|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 8, 2009 14:38:15 GMT -5
Question... how many hunters have been accidentally shot by another hunter while sitting in a blind in Indiana? h.h. How many does it take to justify a change? ... or should we wait on the ....“Tombstone Technology" theroy... when there are enough tombstones the technology gets fixed or changed If you feel that way then why aren't you pushing for mandatory climbing and safety harnesses in treestands? ::)I'm sure falling out of a tree stand is the #1 cause for injury and deaths in Indiana while hunting. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 8, 2009 15:01:00 GMT -5
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 1759 The essential liberty you lose by legislating something like this is the freedom to think and to make up your own mind about the situation or the risk involved. The freedom to think and to make up our own minds about our safety, our lifestyle or whatever else you want to plug in here is one of our very basic freedoms that is increasingly being taken away with all these feel good OMG we saved another life laws being passed in what seems like a daily fashion. Another example would be the seat belt law or some anti smoking laws. Common sense tells you that smoking will probably kill you or that wearing a seatbelt probably helps you if you were to crash but it's truly none of the states business if you are harming no one but yourself. If you are sitting in a unmarked blind you are harming no one except essentially yourself if something terrible would happen. That means it's none of my business or the states business what you do or the risk you choose to take. Then why have a Fluorescent Orange rule at all? ? ...I guess a "FEW' enlist would be happy with no rules!!!! How sad
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 8, 2009 15:05:34 GMT -5
There was case of a deer hunter being killed while in a pop up blind in Michigan. The dead deer hunter was from Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 8, 2009 16:51:22 GMT -5
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 1759 The essential liberty you lose by legislating something like this is the freedom to think and to make up your own mind about the situation or the risk involved. The freedom to think and to make up our own minds about our safety, our lifestyle or whatever else you want to plug in here is one of our very basic freedoms that is increasingly being taken away with all these feel good OMG we saved another life laws being passed in what seems like a daily fashion. Another example would be the seat belt law or some anti smoking laws. Common sense tells you that smoking will probably kill you or that wearing a seatbelt probably helps you if you were to crash but it's truly none of the states business if you are harming no one but yourself. If you are sitting in a unmarked blind you are harming no one except essentially yourself if something terrible would happen. That means it's none of my business or the states business what you do or the risk you choose to take. Then why have a Fluoresent Orange rule at all? ? ...I guess a "FEW' enlist would be happy with no rules!!!! How sad Like I said in earlier, "current hunter orange requirements work for me"! If someone feels safer with hunter's orange on their ground blind then let them make the choice to put it up, not other hunters wanting more regulations. Hunters trying to regulate other hunters is the saddest part! h.h.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 17:24:29 GMT -5
There was case of a deer hunter being killed while in a pop up blind in Michigan. The dead deer hunter was from Indiana. In that case, both the shooter and the victim were in a blind. If you Google hunting fatalities/accidents related to blinds, this case is the only one that comes up. Looks like a lot of ways more popular to get killed or injured than sitting in a hunting blind.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Aug 8, 2009 17:30:47 GMT -5
Then why have a Fluoresent Orange rule at all? ? ...I guess a "FEW' enlist would be happy with no rules!!!! How sad Sad?? What's sad is people are so quick to give up their own freedoms just so they can get some omnipotent feeling and tell someone else how to live their lives. And your absolutely right, there shouldn't be a fluorescent orange rule/law at all for any free person over the age of 18 . I don't think there should be any laws protecting one from themselves if they are free and over 18. The laws should only protect others from you or you from others, whichever way you want to look at it. If you aren't hurting anyone then it's no one else's business what you choose to do. Somewhere along we have lost our way and we are slowly giving our freedoms back to the state or some other government agency. Now if you want to pass a law to protect children from dumb@$$ parents/guardians that's a whole other discussion but any free man or woman over the age of 18 should be able to make their own decisions regarding their safety without any input from you or a government agency.
|
|
|
Post by hardwickbv on Aug 8, 2009 17:42:11 GMT -5
After reading all the posts I had to vote no. More legislation is not the way to go especiallly when most documented evidence of hunting incidents can be traced back to breaking one of the following rules.
1. Treat every firearm as if it were loaded. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. 2. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Use your safety…but remember that safeties sometimes fail! 3. Be sure of your target and what lies beyond it before firing. 4. Never place or carry a loaded firearm in or on a motor vehicle. 5. Never use a firearm unless you are familiar with how it works.
