m., search-and-rescue teams found the woman's body in steep terrain. The boy was accompanied by at least one adult, deputies said.

The Skagit County Sheriff's Office and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife are investigating.


_____________

Let's be careful out there.

Tom

[Art Eatman]

Folks out hunting do manage to mess up. Hunters in trees have been mistake for turkeys or for bears. One guy shot a boy on a trail bike, and then shot the boy's brother on another trail bike--allegedly as elk.

Some are comic, as years ago in Pennsylvania: A very frosty morning, so Mighty Nimrod draped a bearskin rug over the hood of his car. He took off into the woods, hunting. He came upon a desirable target and shot: Through the hood of his own car.

[JERRY]

the issue in many places is that "hikers" do not excersize common sence during hunting season...in fact some intentionally try to ruin a hunter's day with various antics....

simple solution, hunters dont go hunting during "hiking season", and "hikers" dont go "hiking" on public land declared open for hunting during hunting season.....

there are so many public areas that are desolate and off limits to hunting...why "hike" on land that is being legally hunted?

[qwert65]

simple know what you're shooting at

[ClarkEMyers]

There is no excuse - pays to have maps and know where the trails are - part of preseason scouting as well.

Part of hunter safety instruction has always been not giving off signals that look like fair game.

FREX I always carry properly colored bandanas in the field; I'm not going to wave a white handkerchief or white Kleenex or paper towel during whitetail season - and it gets tricky not looking like some part of a turkey head.

Motion and color can often combine to trigger an early blur wrong identification that is strongly held and leads to deadly mistakes.

[carnaby]

This is likely entirely the fault of the hunter. If you have not positively identified your game beyond all doubt, you have no business pulling the trigger. Shooting at unidentified game is unconscionable.

simple solution, hunters dont go hunting during "hiking season", and "hikers" dont go "hiking" on public land declared open for hunting during hunting season.....

Not a good solution in this case. Bear season in Washington in this GMU is August 1 to Nov 15.

[Double Naught Spy]

Threads come up here all the time on bear, mountain lion, and wolf defense when in reality there is much greater risk from hunters than there is from bears, mountain lions, and wolves, combined.

In the field, just how do you defend against stupid, ignorant, or irresponsible hunters?

simple solution, hunters dont go hunting during "hiking season", and "hikers" dont go "hiking" on public land declared open for hunting during hunting season.....

Simple? That might protect hikers, but would not protect hunters from one another. More often than not, when hunters shoot other people, they shoot other hunters or folks associated with hunting parties.

Besides, why should hikers have to restrict their movements on public land?

[BIGR]

It all boils down to positively identifying your target 100 perecnt of the time, no excuses. People should not have to fear going into the woods at anytime. Thats one dang reason I stopped hunting federal game lands because there were too many idiots that would shoot at moving bushes.

[TAB]

Storys like this is why When I go anywhere in the back country during or close to a hunting season. I alway, Always wear something that is blaze ornage. Normally is a hat.

Way to many idiots out there.

[Shawnee]

"Besides, why should hikers have to restrict their movements on public land?"


Since everyone - campers, trail bike and mountain bike riders, horsemen, hunters, photographers, boaters and swimmers, etc. all have to live with restrictions on public lands and properties - I see no reason whatsoever to believe hikers should be exempted from restrictions.

:cool:

[TCB in TN]

Blaze orange for ANYONE in the woods during open hunting season is a real good idea! BTW it may not be your fault you got shot, but you have to live (or die as in this case) with the results!

[DoctorJC]

But when I go hiking, I find that TRAIL BIKES (i.e. Honda) are the most dangerous wild thing out there. :what:

[ClarkEMyers]

Blaze orange gloves work well - the combination of movement and color catches the eye.

[.38 Special]

simple solution, hunters dont go hunting during "hiking season", and "hikers" dont go "hiking" on public land declared open for hunting during hunting season.....

Sure, mate. It was the hiker's fault. She obviously looked too much like a bear.

But I'm sure the hikers would be fine with your solution, being as it is always "hiking season".

[Shawnee]

It would be very interesting to see a tally of the injuries on public lands broken down by activity type (or combination thereof), eg. Hiking related, Biking related, Boating related, Camping related, Hunting related, Horseback riding related, etc., etc.

Methinks hunting would have the lowest number in most places.

Would also be interesting to see the alcohol/drug abuse arrests on public land broken out the same way. I think hunters and horsemen would be the two cleanest groups there too.


:cool:

[paintballdude902]

im in favor of a law that says ball hunter/hikers/ people in common areas hunted must have blaze orange on atleast a hat

[.38 Special]

I have no doubt that hunting is responsible for a very few number of injuries, relatively speaking.

However, I am also sure that hunting is responsible for a relatively high number of injuries caused to one person by another, which sets it apart from most other outdoor activities.

IOW, one generally does not have to worry about being killed by hikers.

[Ridgerunner665]

She obviously looked too much like a bear.

If you only knew what some of those women hikers looked like after being on the trail for a week with no bath...not trying to make a joke there, but me and Dad used to do a lot of backpacking (we've hiked the AT from Carlisle, PA all the way south) and some of the people look rather "rough".

[wyocarp]

It would be nice to know a little more about this story. It would be nice to know how far away the boy was. Had he seen a bear in the area? Hikers go hiking without giving any thought to where they are hiking which is crazy. Although, I think that the game and fish ought to post signs to warn people of hunting areas, hikers and bikers ought to exercise a little bit of wisdom. Of course, the boy is ultimately at fault no matter how stupid the hiker was. Us hunters need to constantly be aware that we have to know what we are shooting.

It is easy to see what you want to see. I was out looking for bears with a friend just a few weeks ago when he found three grizzlys on a hillside while glassing. The rest of us saw three elk when we glassed them. So, we do often see what we want to see. I'm sure the boy saw a bear.

[.38 Special]

I think people ought to be able to walk in the woods without having to worry about getting shot. I think it's a shame that there are people who disagree -- and I guess I hope I'm never hiking in the same woods as those people.

[Shawnee]

"I am also sure that hunting is responsible for a relatively high number of injuries caused to one person by another, which sets it apart from most other outdoor activities."

I would disagree with that - bigtime. I've never seen anyone hurt by hunters on Public Land but have seen several people hurt by the actions of irresponsible mountain bike and trail bike riders - most often the non-motorized bikers - as their bikes make little noise so people have little time to dive for cover. And, at least in my experience, the mountain bikers are by far the nastiest people on Public Lands today aside from outright criminals.

:cool:

[Zip7]

There's no excuse for it. Hunting requires a LOT of patience, and no matter what, there is no excuse for firing at something unless you can identify it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

I've seen plenty of hunters I don't want to be in the woods with. And ultimately, if a troop of girl scouts comes prancing through the woods wearing deer costumes, it's still the hunter's responsibility NOT to shoot them. We get enough bad press as it is.

[GRB]

I think people ought to be able to walk in the woods without having to worry about getting shot. I think it's a shame that there are people who disagree -- and I guess I hope I'm never hiking in the same woods as those people. I almost agree with that sentiment, but I differ in that I doi worry when I go hiking. I worry about falling down and getting hurt so I take a first aid kit, I worry about having enough water to drink so I take a canteen and a camelback pack, I worry about getting lost so I have a compass and a knife and spare food and matches and a magnesium firestarter, I worry about getting shot so I wear colors easily seen (but no red, white or blue during turkey season). I do not wear brown or gray in deer season, and would not wear black or brown in bear season. I carry a whistle to blow if I see a hunter, or I announce myself in a loud voice so I do not get shot. I take precautions as should all hikers.

