And yet another fatality . . .

[Deerthug]

Here we go again . . .

Another hunter dead from stupidity . . . it's been said over and over again . . .

IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET!!!!!!!!!

Another two families destroyed . . .

http://www.wmur.com/...017/detail.html

Edited November 9, 2011 by Deerthug

[sg0331]

That is absolutely ridiculous. No excuses.

[pistolp71]

Always blows my mind. How can you mistake a person for a deer or turkey?? Pure stupidity.

[ellenvillehunter54]

This is a true tragedy, and my prayers go out to the family. BUT i think both parties are at fault. The shooter should have made visible contact before shooting, but also the victim should have been wearing some sort of blaze orange. If it was archery, it would have been a different story, but its firearms season, everyone should be wearing something. Even a hat could of stopped this. Just my 2 cents..

[pistolp71]

This is a true tragedy, and my prayers go out to the family.  BUT i think both parties are at fault. The shooter should have made visible contact before shooting, but also the victim should have been wearing some sort of blaze orange.  If it was archery, it would have been a different story, but its firearms season, everyone should be wearing something.  Even a hat could of stopped this. Just my 2 cents..

Maybe the victim should have had some orange on but I don't think he was at fault at all. 100% the shooter. A person wearing camo or whatever doesn't look like a deer whatsoever. Just shooting at a moving object and not identifying the target and picking a spot on the deer. Unbelievable.

[Deerthug]

This is a true tragedy, and my prayers go out to the family. BUT i think both parties are at fault. The shooter should have made visible contact before shooting, but also the victim should have been wearing some sort of blaze orange. If it was archery, it would have been a different story, but its firearms season, everyone should be wearing something. Even a hat could of stopped this. Just my 2 cents..

It indeed is a tragedy. But I disagree with you that it's both of their faults. In my humble opinion, the shooter should have clearly identified the target even before raising his firearm. That is what binos are for. Moreover, most deer that I have seen have four legs (except for the one trailcam picture posted on another thread of the three legged deer) and they are a lot shorter than a person standing erect. More importantly it happened at 8:00AM when there is plenty of light out. Even if the victim was not wearing blaze orange and assuming he was wearing camo, in my six years of hunting I haven't seen any deer wearing camo. Their hides are a solid color. There is simply no excuse for this tragedy.

I hunt on private land and we all know where our stands are and where we are sitting.

We make it a point not to shoot anything in the direction of where the other stands are located and if we have to, we make sure that the trajectory is at a downward angle and that the only place a bullet can go is down into the ground. We also text or signal each other to know that we are in our stands and set up before anyone takes any shots.

In the end it truly is a tragedy for all involved.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Heart breaks for family.

The way this is reported it sound like PURELY a case of not identifying your target....hunting 101. I hunted a lot of years in red /green and black wool and a lot of guys did. I can't say I remember one time ever thinking a guy was a deer. Even hav seen some walking around in brown Carharts. I can only speculate but I can't say orange would have stopped this. We will never know for sure.

Where I think BO really helps isn't in misidentification of a target but more in helping a hunter to stand out in the background. Hunting 102...know you backstop. A camoed up hunter sitting in a bush or at the bottom of a tree may not be seen if a deer were to be inbetween them. In a situation like this i think the hunter getting shot does bare some blame. Not in the first case.

Hope that made sense.

[SteveNY]

"Fish and Game officials said Brunelle was not wearing blaze orange."

Absolutely NO reason that trigger should have been pulled in the first place, but just a note to everyone: wearing some blaze orange can save your life.

"Over the past ten years, 15 New York State big game hunters have been mistaken for deer or bear and killed, and every one of these victims was from that small minority of hunters who did not wear hunter orange. But not even one person who was wearing hunter orange was mistaken for game and killed." http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9186.html

I was reading the DEC site and it says there is no law about hunter orange, but I could have sworn there was a law about it in the past, some thing like 10% of the clothing your wearing must be blaze orange. Or am I just out of my mind?

[adirondackbushwhack]

There is no law that mandates the use of blaze orange, thank god. In this case the shooter is 100% at fault. In fact if the person that was shot were wearing a deer skin coat the shooter would still be 100% at fault because he MUST be certain of his target before shooting.

[SteveNY]

There is no law that mandates the use of blaze orange, thank god. In this case the shooter is 100% at fault. In fact if the person that was shot were wearing a deer skin coat the shooter would still be 100% at fault because he MUST be certain of his target before shooting.

The shooter is 100% at fault, 200% even! But if a little orange can save you from being shot by an idiot in the woods, why wouldn't you wear some?

[132 eight pointer]

Letchworth State Park requires 400 square inches of fluorescent orange. (equivalent to a vest front and back). I wouldn't gun hunt without wearing an orange hat and vest. I have never seen an orange deer.

