Tragedy on opening weekend

[Adjam5]

First let me say my prayers are with the little girl and her family. This should never have happened.

Second to AceArcher, you really need to get and read the Il. hunting regulations book. Gun season includes handguns, not just shotguns. Not knowing the hunting laws and following them is one way accidents like this happen.

And that includes handguns in rifle calibers...correct?

Like the T/C Contender or Remington XP100.

[rookieee]

prayers to the little girls family,and as far as the so call hunter go i say and eye for and eye

[Turkeygirl]

Very sad....Andy has a family friend who's cousin was killed opening weekend of shotgun when the brother shot him....it's not that hard to be safe with a gun...as the instructor said at hunter safety "The only thing that controls the gun is you, not the trigger".

[m gardner]

This is a hideous thing to happen. I can't imagine it. My prayers are with the family. I did notice one thing though. The treestand looks as if it's been there awhile. The wood is weathered. You must make lots of noise constructing something like that too. I would imagine that these people locally knew about it's existence and it's amazing no one questioned it. It's even more amazing that someone would feel good about rifle hunting from it. Ace, as for shotguns, pistols, muzzleloaders; they are dangerous out to miles not 100's of yards. Read the warning on the box 22 rimfires come in, it says dangerous out to 1 1/4 miles! You have to be careful. Some places need to be archery only.

Mark

Edited November 28, 2008 by m gardner

[oneshot]

And that includes handguns in rifle calibers...correct?

Like the T/C Contender or Remington XP100.

Hi Adjam5. Yes, the caliber must not be less than .30 cal. and barrel length not less than 4 inches. (No semi auto handguns). I use either my Ruger Super Redhawk in .44 mag. or .454 casull.

The top pic is the .454 casull.

[clrj3514]

thats terrible. prayin for them

[Doc]

First of all, I am assuming that the trailer was visible from the stand and therefore visually known to have been in the line of fire. If that was the case, there really is no excuse.

However, there are other cases that maybe aren't quite so crystal clear. We all like to say that there is no excuse for not knowing what is behind the deer or other game that we shoot at. It sure does sound good and makes us feel a bit superior. But unless you are at a shooting range with the foreground and background cleared to the ground and an earthen backstop bulldozed up behind, none of us is ever completely certain that there is not someone hunkered down next to a tree, perhaps dressed in some of that great camo that we have on the market these days. Think about it......generally speaking, a deer has trees or brush behind it and your actual visbility into that stuff is far more limited than your bullet or bullet fragments. So, unless you are hunting at a target range, you are never absolutely sure of what is behind the animal you are shooting at. An excellent example is the Realtree TV ad that shows several camoflaged hunters concealed in the woods. They are all pretty invisible, right? Now stick a deer in the middle of that picture. Yup, all clear...... not really. All this has absolutely nothing to do with the accident that is the subject of this thread, but I have lost count of how many replies have simply been the parroting of that standard rule of safety, "always be sure of the background where you are shooting". But, unless you are going to first walk back behind the deer and check for concealed hunters or maybe even a well screened cabin, hiking trail, or roadway, or farmer's laneway, none of us are really all that sure of the background.

I suspect that in the case of this incident, the trailer was in plain sight, and the hunter was sure of the background, and he was sure that the background contained the trailer.

So that brings up the law that regulates shot distance from dwellings. 500' is totally arbitrary and inadequate whether you are talking a shotgun, rifle, or even a bow and arrow. If this guy had been 400' or 501' from that trailer, the girl would most likely be just as dead. The fact is that if he was 501 feet from that trailer, he might have had a legal loophole to walk away from liability for that toddler's death. That law should have some verbage added to it that makes it additionally illegal to shoot in the direction of a building or dwelling. Those restrictions should also not have any exceptions for ownership, or permissions or anything else. Yes, there will be some rare occasions where the buildings are not visible and exceptions to prosecutions may be made in those cases. But those are extremely rare instances as houses and trailers are fairly large and generally do not blend in with their background.

These kinds of laws should have some real severe teeth in them so that they are always in the minds of hunters. Adding a line of fire clause to the distance law would do a whole lot more than simply droning out the "be sure of the background" rule. Maybe this would have happened even with such a "line of fire" addition to the 500' rule, or maybe if the penalty were sufficient for the offense, he might have been unwilling to gamble with other people's lives, I don't know. But perhaps such a modification to the law would stop some other excited hunter from making the same mistake. At the very least it would supply one more penalty to add on for such a callous disregard for the safety of others.