I also take precautions when I hunt. I usually shoot game only within 50 yards of me (actually more like 35 yards, but I try to make 50 my maximum range). That way I am sure to be able to see that at which I shoot. I do not shoot animals behind bushes. I do not shoot at moving bushes. I try not to shoot at running game. I look around 45 degrees left and right of my intended target to make sure the area is clear of others before I shoot.

We do need to worry a bit, enough to make sure we take precautions. Of course if the woods are public and open to general use, then a hiker has as much liberty to be there as does a hunter.

It all boils down to positively identifying your target 100 perecnt of the time, no excuses.

It is a shame this happened. My initial guess is that it is the fault of the hunter, but time will tell. I have seen antis going into the woods dressed as deer to harass hunters. More information is needed before anyone condemns anyone on this issue, or any other issue based upon absolutes. Yes target identification is extremely important, but if the hiker was mimicking a bear to promote some anti -hunting sentiment, well then she looked like a bear. I am not saying, or even suggesting, it happened like that. I am saying that the possibility exists, and we need to get more info. Heck we don't even know if the shot went through a bear and hit her, or if it was a ricochet. All possibilities even if not likely.

All the best,
Glenn B

[buck460XVR]

The 54-year-old woman, of Oso, Snohomish County, was hiking with a friend and stopped on the trail to put something in her backpack. The boy, who lives near Concrete, mistook the woman for a bear and fired one shot, according to the Skagit County Sheriff's Office.

To mistake two people walking on a trail in the open enough to make a clean kill with one shot is definitely the case of a trigger happy kid without proper adult supervision. Altho the story says he's was accompanied by at least one adult, where was that adult at the time of the shooting? There, beside the child shooter or off on his own, not wanting his hunting hampered by the clumsiness of a kid tagging along. Both need to be held responsible for their improper actions.

As far as limiting access to public land during hunting seasons, we have to pull our heads outta our butts and remember that we as hunters are in the minority of the overall population. Altho most large tracts of public land are used the most by hunters, they majority of folk around these same areas are non-hunters. To restrict their use of these public area to benefit hunters for extended lengths of time is just gonna turn them against us...and we don't need anymore antis. Yes, they should be aware there are hunters in the woods during hunting season and it would be wise for them to wear blaze orange, but to tell them they have to stay outta the area for several months of the year when the weather and the scenery is most advantages to hiking is not the answer.

[pbearperry]

Ihave hunted for about 40 years and I truly believe any hunter who kills a human thinking he or she is an animal should be at least arrested for manslaughter.I also believe if the same hunter was ever caught hunting again,he or she should be arrested again and put away for a long time.That is unless the victim was wearing an animal suit of some kind.

[koja48]

Tragic, & my prayers to BOTH families. "Know your target, and know what is beyond your target" . . . one of four rules by which to live . . . EVERY TIME. Unfortunately, the rubber "thing" on the butt-end of a firearm isn't an eraser . . .

[Titan6]

Be sure of your target and what is beyond....

[elrod]

Article doesn't reveal age of boy (at least I didn't see it). Could have been 9 or 19. Whatever, it was not a responsible shot. I realize that is a monumental understatement, but those who would take a "brush shot" or a "sound shot" are all too common on public lands, in my experience. The hiker should also have worn hunter orange, but may not have prevented this. Bottom line, stoopid+ stoopid= injury or death.:(

[FourTeeFive]

According to family and friends interviews the woman was an avid hiker. Last picture I saw of her she was wearing a lot of black. Very unfortunate that hiking in this area you have to worry about being mistaken for anything by a hunter. But the great hiking and hunting areas do intersect. Frankly, and again unfortunately, I try not to hike in local areas that allow hunting due to this sort of thing. I've been in local cafes during hunting season and heard hunters talk about shooting at something they "heard."

[JERRY]

blame the hunter all you want....but if you choose to go hiking in an area with active hunting youre a fool.

it doesnt matter who is at fault if youre dead.....

i dont need blaze orange gloves and a whoopie cushion for hiking....i will not risk my life by trudging through the brush on public land during hunting season. thats the best way to NOT get shot.

there is so much public land that is off limits to hunters, why would i go hiking where they hunt instead? to proove a point, that will look good in the obituatry.

[TAB]

but if you choose to go hiking in an area with active hunting youre a fool.


and you know there is active hunting how?

Think about it, if you have never hunted a day in your life, never known any one that has. how would you know that there is active hunting going on?

As far as the comment, don't go walking thru public land during hunting season. That is a load of pure CRAP. In many areas hunting seasons last for months and in many case its also prime hiking season as well. So some one that does not hunt, but enjoys hiking should stay out during the best time of the year to hike, becuase some hunter some where might shoot them. If that really is a danger, its not the hikers that should be punished for that, its the hunters that should be for shooting at things they should not.

[JERRY]

there is so much public land that is off limits to hunters, why would i go hiking where they hunt instead? to proove a point, that will look good in the obituatry.

you missed this part for some reason....

you dont have to hunt to excersize good sense prior to trotting off in the woods.

[Shawnee]

"That is a load of pure CRAP."


The real L.O.C. is when selfish hikers pretend the only/best place and time they have to go hiking is in a hunting area and during hunting season. The amount of area people can hike is 500 times the area where people can hunt.

Yes, hunters should indeed be careful, and skilled. But so should others using the same areas at the same times for different purposes.

Whether you're a hiker, biker, hunter or candlestick maker you need to accept responsibility for your actions and safety. Putting it all on others is the Height of Irresponsibility and Selfishness.

:cool:

[TAB]

maybe its so hikers don't have to worry about being shot.


BTW I am a life long hunter...

[Cosmoline]

DO NOT HUNT ON OR NEAR PUBLIC ROADS OR TRAILS.
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Seems simple enough, but apparently not for everyone.

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

It all boils down to positively identifying your target 100 perecnt of the time, no excuses.

Absolutely. This is 1,000% the fault of the hunter/shooter, and *possibly* the hunter safety ed course curriculum that he no doubt took. Tragic. :mad:

Having said that, due to these idgits, it would not be an entirely bad idea to require *non-hunters* (hikers, etc.) to wear blaze orange on public lands during gun hunting seasons, just as hunters are required.

As far as the comment, don't go walking thru public land during hunting season. That is a load of pure CRAP. In many areas hunting seasons last for months and in many case its also prime hiking season as well. So some one that does not hunt, but enjoys hiking should stay out during the best time of the year to hike, becuase some hunter some where might shoot them. If that really is a danger, its not the hikers that should be punished for that, its the hunters that should be for shooting at things they should not.

Absolutely. First time I ever agreed with TAB. :)

[Double Naught Spy]

The real L.O.C. is when selfish hikers pretend the only/best place and time they have to go hiking is in a hunting area and during hunting season.

There is no indication that the victim did this.

The amount of area people can hike is 500 times the area where people can hunt.

And yet hunters manage to shoot bystanders and other hunters dozens of times a year. You would think they would know better.

