Bear Hunter Shoots Hiker in Washington State

Steve O,

You know, at this point I want to let this die…I really do…but every time you guys try to make a point you're reinforcing the ones I have made. There are far, far more people out there shooting at animals because they find it to be good entertainment then there are living off the efforts of their hunts. Sure, many (most) hunters might bring some of that venison home to throw in the freezer but that's not why they're hunting. If you think every hunter, or even a majority, is out there hunting to cull the local population (arguably necessary to replace the predators that were virtually eliminated as a result more human-wilderness 'interaction' of the same sort that is now being defended here) or to supplement their diets with 'ethically' claimed protein then you are deluding yourself. Now, I cannot claim to know thousands of hunters from different locations so I can perform a reliable study but I do know B.S. when I smell it and this 'most hunters kill to protect this or help that' argument is steeped in it.

What about the statements made more than once here by pro hunting advocates that animals don't have rights? This seems to be followed closely by the postulate that hunting is more 'ethical' than traditionally raised and slaughtered food stock. But by the former argument the latter is invalidated; it does not matter how animals are treated en route to my dinner table because they don't have a soul capable of salvation.

As for the source of my meat? It's the same as most of my food- I buy local, from local farmers, wherever possible. I am fortunate enough to have a local grocer that stocks produce and meat raised by local farmers. Truth be told, I support this grocer more for economic reasons than PETA-induced guilt. Is every steak I eat grown free range and slaughtered quickly and cleanly? No, certainly not. However even if I shopped exclusively at MegaMart, where every dead animal husk on the shelf was obtained from a colossal corporate farm straight out of Ingrid Newkirk's worst nightmares, would that make my steaks evil? Do hunters really care about this? Well, lets examine this, then- how many of this breed of ethically-motivated backcountry poachers you are identifying eat 100% of the time their own catch, never dining at a restaurant or buying a single slab of bacon at the supermarket? I don't think I will attract too many arguments if I say next to none. So, part time animal heroes then, swooping into the local hunting grounds to save a few white tails from chronic wasting disease or BT? That smacks of hypocrisy to me. The argument that hunters are doing animals a favor seems to be holding less water. Is it possible that they are only doing their egos a favor by attempting to justify their hobby? That is a perfectly normal human reaction; we all do it to a certain extent when our interests are at stake.

so glad to live in a country that has free speech. my husband hunts deer every fall. we do eat the meat. it's extremely heathy. we also stock our freezer with fish. people that eat meat, but complain about people hunting just use a different form of slaughter. their "credit cards"……p.s. he makes sure he has a clean shot before firing, so the animal doesn't suffer.

The papers I read say the area was clear with no trees or obstructions to vision, the fog was light, they said that they had the target in the crosshairs of the scope, she was shot in the head, she was shot from 120 yards away.

I don't believe the hunter ever genuinely mistook the hiker for a bear.

yes, there was no excuse for this young man shooting the hiker. as i said before in earlier post, you just don't go walking in the woods during hunting season, orange vest or not. common sense helps, too…it's a shame it happened. now the young man will have to live with it the rest of his life.

"you just don't go walking in the woods during hunting season, orange vest or not"

Ah, so it was the hiker's fault the young man couldn't tell the difference between a bear and a human through a telescopic sight.

So what gives 'hunters' more right to use the wilderness than hikers? Was this fatal shooting victim not on a recognised trail?

"yes, there was no excuse for this young man shooting the hiker. as i said before in earlier post, you just don't go walking in the woods during hunting season, orange vest or not. common sense helps, too…it's a shame it happened. now the young man will have to live with it the rest of his life."

I'm not sure I'm following everything you're saying here Victoria. Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems you're implying that because the woman took a hike during hunting season, she's to blame for a lifetime of guilt the boy may experience. I've got that wrong, don't I?

no rog. where did i say it was the hikers fault? common sense tells most people that during 3 week hunting season(at lest up here in minnesota),we just don't go walking in the woods. i respect the hunter rights to hunt during that time…i feel terrible it happened..i feel sorry for the womans family and the young man…p.s. yes you do have that wrong, russel…guess i'm not good at getting my points across…

common sense tells most people that during 3 week hunting season(at lest up here in minnesota),we just don't go walking in the woods. i respect the hunter rights to hunt during that time…

Hmm, okay. I'm beginning to see the logic and the justification for the woman's death: Because she went hiking without "common sense" during the hunting season then she deserved what she got. It was of course inevitable, because hunters truly have to hunt; hunting is more valuable during those three weeks than a woman's life. And of course everyone knows that during hunting season there simply isn't any possibility of some unknowing child or someone's dog wandering off into the hunting zone, right? Hunters shouldn't have to be inconvenienced by such unlikely occurrences, right? If, however, a hunter had hunted off season and the woman had "sensibly" gotten herself killed then, then what the hunter did was just plain wrong. I get it.

