weird

[bubba]

Burt,

yours seems to be the only one that differs.  I think you intentionally take the opposite side just to keep things going.  If you really believe that I at least believe you would not yell for a stiffer punishement if it were a family member, you are very misinformed.  The fact that this was done during committing a crime is relevant.  As I have stated whether legal hours or not, all huntng incidents are related to the participants doing something illegal. That comes directly from the DEC officers who come to my classes.  Look up the list of incidents and read them and how it happened.   

[First-light]

Bubba,

So you are telling me every hunting incident is related to illegal activity?? I find that hard to believe, very hard. Second if my brother went off into the woods with a hunting companion and there was an incident it would be investigated. At that point the law would make the decision who was "if" there was any fault. No I would not yell for a stiffer sentence if everything checked out. Last I do not take the opposite side of things just to keep it going, this topic is very important to all of us. We all have opinions that's all.

[bubba]

if yo ulook up the list of incidents and concurring reports, you will believe they are all related to illegal activity.  Until you actually read them, it is difficult to have an opinion on them.

[First-light]

Not to beat a dead horse but here we go:

In Nebraska's 2009 accidents, six of the shooters were 10 to 19 years old, four were 20 to 29 and two were 40 to 49. In seven incidents, the shooter shot himself or herself. Someone else was shot in five incidents.In two instances, a non-hunter was injured or killed. Three involved illegal activity. Six involved the discharge of a rifle, three a shotgun and three a handgun.

Here is the link

http://www.omaha.com/article/20100113/NEWS01/100119836/0/NEWS08

Not all hunting incidents involve illegal activity.................

[bubba]

we are not in nebraska look up the ny incidents.  But you are already misinformed so no matter what anyone says, it will not matter.  Take care cuz I am not going to be dragged into your little game. 

[First-light]

we are not in nebraska look up the ny incidents.  But you are already misinformed so no matter what anyone says, it will not matter.  Take care cuz I am not going to be dragged into your little game.

I guess these are all opinions nothing illegal going on in these reports Bubba. I'm not playing a game, when "you" make such statements and absolutes I will defend my opinion with facts.

Really, the way you carry on it amazes me that you are a safety instructor. Some of your posts are get real twisted. I should know better then to go back and forth with you. "been there, done that"

In New York, reporting of hunting injuries involving firearms is required by law, and all incidents are investigated, either by local law enforcement officers or a state environmental conservation officer. Hunting-injury reports filed with DEC include a description of the event, the primary factor contributing to the injury as determined by the investigator, and the type and color of clothing worn by the participants. Hunter orange use was defined as the wearing of one or more of the following solid orange colored garments: hat, coat, vest, or pants. The number of licensed hunters in New York during 1989-1995 was used as the denominator to calculate injury rates. Case Reports

Case 1: On December 3, 1995, four hunters separated to flush deer out of an overgrown field. Two hunters walked through the field attempting to drive deer toward the other two hunters who were in a stationary position. One of the stationary hunters observed movement in the thick brush and, believing the movement to be a deer, fired his shotgun at a range of 48 yards. However, the movement had been caused by a hunter who was not wearing orange and who was struck in the chest by the shotgun slug and killed.

Case 2: On October 30, 1995, two hunters looking for grouse became separated while hiking through an area of dense brush. One hunter flushed a grouse, which took flight, and fired at the bird. The other hunter, who was in the line of fire 25 yards away and dressed in camouflage clothing, was wounded by 12 pellets to the upper body.

Case 3: On May 1, 1995, a licensed guide assisted a client in hunting turkey. The guide issued calls to attract turkeys. Another hunter in the area heard the calls and, believing that a turkey was nearby, began to move through open woods toward the sound. The hunter, who was wearing camouflage clothing, moved to within 40 yards of the guide and fired his shotgun after observing movement. The guide, who was not wearing orange, was wounded by shotgun pellets in the shoulder, neck, and face. Injuries During 1989-1995

[nyantler]

Bubba,

You know as well as I that this could of happened in a legal hunting situation. Wether or not they were breaking the law is not the point here. We are just stating our opinions and mine differs from yours. No big deal. This happens in legal and illegal situations and both families suffer in the long run. Hunt smart-Hunt safe.

This guy was not hunting... he was poaching... he killed someone in the act of committing a crime... if he was robbing a store and his gun went off (even accidently) and killed the store clerk... I bet he'd be charged with murder...personally I don't see the difference here. Like I stated before... he should have gotten a stiffer sentence just for what he did leading up to killing the guy.

IMO there is no excuse for killing a human because you mistook them for an animal... I don't know a single human being that looks anything like a whitetail deer... this was not an accident .. it was negligence... two different things

[First-light]

Bubba,

You know as well as I that this could of happened in a legal hunting situation. Wether or not they were breaking the law is not the point here. We are just stating our opinions and mine differs from yours. No big deal. This happens in legal and illegal situations and both families suffer in the long run. Hunt smart-Hunt safe.

This guy was not hunting... he was poaching... he killed someone in the act of committing a crime... if he was robbing a store and his gun went off (even accidently) and killed the store clerk... I bet he'd be charged with murder...personally I don't see the difference here. Like I stated before... he should have gotten a stiffer sentence just for what he did leading up to killing the guy.

IMO there is no excuse for killing a human because you mistook them for an animal... I don't know a single human being that looks anything like a whitetail deer... this was not an accident .. it was negligence... two different things

Hey Joe,

Your doing a real good Sean Hannity on me. Nice edit!  My comment came from wether these accidents happen in legal hunting situations. Good try though. Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with you.

[nyantler]

Not sure I see the edit.. I quoted your whole comment...but it wasnt really directed at your post as much as just one of my usual rants

[First-light]

Not sure I see the edit.. I quoted your whole comment...but it wasnt really directed at your post as much as just one of my usual rants

Cool