Of course, maybe everybody should stop what they are doing during hunting season so that they are not the victims of hunters? The guy in the following article was apparently shot while just driving his car!
http://www.kxnet.com/getArticle.asp?l_s=dailyemail&ArticleId=179502

Then, this trucker was hit by kids hunting squirrel...
http://www.startribune.com/local/11591071.html

This guy was shot by a felon with a gun who was hunting illegally...
http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/taah-sh-20051207.html

Whether you're a hiker, biker, hunter or candlestick maker you need to accept responsibility for your actions and safety. Putting it all on others is the Height of Irresponsibility.

And that is why the hunter is 100% at fault.

[TAB]

Last time I checked hikers generally don't wear cammo... so why should they have to wear blaze ornage?

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Well, it's just not a bad idea, during hunting season. If not required, then *strongly* recommended by signs place at all hiking trail heads ("During these dates, it is strongly recommended that you wear 500 ci of blaze orange when hiking here", or similar). Idgit hunters who don't ID their targets will still nevertheless have blaze orange jump out at them and scream "no" when they are about to violate rule 4.

If hikers wore camo, they'd be better off than wearing black during bear season, or tan during deer season. There is NO animal I'm aware of that is camo. So camo would be better than no camo. But since hikers don't usually wear camo, having them wear orange is extra anti-idgit insurance. I'd be very curious to know whether the decedent was wearing an all-black top.

The best medicine to prevent this stuff, however, is the mandatory hunter ed course, the curriculum emphasis involved in that, and the test which the hunter must pass at the end of the day.

[TCB in TN]

As far as the comment, don't go walking thru public land during hunting season. That is a load of pure CRAP. In many areas hunting seasons last for months and in many case its also prime hiking season as well. So some one that does not hunt, but enjoys hiking should stay out during the best time of the year to hike, becuase some hunter some where might shoot them. If that really is a danger, its not the hikers that should be punished for that, its the hunters that should be for shooting at things they should not.

Last time I checked hikers generally don't wear cammo... so why should they have to wear blaze ornage?

1st rule of the road is that the pedestrian always has the right of way. That said only an idiot walks out into traffic w/o looking both ways! Here locally there are many areas basically off limits to public hunting that are always available to bikers, hikers, etc. So unless you are out to prove a point, then why not EITHER hike somewhere else, OR wear orange!

BTW the cammo comment is just about the most foolish comment on the thread!

It may be the hunters fault you got shot, but you end up as the one who got shot!

BTW runners and bikers typically wear reflective materials on the road to help get the drivers attention. They have to be foolish not to. Hikers in a hunting area are just as foolish to NOT wear orange or the like to help hunters notice them!

Again fault is one thing, shot is still shot no matter who's fault it is!

[FourTeeFive]

there is so much public land that is off limits to hunters, why would i go hiking where they hunt instead?

I think a lot of people commenting here have never been hiking or hunting in Washington state. I would say on any given day the hikers outnumber the hunters.

Here is a Sauk Mountain trail. Not necessarily the one she died on.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/27954577_f6809791c0.jpg

[FourTeeFive]

http://www.goskagit.com/home/article/young_bear_hunter_kills_hiker_by_mistake/


Young bear hunter kills hiker by mistake

August 03, 2008 - 10:20 AM

ROCKPORT – One shot and lives were changed for ever.

A teenaged hunter on Sauk Mountain Saturday took aim at the figure about 120 yards away and pulled the trigger.

What the Concrete youth thought was a bear turned out to be a 54-year-old woman from Oso hiking with a friend, Skagit County Sheriff’s deputies said. The shot was fatal.

The woman was hiking on the mountain near Rockport with a friend, just five or 10 minutes from the trail head, when she was struck by a bullet, said Sgt. Bill Heinchk, of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.

According to a Sheriff’s Office news release, the woman had stopped on the trail to put something in her backpack when the hunter took one deadly shot.

The hunter and the victim were about 120 yards away from each other in an alpine area with trees, meadows and brush on very steep terrain, Heinchk said. The juvenile had been hunting with at least one adult at the time of the incident.

Bear hunting season, the earliest hunting season of the year, opened Saturday. The season continues through the end of the year.

Heinchk said that the hunters in the party that included the Concrete youth in the Sauk Mountain shooting all had valid licenses.

State law requires anyone born after Jan. 1, 1972 to pass a Department of Fish and Wildlife hunter’s safety course to obtain hunting licenses, said Fish and Wildlife Capt. Bill Hebner.

There are typically about 20 hunting accidents every year in the area, Heinchk said, and one or two of those are fatal. This accident was unique.

In many hunting accidents, victims are shot by other hunters in their own party, especially during bird season, when they’re quickly whipping their guns around to shoot, Heinchk said.

“A lot of hunting accidents are the Vice President (Dick) Cheney type,” he said.

Other times, hunters’ guns go off when they’re not prepared.

Hunting accidents are rare during bear season, because the number of hunters is much lower than for deer or elk season. Bears are hunted for the sport, as well as meat, which Heinchk said, is comparable to pork.

“We haven’t had any (fatalities) here during bear season, that I can remember,” he said.

Neither the shooter or the victim’s name were released. No one was arrested.

The victim was a resident of Oso, a small community in Snohomish County just south of the line with Skagit County and halfway between Arlington and Darrington.

Due to the steep terrain of where the body fell, emergency search and rescue ground crew volunteers were called to assist in recovery. Those volunteers are trained to work in difficult terrain.

Detectives from the Skagit County Sheriff’s Office as well as an officer from the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife are investigating.

Heinchk encouraged all hunters and all recreational hunters to wear bright orange during any hunting season. Although, he acknowledged, that many people are not aware that bear hunting season is open.

John Koenig, a long-time hunting and fishing guide based in Rockport, said Saturday that hunters should avoid areas where trails are well-maintained since good trails attract the most hikers.

He said that when he guides hunting trips in the area of Sauk Mountain he takes his clients to the more rugged north side of the mountain, where hikers rarely venture.

The exact location of the hiker when she was shot wasn't clear Saturday.

But Koenig said that no hunter should fire on a target unless it has been clearly and positively identified.

"You can't just see a black spot and shoot," he said.

His advice to hikers during hunting season is to stay on the most maintained trails and wear orange vests or jackets.

"You want to stick out like a sore thumb," he said.

Fish and Wildlife’s Heinchk said he always tells his hunter’s safety class: “Once that gun goes off, there is no taking it back, everyone’s lives are changed forever.”

• Tahlia Ganser can be reached at 360-416-2148 or at tganser@skagitvalleyherald.com

[Shawnee]

"Last time I checked hikers generally don't wear cammo... so why should they have to wear blaze ornage? "

Same reason hunters are required to wear blaze orange - for their personal safety.


:rolleyes:

[TAB]

So becuase some idiot is shooting at things they should not be in the 1st place, every one should be punished...

[koja48]

When you pull the trigger, you are responsible for the aftermath, period. Before you do so, you are responsible for KNOWING at what you are shooting and KNOWING what is behind that intended target . . . no exceptions or excuses for doing otherwise. Negligence is just that . . . negligence . . . and in this case it had a most tragic outcome. One can't be responsible for the actions & choices of others; one must be in complete & rational control of their own actions & choices, however.

[Cosmoline]

I agree with TAB, also a rarity. Unless this hiker was dressed as a bear and growling, the hunter is 100% at fault (or in this case perhaps the minor hunter and his adult supervisor). Which leaves no fault to attribute to the hiker. Hikers are not required to wear bright orange nor should they be. It is the hunter's sole and ABSOLUTE responsibility to be sure of his target. There are no excuses, no alternatives. If there are too many recreational users in an area to hunt safely DO NOT HUNT THERE. And above all else do not shoot at moving bushes.