Doc

[AceArcher]

And that includes handguns in rifle calibers...correct?

Like the T/C Contender or Remington XP100.

As Oneshot pointed out...I know very littel about the regs. However, I think...based on my limited knowledge, that many of the Contender "rifle type" handguns would be illegal in Il for deer based on the cartridge size limits. I once thought about getting a 30-06 Contender like Gordon Wittington shoots. However, wouldn't the case be longer than 1.4 inches.

For handguns, a bottleneck centerfire cartridge

of .30 caliber or larger with a case length not exceeding

1.4 inches, or a straight-walled centerfire

cartridge of .30 caliber or larger, both of

which must be available as a factory load with

the published ballistic tables of themanufacturer

showing a capability of at least 500 foot pounds

of energy at the muzzle. Note: There is no case

length limit for straight-walled cartridges.

Read for yourself.

Source: http://www.dnr.state.il.us/publications/pdf/00000582.pdf Page 12.

[oneshot]

As Oneshot pointed out...I know very littel about the regs. However, I think...based on my limited knowledge, that many of the Contender "rifle type" handguns would be illegal in Il for deer based on the cartridge size limits. I once thought about getting a 30-06 Contender like Gordon Wittington shoots. However, wouldn't the case be longer than 1.4 inches.

For handguns, a bottleneck centerfire cartridge

of .30 caliber or larger with a case length not exceeding

1.4 inches, or a straight-walled centerfire

cartridge of .30 caliber or larger, both of

which must be available as a factory load with

the published ballistic tables of themanufacturer

showing a capability of at least 500 foot pounds

of energy at the muzzle. Note: There is no case

length limit for straight-walled cartridges.

Read for yourself.

Source: http://www.dnr.state.il.us/publications/pdf/00000582.pdf Page 12.

Ace you also stated in this thread:

Here in IL we only use shotguns in our firearms season for this very reason. I bullet going 100 yds vs. 1000 yds. This is a real tragedy for all people involved.

Let me congratulate you, you finally read the regulations.

However I never stated that all Contenders/Encores were legal. That is the job of the person hunting to check all the regs. and make sure they conform with the law. Considering you claimed only shotguns were legal for deer in Il. I caused you to educate yourself by looking it up. A win win outcome.

Edited December 5, 2008 by oneshot

[wtnhunt]

We all like to say that there is no excuse for not knowing what is behind the deer or other game that we shoot at. It sure does sound good and makes us feel a bit superior. But unless you are at a shooting range with the foreground and background cleared to the ground and an earthen backstop bulldozed up behind, none of us is ever completely certain that there is not someone hunkered down next to a tree, perhaps dressed in some of that great camo that we have on the market these days. Think about it......generally speaking, a deer has trees or brush behind it and your actual visbility into that stuff is far more limited than your bullet or bullet fragments. So, unless you are hunting at a target range, you are never absolutely sure of what is behind the animal you are shooting at. An excellent example is the Realtree TV ad that shows several camoflaged hunters concealed in the woods. They are all pretty invisible, right? Now stick a deer in the middle of that picture. Yup, all clear...... not really. All this has absolutely nothing to do with the accident that is the subject of this thread, but I have lost count of how many replies have simply been the parroting of that standard rule of safety, "always be sure of the background where you are shooting". But, unless you are going to first walk back behind the deer and check for concealed hunters or maybe even a well screened cabin, hiking trail, or roadway, or farmer's laneway, none of us are really all that sure of the background.

You do have a good point Doc, however orange requirements in most states should help in making a hunter more visible to other hunters. And you are right, you cannot always be completely certain especially in terrain where the back drop for fields are bottom grounds or other similar situations, however a hunter should know where they are hunting well enough to know that there is housing around and this situation described in this very sad story, it is my opinion that there was no excuse.

[Doc]

You do have a good point Doc, however orange requirements in most states should help in making a hunter more visible to other hunters. And you are right, you cannot always be completely certain especially in terrain where the back drop for fields are bottom grounds or other similar situations, however a hunter should know where they are hunting well enough to know that there is housing around and this situation described in this very sad story, it is my opinion that there was no excuse.

NYS is one state that doesn't have a blaze orange law, although I would say that most hunters here have enough brains to wear generous amounts of B/O. However, I have personally witnessed at least a half dozen hunters wearing nothing but camo during some rather busy gun season days, on some very heavily pressured state land. Hard to imagine, but as long as the law allows stupidity, there will always be plenty of people who will practice it. I might add that a high percentage of the annual fatalities and accidents in NYS occur with the victim NOT wearing blaze orange.