Let me see if I can twist the argument into another angle: what if that hunter had gone walking in an area where that woman, during some area's "climbing season" which she needed a permit for, was rock climbing. And she, without adequate training, had climbed into a portion of rock that wasn't stable and let loose a rock slide that killed the innocent hunter. Would she be more or less responsible? After all it was rock climbing season and she had the right to climb those rocks. Everyone knows that you don't go walking under those rocks when the rock climbers are climbing, right? With so many people's arguments here there seems to be no need for that woman to have been better trained and that hunter should not have been walking where he did. Never mind that the boy was dead. It's important to continue the rock climbing at all costs, with no review of the safety of the whole situation.

Of course all of this easily spills over into the city, too. If that woman had visited New York for the first time and by accident wandered into the Bronx and gotten killed by a young boy who didn't have enough training with his gun she was at fault for not knowing that the area she had wandered into was dangerous. Everyone would agree with me on that, right?

Am I getting it right? The woman's death does have a justification and excuse somewhere, right? And there really isn't any need for anything to be done, right? I just love the rationalizations. Basically anything is okay if you think you have a right to it.

___________________

Forgot to add. Back in the late eighties the wife of a friend of mine who lived in Maine was out in her back yard hanging up bed sheets during hunting season. Some hunter mistook the white of the bed sheets for a white-tailed deer's tail flicking up and shot without confirming what he'd seen. My friend's wife was killed. The whole incident was taken to court and, unbelievably, the man who'd killed the woman was absolved and let go, with the citing that the woman should have been wearing blaze orange. Yep! In her own back yard, blaze orange. Makes perfect sense to me!

Victoria wrote:

"common sense tells most people that during 3 week hunting season… we just don't go walking in the woods."

I can only think of one way to read this statement. That any one who is out hiking in the wilderness lacks common sense, i.e. is stupid. That sure sounds like blaming the victim to me.

My common sense tells me that any one who chooses to carry a gun and use it in the wilderness is fully responsible for their actions. If they shoot another human being, it is just that: a choice and killing a person by choice is called murder. Any equivocating about flag orange or common sense to not use the wilderness during hunting season is blaming the victim and excusing the criminal.

I just watched Ray Mear's program on DVD. He tracks and shoots a deer. There is no question in his mind about what he is shooting at.

What's the problem with correctly identifying the quarry before pulling the trigger? Seems like a common sense thing to do.

Clearly the three week hunting season over in Minnisota is a time when the red mist descends and young men don't pause long enough to check the species of animal they have in their telescopic sights.

Common sense tells me such people shouldn't be carrying rifles. Sorry if that judgement sounds harsh, and no offense intended to Victoria, but really, real hunters don't make these sorts of mistakes. With lethal weapons, there is no room for from the hip quick draw action.

How many people eat bear anyway?

i never said the young man wasn't responsible. it was also the womans choice to go walking in the woods during that time of year. i can see both sides of the issue, because my husband enjoys hunting and i enjoy hiking. just because i choose not to hunt, i don't deny him his right to hunt. we all enjoy different activities. he wouldn't go on a hike because he just wouldn't enjoy it, but he would never tell me to stay out the woods when i go by myself because i might get hurt. we all take some risks with everything in life. but like i said i would not go for a hike up here during hunting season. it's 3 weeks long. i think i can manage to not hike for that short of time..for me, it is common sense. sorry if others don't see it that way..i certainly wouldn't force others to my way of thinking…

Based on the following statewide information, could you reasonably determine when and where it is and is not safe to hike?

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/2008tags/index.html

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/deermaps.html

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/waterfowl/docs/SummaryOf502Regs.pdf

Then, what would you advise a backpacker from another state, or another country?

As a side note, just because it's not hunting season it doesn't mean there's nobody with a rifle or bow and arrow in the woods.

Rog,

Spot on about identifying what it is before pulling the trigger. In Scotland deer shooting happens throughout set times during the year. I don't recall any backpacker getting shot. When I have talked with game keepers (hunters) they don't seem to worry that walkers will get shot as they can spot the difference between deer and humans.

i guess i would find out beforehand if it was hunting season in the area i wish to hike. it's called responsiblity. also, yes, there could be some nut case out there other times of the year. that doesn't make all hunters evil. it was an extremely tragic thing that happened. let's not forget that.