[TAB]

Where did I say that? if you look at my post on page one you will see that in and around hunting season I do wear blaze ornage when I'm in the back country.

So what your saying is, becuase hunters are not responsible enough to know what they are shooting, we need to pass a law stating every one has to wear bright colors.

If that is the case, a better solution is to stop people from hunting. Infact I would rather out law hunting, then require every one to wear blaze ornage in the back country. Its clear to me that hunters are the prob, not hikers.

[Shawnee]

"If there are too many recreational users in an area to hunt safely DO NOT HUNT THERE"

That's real easy to say... IF you live in Texas where virtually all hunting is by contract on fenced private land, or in Alaska or the "raggedy edge of the universe" where people are scarce and huntable land is available in millions of acres.

Move to someplace like Illinois where huntable public land wouldn't make a good-sized mall parking lot and people are more numerous than mosquitos.
Then you'll understand why Safety has to be EVERYONE'S Business. NO EXCEPTIONS.

[koja48]

If I may correct . . . that SOME hunters are the prob

[shadowalker]

Saying people shouldn't use the woods during hunting season is like saying pedestrians shouldn't use the sidewalk during rush hour, it is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense. People have a reasonable expectation to not be shot.

Absolutely fault of the hunter. The bottom line is he failed to properly identify what he was shooting at. He irresponsibly used deadly force and killed someone.

While it is smart to try not stand out I don't think it should be a requirement and does not take any blame off the shooter at all.

If you can't 100% identify game you let it go, unfortunate this person made a horrible decision.

[btg3]

Anyone willing to take a stand that the gun killed the hiker?
Doubt it.

How about suicide-by-hunter?
Nope, hiker didn't have on a bear costume.

That leaves the shooter.

This is a tragedy. Both for the victim and her family, and for the young hunter who'll live with his mistake.

[JERRY]

i believe everyone here knows its the hunters fault for shooting at a target not fully identified by the hunter....thats a given....and yes, it is always the hunters fault when somebody is shot unintentionally....

but, why take the risk if youre a hiker of hiking in a hunting zone when there is so much area that can not be hunted?

its sad all the way around when this happens, but if you hike and rely on the hunter to look out for you, you will be on the next thread on THR....

like the pedestrain comment, having the right of way over vehicles doesnt help you if you get run over because you didnt look first.....

everyone knows that National Parks (not Forests) are off limits to hunting, and many state parks are the same way.....if you hike you make sure you have a map of the trail, know where ranger stations are, camp grounds to set up, where the trail lets out, the dangerous terrain, creeks, rivers....bear or big cat sightings.... there is so much free information available to hikers at the start of the trail, how hard is it to ask: "is there hunting going on now"?

just sad that so many people dont excersize thier brain when hunting or hiking....because no hunter in thier right mind is going to set up where hikers are going to ruin a shot because thier out smelling the flowers or letting Fido run the trail ahead of them.....

[Double Naught Spy]

like the pedestrain comment, having the right of way over vehicles doesnt help you if you get run over because you didnt look first.....

Vehicles aren't supposed to be trying to kill you on the sidewalk. Right of way has nothing to do with the intent to kill and that is EXACTLY what the hunter was trying to do, KILL.

They are calling this an "accident" because the hunter supposedly didn't intend to kill the hiker, but the shot was 100% intentional and the intent was to kill.

This incident is NOTHING like a pedestrian crossing the road and getting hit by a driver who didn't intend to hit anything at all.

but, why take the risk if youre a hiker of hiking in a hunting zone when there is so much area that can not be hunted?

Why take the shot if you are a hunter and know you are in a hiking zone?

This was not a hunter who was protecting life or in a critical situation. He didn't have to shoot, did he? This was a kid after a trophy in a hiking area.

However, I do appreciate your argument. Hikers should avoid hunting areas because hunters are incompetent and cannot be trusted not to unintentionally kill hikers. Gee, I guess it is dangerous for hikers because hunters don't know what the hell they are shooting at. Brilliant. Are you sure you are for hunting because it sounds like you are arguing very poorly for hunters.

That puts a great spin on hunting, doesn't it? I would add to that the aspect that hunters can't be trusted around one another or themselves since they are much more likely to shoot each other and themselves than hikers...if you want to stick to the incompetence argument.

Like NDs and negligental shootings in non-hunting situations, hunters should not be having these "accidents." There is nothing wrong with hunting, but there is plenty wrong with incompetence.

[JERRY]

im not arguing either side...i just pointed out the lack of good thinking on both sides....

for some people here they simply can not look at both sides and see what each could have done to prevent this situation....all they can do is trivialize it by pointing the finger at one side or the other....

negligence on the hunter's side, and carelessness (non concern?) on the hiker's side is what i see....

although the final say is with the hunter who pulls the trigger.

[Art Eatman]

Y'all back off and take some deep breaths. Cool down. Chill. All that stuff.

"The odds are low, but the stakes are high." Anybody ever heard that, when folks are talking about self-defense?

Okay. The odds against getting shot by some stupid hunter are low. Hunting accidents of whatever sort are around a thousand a year, whether an Oops! discharge of a firearm or the picking of a wrong target--as in this case. There are very few cases of this sort in any given year, nationwide. But the odds won't help you if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time.

In this case, it's probable that the lady didn't have a clue about bear season and hunting. We're all in accord that the kid messed up, big time.

However: IF you plan on hiking in hunting country during hunting season, how is it not some bit of common sense to ensure you're visibly not a game animal? Just on general principles, I'd wear maybe a bright blue jacket or sweater or shirt. Ever notice how Levis are quite visible in the outdoors?

When the stakes are high, common sense doesn't seem to me to be punishment or infringement on any of my rights--except maybe my right to be all eat up with the terminal stupids. I'd much rather help some other guy to NOT be stupid.

[TCB in TN]

Well spoken Art. I did in no way mean to excuse anyone for taking shots that place someone in danger, but even under the best of circumstances an "honest"mistake could result in bad things happening. You look up and see a big deer walking along the creek, take the shot and after hitting the deer the bullet exits and goes on down range. Now where I hunt there are LOTS of brush, laurel thickets, and it would be easy to overlook a person walking on the other side of the creek. Wearing blaze orange would show them to me and I would be able to know whether or not I should take the shot. I can't take their presence into account if I can't see them.