Edited November 9, 2011 by 132 eight pointer

[adirondackbushwhack]

I don't believe the orange would save me for one thing. Here we see a perfect example of the loss of use of mental capacity by the shooter. Would mandateing blaze orange change the mentality of those who might be prone to shoot before identifying their target? I don't think it would and in fact might have the opposite effect by reassuring them that if they don't see blaze they are okay to shoot. No one wears blaze where I hunt and most wear camo even in rifle season. It's not a problem to wear camo because there are no camo deer and then again the shooter MUST be sure of his target BEFORE shooting. The stats about what the victim of the shooting was wearing only gives one perspective. I wonder if there is a correlation as to what the shooter is wearing too. IN fact mandating orange would only give a slob shooter an excuse for not following the basic rules of shooting.

[SteveNY]

I don't believe the orange would save me for one thing. Here we see a perfect example of the loss of use of mental capacity by the shooter. Would mandateing blaze orange change the mentality of those who might be prone to shoot before identifying their target? I don't think it would and in fact might have the opposite effect by reassuring them that if they don't see blaze they are okay to shoot. No one wears blaze where I hunt and most wear camo even in rifle season. It's not a problem to wear camo because there are no camo deer and then again the shooter MUST be sure of his target BEFORE shooting. The stats about what the victim of the shooting was wearing only gives one perspective. I wonder if there is a correlation as to what the shooter is wearing too. IN fact mandating orange would only give a slob shooter an excuse for not following the basic rules of shooting.

Are you serious? Edited November 9, 2011 by SteveNY

[adirondackbushwhack]

What do you mean Steve?

[SteveNY]

What do you mean Steve?

Lets start with what you mean by this? "The stats about what the victim of the shooting was wearing only gives one perspective. I wonder if there is a correlation as to what the shooter is wearing too."

I don't really get what you mean.

[adirondackbushwhack]

I cannot understand your perspective if you do not explain it to me. Instead of getting into a debate as to who is right and who is wrong we might be better served by simply trying to understand the perspective of the other. We may find, in the end there is still another perspective that neither one of us has yet thought of.

Now to answer your question. I am intersted in knowing if there is a correlation in the number of shooters who are wearing blaze orange when they shoot someone. I've put forward a theory that the use of blaze, MAY and again I say MAY give the shooter a sense of security and shoot if he does not see blaze. However the news only gives one perspective and that being what the victim is not wearing and never gives the other perspective of what the shooter was wearing. IN fact Steve I wonder why the news would even bother mentioning what the victim is not wearing. What does it matter if he is wearing blaze or not?

[JimmyDaSavage]

Wear some orange simple enough

[adirondackbushwhack]

Wear some orange simple enough

why?

[SteveNY]

I cannot understand your perspective if you do not explain it to me. Instead of getting into a debate as to who is right and who is wrong we might be better served by simply trying to understand the perspective of the other. We may find, in the end there is still another perspective that neither one of us has yet thought of.

Now to answer your question. I am intersted in knowing if there is a correlation in the number of shooters who are wearing blaze orange when they shoot someone. I've put forward a theory that the use of blaze, MAY and again I say MAY give the shooter a sense of security and shoot if he does not see blaze. However the news only gives one perspective and that being what the victim is not wearing and never gives the other perspective of what the shooter was wearing. IN fact Steve I wonder why the news would even bother mentioning what the victim is not wearing. What does it matter if he is wearing blaze or not?

Alright, I see what your saying now...

All I'm saying is wearing some blaze orange can save your life. That fact, can not be ignored.

[adirondackbushwhack]

I have no doubt that there are certain occasions that the wearing of blaze orange may save your life in the event that some foolish shooter sees the blaze in time to not shoot. However another point of view might have camo saving your life by preventing the foolish shooter from seeing you in the first place. And of course there is the unproven theory I have put forth on shooters wearing blaze. I suggest that the clothing of the hunter doesn't matter in the big picture. The only way to prevent the wrongful shooting by hunters is to have all hunters follow the basic rule of shooting, Be sure of your target before shooting. Held to the standard of be SURE of your target BEFORE shooting and there is no excuse of any kind if a man is shot. Hunting is safer then taking a shower right now and it got that way by pounding the basic rules of shooting into everyones head in my oppinion.

Edited November 10, 2011 by adirondackbushwhack

[Deerthug]

I dont understand how you guys can be arguing over whether the vIctim should have been wearing BO or the shooter wearing BO and whether that would have made a difference on whether the shooter would have pulled the trigger. Could BO have saved the victim? Who know. Did the shooter hear a noise and panic when he pulled the trigger? Who knows. The fact of the matter is the shooter failed to ID his target. Period. No excuse for that.

[shadow]

I have a cousin with a few screws loose, anyway one year on opening day he wore my kids halloween pumpkin strobe lights because he was nervous about getting shot, we all laughed but now I think he might be on to something ?????

[Deerthug]

I have a cousin with a few screws loose, anyway one year on opening day he wore my kids halloween pumpkin strobe lights because he was nervous about getting shot, we all laughed but now I think he might be on to something ?????

Not a bad idea. I used a blinking orange light on my back when I used to go running at nite. I think it saved my arse a few times.

[ny hunter]

I agree with Deerthug Shooter is 100% at fault.The guy he shot by mistake did not even know what hit him.Shooter should have Know what he was shooting at.

[grampsretired3]

IDENIFY IDENIFY IDENIFY your target no reason for this.