If you need an owner’s manual for your firearm, write to the firearm manufacturer. Make sure you receive training and/or read the owner’s manual before handling any new firearm. Do not handle a firearm without the owner’s permission. 6. Be sure the barrel and action are clear of obstructions. 7. Never cross a fence, climb a tree, cross a stream, or jump a ditch with a loaded firearm. 8. Never point a firearm at anything you do not want to shoot. Never shoot at a flat, hard surface or water. 9. Unload firearms when they are not in use. Store firearms and ammunition separately. 10. Never use alcohol or drugs before or during shooting.
Most firearm-related hunting incidents could be prevented if everybody followed the ten simple rules above.
I would also add - anytime you are elevated wear a safety harness
In my opinion there are no hunting accidents only hunting incidents.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Aug 8, 2009 17:56:00 GMT -5
Then why have a Fluoresent Orange rule at all? ? ...I guess a "FEW' enlist would be happy with no rules!!!! How sad The laws should only protect others from you or you from others, whichever way you want to look at it.Isn't that what blaze orange requirements are doing, protecting you from others?
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 8, 2009 18:51:27 GMT -5
Then why have a Fluorescent Orange rule at all? ? ...I guess a "FEW' enlist would be happy with no rules!!!! How sad Like I said in earlier, "current hunter orange requirements work for me"! If someone feels safer with hunter's orange on their ground blind then let them make the choice to put it up, not other hunters wanting more regulations. Hunters trying to regulate other hunters is the saddest part! h.h. Then why have a Fluorescent Orange rule at all? ? Wear it only if you see the "NEED"....
|
|
|
Post by jrbhunter on Aug 8, 2009 19:32:46 GMT -5
Some excellent points have been made in this thread. Hopefully the "core group" won't get their way and push this through on all of us. Even spell check has it's limitations.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Aug 8, 2009 20:18:52 GMT -5
Yep ... it looks like the "core group" is leaning toward the proposed rule... ...Yes (21 votes, 53.8%) No (16 votes, 41%) Don't care will go with the masses (2 votes, 5.1%)
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Aug 8, 2009 22:59:25 GMT -5
:>)
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Aug 9, 2009 9:33:38 GMT -5
Isn't that what blaze orange requirements are doing, protecting you from others? Aw yes it is however it also restricts your right to make decisions about your own self and removes your free will. The proper thing to do would be to pass a law that prevents others from harming you whilst your in your blind and if they do cause you harm they are liable for damages and will face criminal charges and will lose their hunting priviliges for life if they aren't incarcerated. Oh wait we already have that law or one very similiar.... Another example would be the current legal firearm law we have instituted. The current law pretty much says the state is aware that all of it's citizens are irresponsible dumb arses that can't be trusted during deer season so you are allowed to use these firearms. The law should read something along the lines of " you can use any legal firearm above said caliber to insure a clean and humane kill however if you harm or damage any property or persons within the reasonable distance or range of the caliber you are using you will be held liable and will face criminal charges will lose their hunting privileges for life if you aren't incarcerated.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 9, 2009 10:21:38 GMT -5
Like I said in earlier, "current hunter orange requirements work for me"! If someone feels safer with hunter's orange on their ground blind then let them make the choice to put it up, not other hunters wanting more regulations. Hunters trying to regulate other hunters is the saddest part! h.h. Then why have a Fluorescent Orange rule at all? ? Wear it only if you see the "NEED".... Your idea of making it mandatory to add hunters orange to blinds is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. If you feel that strongly about making everyone safe in the field then why not try and pass regulations on the #1 cause of hunter accidents? Lets see, pop-up blinds have been popular for around 10 years now and not one hunting accident has been reported in Indiana due to another hunter not seeing the person in the blind because there was no hunters orange displayed, so now we need a new regulation because as we all know a hunting accident while in un-marked blind is going to happen. On the other hand, hunters falling out of tree stands and being killed and crippled happens several times each year and not one regulation is being pushed to stopped that from happening........... give me a break! ::)h.h.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Aug 9, 2009 15:23:21 GMT -5
I agree with Woody.. I do however, have my daughter put an orange cap on the tree limb above the blind so we know it's occupied during deer firearms season only..I also do the same becuase our blind is on a property fenceline in a thicket and I'm afraid of someone coming down the fenceline from the other side shooting at deer towards our blind that cannot be seen..I think we're smart enough as Hunters to evaluate the situation and act accordingly without having the State mandate...Some things you just have to use common sense...a blanket approach like Woody stated wouldn't be good becuase it doesn't consider all the variables that apply...I mean let's face facts Ping Pong if more dangerous than hunting according to statistics...If it ain't broke don't fix it..You can't sterilize hunting or anything to the point there is never going to be an accident, reagardless fo what it is..I think we have a great track record considering how many take to the woods every year..IMO
|
|