[Katie of the Woods]

No offense hunters - and I come from a family of hunters, although I prefer a camera and not a gun - but these are public lands. I wander these mountains and savor the same spirit of freedom that draws many hunters out into the woods. I accept full responsibility for myself and my actions when I venture out on our public lands and do my best to prepare for weather, injury, route-finding and so forth. While I am aware of the fall hunting season in general and wear bright clothing when out for this reason, I have been told more than once by hunters (often having parked right next to me at the trail head or pullout) that I was held in their sight having been mistaken for a bear or other game. These lands are PUBLIC and mothers and daughters and brothers and sons are out there enjoying the freedom of the hills with every right to do so...and in VERY, VERY HIGH numbers, especially on a weekend, in such places as Sauk (for those not from the area this is a very popular trail to the point that if I wanted solitude I would avoid altogether). No such person should have to worry about losing their life to another mountain recreationalist. It is ridiculous for any hunter to expect special rights to these public lands at any time just because they may make a mistake and take another's life. It is the hunter's responsibility when wielding a weapon to hunt with the utmost vigilance for their surroundings and a profound respect for life. Isn't that the whole point? Taking your teenage boy out on a summer Saturday to a very popular hiking area to hunt bear seems plain wrong. There are so many lapses of judgment in those basic facts I would not know where to begin.
Please, please know that regardless of what your expectations are for your surroundings (you may think you are going into the wild where only game and other hunters will be), there are humans out there relishing our beautiful wild and freedom just as you. They may or may not know that this year, black bear can be hunted for nearly 3 months starting this past weekend. They may not know hunting is allowed on that familiar trail they walk or that this weekend is the weekend a hunter(of any age, with any level of experience) may mistakenly fire their weapon at them. Error on the side of caution, just as you would with other hunters. Just as you would driving. We are not in a war zone.
My uncle and I share a bond over our deep respect and awe for the wild. He often talks about the sacredness of the act of hunting and the ethical responsibility of the hunter in taking life. How a hunter takes pause, KNOWS the hunted, and holds fire if that particular animal is not right one to take (much less wrong species). I know my uncle would not accidentally shoot me while out hunting. If hunters want to maintain their freedom and respect, they best follow suit. No human should fear for their life because there is a hunter in the woods.

[FourTeeFive]

but, why take the risk if youre a hiker of hiking in a hunting zone when there is so much area that can not be hunted?


Actually, this was hunting in a hiking zone. Come out to Western Washington, go on a few hikes in the mountains, and then make these comments. Hunting is big out here, but when you're up on the trails in the mountains you're not exactly feeling like you're in a hunting zone as you pass the families with kids out on day hikes. Walking around in the forest off trails during deer season is another story...

[Master of Arms]

I was lucky as a child. My dad gave me a .22 single shot when I was 7 years old. I was allowed, after a few months of the do`s and don`ts, to stroll off into the woods without anyone. They knew that I wouldn`t go far or stay long. One reason that they knew this was because we had spotted a panther in our woods. After a few years I was given a 16 guage bolt action shotgun and I was in the woods most of the time. My dad took time in teaching me about using safety with my firearms and I listened.

I`ve saw kids hunting lately that scared the crap out of me. See I listened to what my dad taught me and I obeyed his words. I still hear him sometimes when I`m hunting.

The problem today is that kids aren`t properly taught by their parents about the safety issues with firearms. Parents just send their kids to get the safety course card and let them go. You can`t learn much about the safety of a firearm in one day.

It takes consistant teaching and many trips with someone who will instruct them every single time that they start to make a mistake. This problem starts at home. There are far too many 12 year olds with 30-06`s in the woods today.

They may or may not know that this year, black bear can be hunted for nearly 3 months starting this past weekend. They may not know hunting is allowed on that familiar trail they walk
While you`re correct in your statements about hunters being sure of what they are firing at, you should also understand that these hikers should know when hunting season starts and ends and they could wear the proper clothing and stay on the beaten path during these seasons. It si public land but people should use common sense while visiting these areas.

[41magsnub]

In the hiker's defense, as much as that is needed, the kid screwed up. He did not positively identify his target. It is not the hiker's fault at all. Could she have worn orange? Sure, and maybe she should have. But it is 100% the hunters responsibility to identify his target. He did not do so and because of that a woman is dead.

Hikers/MTN Bikers/Horseback riders/etc have the exact same rights to use public land as hunters. As long as the non-hunter is not actively trying to spook off the game as some activists do then they can do whatever they want.

[JERRY]

i dont think anyone here is defending the kid's lack of judgement. he was plain wrong for taking the shot. this was not a down range incident, he took the shot on a person, not realizing it was a person is his fault.

[Master of Arms]

Absolutely the kids fault! Just think that in the future, regardless of fault, people on both sides of this matter should use every available safety precaution.

[TCB in TN]

One should ALWAYS wear bright colors (preferably blaze orange) when out in the woods during hunting season, for the same reason as we ALWAYS assume every gun is loaded. That is that relying on someone else to "do the right thing" can get you killed! EVERY person who enters the woods to hunt is responsible for EVERY bullet that exits their barrel. But EVERY person in the woods can help contribute to their own safety by MAKING SURE that they can be easily seen and identified! And as I have said before it may not be your FAULT you got shot, but wearing bright colors can help make sure you don't get shot to begin with. I it is foolish to NOT take that precaution. Hiker, biker, hunter, bird watcher etc!

[FourTeeFive]

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/northwest/story/485478.html

Aug, 4, 2008
Woman killed near Rockport was mistaken for bear

MOUNT VERNON, Wash. -- A hiker was bent over, putting something in her backpack, when she was mistaken for a bear and shot by a young hunter near Rockport.

The 54-year-old woman from Oso who was killed Saturday on Sauk Mountain was identified by a relative as Pamela Almli. Sister-in-law Teresa Smith told KIRO-TV that the family finds some comfort that Almli died doing what she loved.

Smith also says the family has compassion for the young man who made a grave mistake.

The Skagit County sheriff's office is investigating how the 14-year-old boy from Concrete fired the fatal shot. He was hunting with an adult.

Deputy Will Reichardt (RY'-kard) says bear hunting is legal in the area, which also is popular with hikers.

Information from: KIRO-TV, htthttp://www.kirotv.com/index.html

[FourTeeFive]

http://www.kirotv.com/forums/index.html?q=http%3A//forums.ibsys.com/viewmessages.cfm%3Fsitekey%3Dsea%26Forum%3D669%26Topic%3D18385

Imahiker 08-03-2008, 8:22 PM Add to the Discussion
On Saturday morning about 11 am by partner and I turned into the trail head parking lot for Sauk Mountain. It was extremely foggy, but we were there for the wildflowers, so we jumped out to put on our boots. There were two other cars in the parking lot - a pick up truck and a Subaru. An older fellow climbed out of the truck and approached us. He said there had been a terrible accident, and someone had been shot on the trail. He advised that we probably shouldn't go on the trail. We were still in shock when the Sheriff and police vehicles started arriving just about a minute later. We didn't think it appropriate to pry for answers, but from listening to the man talk to the Sheriff we figured out that a young man had shot a hiker on the trail. Subsequent newspaper reports said the boy had shot a 54 year old woman who had bent over her pack on the trail. He thought she was a bear.

I know that boy's life has been completely turned upside down, and that he didn't mean to kill a human. But here my thoughts: 1. The boy was with an adult, who must have made the decision to go hunting on a very popular hiking trail. 2. The weather was extremely foggy. When we got to the trailhead we couldn't see more than 30 feet. The shooting occurred around 10:30 am, and it seems unlikely that it was clear at that time. 3. The woman was killed while standing on the trail. Near the trail head. It certainly crossed our minds that if we had gotten to the trail head first it could have been one of us to die. 4. There are regulations about where a hunter can hunt, and which directions they can shoot when near a trail.

It seems to me that the adult made bad and possibily illegal decisions and should be charged. Hunters can not be let off when someone is killed!


http://www.localhikes.com/images/MSA_0000/Sauk_Mountain/Sauk_Mountain2.Jpg

[jetrecbn]

My uncle (God rest his soul) stopped hunting at an early age because his buddy (wearing hunter orange) was shot in the head while they were hunting near Auburn, AL. Never caught the perpetrators, but he swore off hunting because of that incident.

[Double Naught Spy]

Yep, wearing hunter orange may or may not help. For example in 2000, in nearly 500 2 party incidents (See section 7 http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3dab37bc10ee.gripelements.com/documents/ihea2000.pdf ), 226 of the victims were wearing hunter orange. Of the 46 killed, 14 were wearing orange.