As far as familiarity with hunting lands and locations of buildings, roads, hiking trails, etc., I must say that in my younger years, I did spend a lot of time trying out new hunting lands. My current hunting land is as familiar as the back of my hand since I have been hunting it for quite a few decades, and grew up wandering the same hills as I hunt now. But in my early years, the grass always seemed to be greener on the other side, so I spent a lot of time exploring new places to hunt. I will say that there always has to be a first time for each hunter to hunt a parcel of land, so again, the mantra about KNOWING what's behind a deer that you may be shooting at is more of a 'feel-good' phrase than an absolute practicality. That is more so with items other than buildings that almost always stand out pretty good. But like I said before, unless you are hunting your deer on a manicured shooting range with an earthen backstop, you are never absolutely sure that the areas behind your deer are completely free of hazards.

Now, having said all that, the background behind any game should of course be considered to as great an extent as possible. There are certain "horizon" type shots that should never be taken. Actually, there are some places that I simply will not hunt with a gun because the brush is just too thick to see what is just a few yards away. In my younger years, while hunting a large thick swampy patch of brushlands, I did experience hearing a sudden shot within 50 yards on the other side of an amazingly thick tangle of vines and brush. Now there is something that will make you sit up and take notice in a hurry. Everything went silent once I finished launching into a rather loud and emphatic tirade of some pretty heavy expletives. It wasn't til I finally calmed down a bit before I realized that hunting where I was, it could have just as easily been the other hunter ranting and raving at me. I don't know which direction that guy was shooting, but even with my blaze orange, I finally realized that I was absolutely invisible to him and well withing shotgun range. So now I stay out of such areas.

Of course none of this describes what went wrong in this tragedy. As far as I know, the trailer was totally visible right behind the deer. That is a whole different scenario than anything that I have been talking about. I don't think there was any doubt about what was in the background when he shot. So it wasn't a case of him not knowing what was in the back-drop, it was a situation where he ignored what he saw. That's a whole different deal.

So why do I continue to rant and rave about the little phrase, "always know whats behind your target."? It's because I really don't want people to think that just because they say that that their responsibility ends there. What may look like a perfectly safe background still contains some risk, and it may be worth an extra bit of scrutiny, (a second look), before pulling that trigger. I'm afraid that people who rely on that phrase might not really understand how difficult that it actually is. Do not rely on some simple phrase and some instant, in the field perception to be your only guide as to when to pull the trigger. Take the time to check twice and understand that even with that, you could be wrong. Recognize conditions that are more risky than others and don't be afraid to pass on shots that where the risk factors are getting too high.

Actually, what I would like to see in hunting safety courses is more emphasis on what kinds of real hunting conditions pose higher risk rather than some simple one-liner that is merely parroted back without any real thought as to what it really means.

Doc

[Doc]

By the way, speaking of blaze orange laws, there are some who oppose the blaze orange law and are quick to point out that not everyone in the woods are hunters and required to wear the B/O. Loggers, farmers, hikers, etc., usually are not mandated to wear it. Opponents of the law point out the possibility that hunters could become conditioned to shooting simply because they see no orange.

I am a staunch supporter of blaze orange laws and hope to see it passed very soon here in NYS, but I have to say that the, 'conditioning to shoot when blaze orange is not present' scenario is something that does concern me. While I do believe that it saves lives, I would also caution that there are no guarantees that come with it and blaze orange laws do not take the place of common sense and safety practices.

Doc

[bigbuckkilla89]

thats horrible. very very sad. and everyones right you should know whats beyond where your shooting befor you take a shot. thoughts and prayers to the family. cant even imagine what there goin through

[Doc]

And it doesn't end there!!!

Yesterday I saw this headline in the paper: Hunter's bullet passes through crib.

In the town of Marshall, NY (40 miles south of Syracuse) some gut put a bullet throuh the wall, through the crib mattress and into a piece of furniture. He was farther than the legally required 500 feet, in fact he was 400 yards from the house. Even though his distance was beyong the legal limit, he was still charge with 2nd degree reckless endangerment (hoo-ray for that). While they didn't say, I assume he was using a rifle and not a shotgun. They did say bullet and not slug. Also at 400 yards, it is more likely a rifle.

Along with a few other reports that I have heard, it sounds like NYS has trashed the great safety record of the last two years and is setting another kind of record for lack of safety.

Doc