[FourTeeFive]

http://www.komonews.com/news/26254529.html

Police: Boy who killed woman while hunting was not with adult

Story Updated: Aug 4, 2008 at 2:24 PM PDT
By KOMO Staff

OSO, Wash. -- The 14-year-old boy who killed a woman while hunting Saturday in the Sauk Mountain area was not with an adult, sheriff's officials said Monday.

Skagit County Sheriff Chief Deputy Will Reichardt said the boy was with his 16-year-old brother on a ledge looking down onto a hiking trail when Pamela Almli stopped on the trail to put something into her backpack. The 14-year-old boy mistook her for a bear and fired one shot, which killed her, Reichardt said.

Reichardt said visibility was low that morning due to some fog in the area.

Reichardt said their investigation determined that the boys' grandfather dropped them off in the area of Sauk Mountain near Rockport Saturday morning. The grandfather may have then been waiting for them at the foot of the mountain, but was not with them at the time of the shooting, Reichardt said.

Family members on Sunday said Almli was an avid nature lover who frequently hiked throughout the region.

"She just had a heart of gold, she loved people, she loved animals, and she just wanted to help people," said Almli's sister, Gail Blacker.

Almli was hiking with a friend Saturday morning when the shooting occurred.

Meanwhile, Blacker said Almli loved to hike and knew almost every mountain and peak in the area.

"She lived to be out there," Blacker said. "You couldn't keep her in. She'd go in the snow, rain -- it didn't matter."

Almli was passionate about hiking, skiing, kayaking and anything else that took her outdoors, her family said.

Despite the loss of a loved one, Almli's family harbored no malice toward the young hunter who fired the fatal shot.

"We just know that that young boy is a human being, and human beings make mistakes," Blacker said. "He made a mistake.

"(Pamela) was doing what she loved most in the world that's where she would have wanted to be," said Blacker.

Prosecutors are meeting with sheriff's office investigators to decide whether charges are warranted.

[btg3]

Obviously, orange apparel is not the solution.

Another striking stat to point out is that hunter judgement was cited in 421 of 630 two-party incidents. Hate to say it, but this just begs for more regulation regarding hunting safety.

I was in a company sponsored sportmans club with primarily hunters who mostly refused to hunt on public land because of the few nut jobs who'll take every shot. Opening day is by far the worst of it.

[Art Eatman]

btg3, how do you regulate "common sense"? These "accidental" tragedies do not occur within sight of regulatory people.

All any system can do is provide basic advice and tell people the rules of the game.

After that, the hunter is on his own. His ethics and morals, his skills, his judgement and common sense--and his memory of the advice and rules.

[Double Naught Spy]

Reichardt said visibility was low that morning due to some fog in the area.

At 120 yards shooting distance, hunter orange would have been meaningless in the reported fog. The boy would not have been able to see the orange at that distance and as such would have taken the shot anyway.

Let's see...
young
inexperienced
unsupervised
excited and eager (early in the season)
poor visibility
...and hunting bear? Wow, that seems pretty stupid. Why would grandfather drop off two youths to hunt bear in those conditions?

[.38 Special]

However: IF you plan on hiking in hunting country during hunting season, how is it not some bit of common sense to ensure you're visibly not a game animal?

Seems to me that our creator already took care of that little matter:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a101/Noel3006/backpacker.jpg

But I guess being a small, hairless biped with attached luggage isn't adequate protection. :rolleyes:

At any rate, I won't argue with those who say blaze orange is a good idea. But as a hiker and responsible hunter, I don't think even the slightest hint that the hiker bears some responsibility for her own death should be allowed to stand.

[Caipirinha]

Yep, wearing hunter orange may or may not help. For example in 2000, in nearly 500 2 party incidents (See section 7 http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3...s/ihea2000.pdf ), 226 of the victims were wearing hunter orange. Of the 46 killed, 14 were wearing orange.


My own sneaking suspicion on why that is is that many of those accidents may be caused by breaking rule 2(and then 3) instead of 4. Everybody's going to claim it was mistaken identity but I think a lot of these so called accidents are from people using their scope as binoculars.

[TCB in TN]

Obviously, orange apparel is not the solution.

Of course it is not the solution, but can ANYONE give one shred of evidence that it doesn't HELP! Does anyone on here want to suggest that wearing blaze orange INCREASES the number of accidental shootings?

Common sense says that one should make oneself as easy to identify in the hunting woods as possible! It will undoubtedly reduce your chances of getting shot and it is something that YOU can control. Jeesh some people just can't see the forrest for the trees.

[btg3]

how do you regulate "common sense"? These "accidental" tragedies do not occur within sight of regulatory people.
If I were pro-regulation, the following might be a foothold to work from...
Let's see...
young
inexperienced
unsupervised
excited and eager (early in the season)
poor visibility


Common sense says that one should make oneself as easy to identify in the hunting woods as possible! It will undoubtedly reduce your chances of getting shot and it is something that YOU can control.
Agreed. But do so with full knowledge of the stats that indicate the risk is still significant because orange is far from a guarantee.

[Gaiudo]

At 120 yards shooting distance, hunter orange would have been meaningless in the reported fog. The boy would not have been able to see the orange at that distance and as such would have taken the shot anyway.


One of the more uninformed statements on this thread. Of course he would have been able to see the orange, especially through his scope. The argument for blaze orange is even more apparent in this situation, as opposed to closed wooded areas.

[wheelgunslinger]

I'll second this:

At any rate, I won't argue with those who say blaze orange is a good idea. But as a hiker and responsible hunter, I don't think even the slightest hint that the hiker bears some responsibility for her own death should be allowed to stand.

All of you should be falling over yourselves to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of this kid without excuses or conditions.

It's my opinion that he should be charged with 2nd degree murder and tried as an adult. He knew what he was doing when he chambered a round and his actions were deliberate.
You gotta draw the line somewhere.

[TCB in TN]

All of you should be falling over yourselves to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of this kid without excuses or conditions.

It's my opinion that he should be charged with 2nd degree murder and tried as an adult. He knew what he was doing when he chambered a round and his actions were deliberate.
You gotta draw the line somewhere.

As a teacher one of my biggest frustrations is when my students don't bother to actually read what is written. Reading comprehension is an important skill one that should be continually cultivated throughout life.

I have looked back through this thread and have yet to see anyone BLAME the lady for the kid shooting her. It is his fault! Seems that some cannot stand the fact that a little common sense MIGHT have helped to stop this from happening! Might have helped keep her alive IN SPITE of this kids mistake!

We are ALL responsible for our own safety and personally if wearing a little Orange helps keep me from getting shot then I am willing to do so. It makes sense, and the two main points/lessons that we should all learn from this is 1st to make sure that we ALL follow the 4 main rules of gun safety, and 2nd that we do whatever we can to help others to be able to identify us whenever out in a hunting/shooting environment! Because AFTER you get shot, you might be able to point fingers and blame towards who shot you or you might not.

[.38 Special]

That, right there, is the problem. Claiming this woman lacked common sense because she *gasp* went for a walk without being fully prepared for the possibility that someone might intentionally point a rifle toward her and pull the trigger...

It's obnoxious, mate, and it does indeed attempt to place some of the blame for her death onto her own shoulders.

[TCB in TN]

That, right there, is the problem. Claiming this woman lacked common sense because she *gasp* went for a walk without being fully prepared for the possibility that someone might intentionally point a rifle toward her and pull the trigger...

It's obnoxious, mate, and it does indeed attempt to place some of the blame for her death onto her own shoulders.

OK mate, do you wear a seat belt? Do you have insurance against uninsured drivers? Do you have fire extinguisher for jic of a fire? Or wait a minute, just wait, how about do you own a GUN jic someone wants to attack you or your family?

Oh come on, what is obnoxious is some people on this site who decide that they are the high and mighty ones who can decide what is or is not in good taste! It has been said over and over again the boy is at fault! The fact is that we should all do our best to take safety measures specifically BECAUSE some people are stupid, some people are careless, and because it can even happen to you! But then again if you don't believe that then feel free to NOT buckle up, to not carry insurance, or a fire extinguisher, or heaven forbid a gun! :rolleyes:

[.38 Special]

Yes, I do have a gun in case I need to protect myself. If I did not, and someone blindsided me on the street and killed me, I have a feeling some of you folks would be along to tell me it's my fault for not having a gun: "I mean yeah, sure, the bad guy was in the wrong and all, but man, what kind of an irresponsible idiot wouldn't have a gun with him while in public?"

[TCB in TN]

Yes, I do have a gun in case I need to protect myself. If I did not, and someone blindsided me on the street and killed me, I have a feeling some of you folks would be along to tell me it's my fault for not having a gun: "I mean yeah, sure, the bad guy was in the wrong and all, but man, what kind of an irresponsible idiot wouldn't have a gun with him while in public?"

Well if you are traveling in a high crime area, where you legally could carry, you have a carry permit, and you knew you were headed there, then I would think it foolish for you NOT to carry. Not your fault you got killed, but foolish to not carry.

Your choice, I guess, but I don't think it is a good analogy.

This would be more like walking to change your target when you know the line is hot and being surprised when someone fires. During hunting season people are in the woods with guns, like it or not it is just that way! That makes it a good idea to make sure that everyone sees you and knows you are there. Didn't make it her fault she got shot, but it might have helped the kid to see her, and correctly identify her so that he did not shoot her.

[Gaiudo]

It's my opinion that he should be charged with 2nd degree murder and tried as an adult. He knew what he was doing when he chambered a round and his actions were deliberate.

Wow. I completely disagree with your statement. Manslaughter, perhaps. Second degree as an adult. You're wacked.

His fault? Certainly. He'll live with it the rest of his life.

[FourTeeFive]

Common sense says that one should make oneself as easy to identify in the hunting woods as possible!

One more time... this was not hunting woods. She was shot while on a very well traveled hiking trail (probably pretty exposed for the boy to get the shot to begin with).

the boy was with his 16-year-old brother on a ledge looking down onto a hiking trail when Pamela Almli stopped on the trail to put something into her backpack. The 14-year-old boy mistook her for a bear and fired one shot, which killed her, Reichardt said.

[TAB]

Wow. I completely disagree with your statement. Manslaughter, perhaps. Second degree as an adult. You're wacked.

His fault? Certainly. He'll live with it the rest of his life.
__________________



2nd degree murder would fit the crime, what about her life?

[TCB in TN]

One more time... this was not hunting woods. She was shot while on a very well traveled hiking trail (probably pretty exposed for the boy to get the shot to begin with).

How do you figure this. It was a legal hunting area!

[FourTeeFive]

One more time... this was not hunting woods. She was shot while on a very well traveled hiking trail (probably pretty exposed for the boy to get the shot to begin with).

How do you figure this. It was a legal hunting area!

Most of Washington State, in terms of area, is a legal hunting area. He was on a ledge, looking down, and shot her as she was bent over on a well-traveled hiking trail. It wasn't "hunting woods", it was an well-worn open trail area. This wasn't a heavily wooded area with someone walking among the trees. On any given day there are individuals and families walking up and down this trail during daylight hours.

[btg3]

This was reported earlier...
3. The woman was killed while standing on the trail. Near the trail head. 4. There are regulations about where a hunter can hunt, and which directions they can shoot when near a trail.

I expect the investigation will reveal more in time.

[Double Naught Spy]

One of the more uninformed statements on this thread. Of course he would have been able to see the orange, especially through his scope. The argument for blaze orange is even more apparent in this situation, as opposed to closed wooded areas.

Really? Who said the hunter had a scope? Do you have information on the incident not otherwise posted here? Nobody has shown a scope was used. That information hasn't been released.

If the hunter had a scope and this was an open terrain shot as you are suggesting, then he bloody well should have been able to identify his target as a person and not a bear. 120 yards just isn't that far. With a scope, the viewed distance would be a fraction of that. With a 3x scope, the viewed distance would be just 40 yards. With a 6x, just 20 yards. Come on! If he did have a scope, then the transgression is even greater.

Even worse is the fact that she was with another person. There were two hikers!


He'll live with it the rest of his life.

Big deal. So will her family, but she won't.

[wheelgunslinger]

TCB wrote:
As a teacher one of my biggest frustrations is when my students don't bother to actually read what is written. Reading comprehension is an important skill one that should be continually cultivated throughout life.

I have looked back through this thread and have yet to see anyone BLAME the lady for the kid shooting her. It is his fault! Seems that some cannot stand the fact that a little common sense MIGHT have helped to stop this from happening! Might have helped keep her alive IN SPITE of this kids mistake!

Look man, you herd kids for living and maybe that's getting you worked up into some sort of a lather over my statement about him being tried as an adult.
But, talking about my reading comprehension is really pretty poor, as baits go.
I'm probably the worst person you could have picked out of this thread to have some sort of Yu-Gi-Oh! resume smackdown with in that respect (writer). So, let's move on and save you some face, shall we?

I said this:
All of you should be falling over yourselves to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of this kid without excuses or conditions.

It's my opinion that he should be charged with 2nd degree murder and tried as an adult. He knew what he was doing when he chambered a round and his actions were deliberate.
You gotta draw the line somewhere.
Perhaps you should read what I wrote and try to beef up your own reading comprehension, since there is no mention of blaze orange and second guessing her.

That kid carried the power of life and death in his hands when he went out there. Whether he was ready to accept the consequences or not, he was certainly ready to reap the rewards.
He loaded, made ready, aimed, and fired that shot into that woman's body. And, she spent her last minutes or seconds (if she had any) wondering what had hit her, panicking, getting cold, and feeling her life fade from her body- and probably feeling confused as to what was happening.

I find any mention of what she should have done to be distasteful and disrespectful to her, and pandering to him as even the most minuscule of excuse making. And, I refuse to take part in it.

As an entire shooting community, we should have enough respect for tragic death to not engage in this kind of nonsensical "woulda, coulda, shoulda" behavior, since we are the ones who constantly remind each other that there is a lawyer and a social penalty attached to every bullet we fire should it go wrong (or even right, on occasion).

And, we should be very eager to ostracize shooters who are stupid enough to shoot another human being unintentionally, whether 14 or 40.

I stand by my assertion that he should be tried as an adult under the charge of 2nd degree murder because I can't bring myself to say "well, it was an accident" when it was not. And, that's the justice I'd demand for myself were I shot and killed (if that were possible) or for my immediate family.
You may disagree, and you're certainly welcome to do so. But, manslaughter doesn't fit the crime, imho. Perhaps then, we'll have a rash of years without people dying from hunting "accidents" as more people check their targets and try less to shoot through the brush or fog.

As an avid backpacker and hunter, the life that saved may be my own. And, if locking that kid up for murder saves my life because someone double checks their target instead of paying lip service to the 4 rules, so be it.

[Wheeler44]

The local paper says that the shooter and his brother were on a ledge overlooking the trail. Not the best place for a stand. Insinuating that this is in any way the hikers fault is ludicrous.

[FourTeeFive]

From the US Forest Service trail information:

Because of its easy accessibility, the trail is heavily used.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/recreation/activities/trails/mbrd/mbrd_0613.htm

As I've stated numerous times here, if you want to categorize this area it was a hiking zone where you can hunt. People are free to hike anywhere in this state, and in many cases those are hunting lands too. But this particular incident is sort of akin to hunting in an area which is known to be popular for family picnics. People are expected in this area, frankly a lot more than black bears. I see bears far away, but not usually near popular hiking areas.

[TCB in TN]

Look man, you herd kids for living and maybe that's getting you worked up into some sort of a lather over my statement about him being tried as an adult.
But, talking about my reading comprehension is really pretty poor, as baits go.
I'm probably the worst person you could have picked out of this thread to have some sort of Yu-Gi-Oh! resume smackdown with in that respect (writer). So, let's move on and save you some face, shall we?

Well now my reading comprehension comment makes even MORE sense.

I said

As a teacher one of my biggest frustrations is when my students don't bother to actually read what is written. Reading comprehension is an important skill one that should be continually cultivated throughout life.

I have looked back through this thread and have yet to see anyone BLAME the lady for the kid shooting her. It is his fault! Seems that some cannot stand the fact that a little common sense MIGHT have helped to stop this from happening! Might have helped keep her alive IN SPITE of this kids mistake!

That was in response to the

All of you should be falling over yourselves to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of this kid without excuses or conditions.

I have still not seen anyone who was NOT putting the responsibility on the boy, it was, is, and will continue to be his fault!

As an entire shooting community, we should have enough respect for tragic death to not engage in this kind of nonsensical "woulda, coulda, shoulda" behavior, since we are the ones who constantly remind each other that there is a lawyer and a social penalty attached to every bullet we fire should it go wrong (or even right, on occasion).

IMHO this is exactly what we should be doing. Trying to figure out ways to help prevent this from happening ever again. As shooters we should all know and religiously follow the 4 main safety rules, even with that in an uncontrolled shooting environment such as an hunting area.

As an avid backpacker and hunter, the life that saved may be my own. And, if locking that kid up for murder saves my life because someone double checks their target instead of paying lip service to the 4 rules, so be it.

Well you help make my point. If wearing a little blaze orange helps to make you easier to identify as NOT an animal then it very well may save your life!

[btg3]

IMHO this is exactly what we should be doing. Trying to figure out ways to help prevent this from happening ever again. As shooters we should all know and religiously follow the 4 main safety rules, even with that in an uncontrolled shooting environment such as an hunting area.
Enforcement of the 4 main safety rules (unfortunately but undeniably) repeatedly fails us. So what might be proposed to "prevent this from happening ever again"?

What I fear is something ridiculous, not limited to something like this:
RKBA does not include hunting. Hunting is a priveledge. With increased population density the sport of hunting must take a back seat to general public safety. Even hunters are at risk because there are too many hunters too close together. Thus all hunting will be prohibited on public land.

Further hunting on private land will be regulated:
a) All prospective hunters must receive training and demonstrate proficiency at least every 5 years.
b) Solo hunting is prohibited. Each hunter must be accompanied by a spotter who verifies targets and keeps a record of each shot on the forms provided by game management officials. Spotters must be certified hunters and at least 21 years of age. Spotters may not carry a hunting weapon.
c) Hunters under 30 years of age may not hunt during the first week of the season. They may serve as spotters during the first week.
d) blah, blah...

And don't forget, the "Safe Hunting Association" in conjunction with SPCA supports using life-like targets rather than live game in your enjoyment of the great sport of hunting.



Prevention is going to take more than 4 rules and orange clothes. And if we don't do what's needed, we inevitably will get more help from anti's than we care to imagine.

The relationship between hunting and RKBA should also be considered. If we lose ground with hunting because we can't (or won't) make it safer, then it could give the anti's leverage in working against RKBA. At some point, is it conceivable that it might be in the best interest of RKBA to distance itself from hunting?

[FourTeeFive]

The relationship between hunting and RKBA should also be considered. If we lose ground with hunting because we can't (or won't) make it safer, then it could give the anti's leverage in working against RKBA. At some point, is it conceivable that it might be in the best interest of RKBA to distance itself from hunting?

Agreed. In this particular case the family of the victim was compassionate towards the shooter. This was likely due the the victim and family being from a small town near the area where hunting is common. Had they been from a major metropolitan area it is quite likely that lawsuits would be flying and "ban all guns" would be shouted loud and clear.

[wheelgunslinger]

TCB
I have still not seen anyone who was NOT putting the responsibility on the boy, it was, is, and will continue to be his fault!
Fastidiously ignoring the other 4 words in my sentence. Comprehension, sir. Your own argument against me that you cannot even fulfill yourself.
There's a lot of "Yeah, he shot her, but." And, the ",but" is the part I think is reprehensible.
Well you help make my point. If wearing a little blaze orange helps to make you easier to identify as NOT an animal then it very well may save your life!
Actually, no I don't make your point.
My overall point is that every hunter has the responsibility of owning their act of shooting, whether it's a squirrel, deer, paper target, or human. Responsibility is on the shooter.

Will blaze orange help? Has it lessened accidents over the years?
People still sustain gunshot wounds every year during deer seasons across the nation while wearing it.
The only real fix is behind the trigger.

Currently, we have a problem with hunters who are so overly eager to kill something- anything- so they can be in the club that they take too many chances. The penalty of a shooting has to outweigh the benefit of standing around in the wal-mart parking lot bragging about the bear you killed.
Hence: 2nd degree murder charges.

Blaze Orange? Not a solution.

[Cosmoline]

Part of this debate may be coming from regional variations in how hunts are done. I've noticed this coming up in earlier threads. Folks on the other side of the Mississippi tend to think of hunting areas as limited, often private, reserves. The idea of a hiker bouncing around in such a place is outrageous, since they would likely be trespassing. The hunting season is limited and very active, with tens of thousands of hunters descending on small woodlots to shoot at deer.

For the west, the situation is radically different. There are enormous USFS and BLM tracts on top of huge state forests where hunting is allowed. In my own state these areas are larger than most Eastern states. There are fewer hunters and the seasons tend to be more spread out and less intense with shooting. There's a wider array of game to go after. In my own experience here and in Oregon it's rare to see other hunters at all--or anyone else--once you are in your area. Orange isn't even required in AK to my knowledge.

In this particular case, the shooting was in the Cascades near a trail. I've hiked on similar trails in Washington and Oregon thousands of times in my life. Hiking in the PNW is extremely common and the idea of making the hikers wear orange to go on Cascade trails is laughably absurd. Backpacking and hiking has very deep roots in that region and the trails are more like highways during peak months (like now for example) Hunters simply have no more business shooting towards trails than they do shooting towards highways. There are ample off-trail areas where people can hunt.

[Art Eatman]

As is common with multi-page threads, this one has descended into contentiousness and personal insult.

End of thread.

If some sort of "true facts" come from the investigation, somebody feel free to start an update.