I don't see two sides to this story.

The state grants a hunter permission to roam public lands with a loaded gun, and a license to kill. The hunter accepts responsibility for the safe use of the firearm.

There is no contract between the state and the general populace to postpone their hiking so that others can hunt the public lands using a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality.

I don't see how anyone can say the hiker is at fault, even if only partially.

i don't think anyone ever said the hiker was at fault. i certainly didn't say that. also most hunters are very responsible. yes, there are, like i said,a few nut cases who obviously should not be allowed to carry guns. there's also criminals who shouldn't be carrying a gun, but they do. the few bad apples, hunters included, shouldn't dictate what the rest of the responsible citizens do..

Rick — I suppose the links you list are cited to show that figuring out open hunting dates and locations can be very difficult due to complex regs. True enough. Most folks who go hunting responsibly must also struggle with those complex rules, and mostly appear do so successfully.

For those of us who hunt infrequently or even not at all, and are both unfamiliar with complex regs for open seasons and can't figure out the published information, there is an easy solution: place a call to the government agency that has jurisdiction for enforcing wildlife regulations in the location that's being considered for a backpacking trip, and ask a live person at that agency whether the planned time/location for the backpacking trip coincides with any hunting season in that same area.

Which agency to contact? I'd start with a call to the state agency that enforces game laws for that state.

I also expect that, for national forests and wilderness areas in the United States, the folks at a ranger station for the U.S. Forest Service or the BLM for the district that's being considered for a backpacking trip can provide information about open seasons within their district.

Learning about time & location of hunting seasons in an area being considered for a backpacking trip seems no more difficult than checking the weather forecast, geographical features, bear issues, recent problems with vandalism, the requirements for permits, limitations of party size, fire restrictions, and all the other factors that should be researched when planning a backpacking trip.

Personally, I wouldn't take a backpacking trip in an area when there's an open hunting season in that area. Even when fired by a cautious hunter who believes there is no one in the line of fire (or, at least, no one who can be seen), a high-powered rifle bullet can travel a long way.

Instead, I'd wait until the hunting season is closed in that area, or go somewhere else where the hunting season isn't open, or go to a state park or national park where hunting is totally banned.

Unfortunately, there are always some irresponsible types for whom the reckless discharge of a firearm is a habit or at least due to a lack of proper training. There are also some reckless idiots for whom the existence of seasons and locations designated for hunting really doesn't matter one bit, and they shoot recklessly anywhere and anytime.

It would seem beyond dispute that gun-toting fools create a risk which cannot be blamed on the majority of those who hunt in a responsible manner. Seems to be an important distinction, except to those who unfairly blame the many for the few to support opposition to any and all hunting.

JRS

thank you richard for putting into words that of which, i guess, i could not….

I am truly surprised this thread is continuing.

It is not the responsibility of the hiker to assure that they don't get shot by a hunter. It is 100% the responsibility of the hunter not to shoot the hiker or other hunter. There should be no need check on hunting seasons or any other precautions. Any suggestion that a hiker needs to do this is suggesting that the hiker is at least partly responsible to assure that they don't get shot and partially responsible when if they do get shot. Wrong. Responsibility lies 100% on the person who pulls the trigger.

…at least in Maryland, where I live. I am currently compiling a spreadsheet listing all the dates throughout the calendar year during which some form of hunting is legal. So far, almost every day from January 1 through about mid-August are slated as dates where some type of game is permitted to be hunted with firearms on state managed hunting lands (i.e. almost every area in MD that has publicly accessible hiking trails outside of the 42-mile stretch of the AT).

I have only considered waterfowl, whitetail deer, and a few small mammals. I still have yet to look at dates during which it is allowable to hunt all small and large game mammals (with the exception of whitetail deer). Before the naysayers start to express opinions to the contrary, there are many wetlands located within other hiking area where one may very well encounter a hunter who intends to bag waterfowl.

If anyone wants to finish the spreadsheet for me, or check my findings, feel free to reference the MD DNR website calendar here- http://www.dnr.state.md.us/huntersguide/2008_2009_Seasons_Bag_Limits.asp.

At this point, my hiking season seems to have dwindled to about 120 'safe' days, during which when I can feel free hoist my pack without impinging upon a hunter's rights to freely wield his firearm fully in the name of keeping our roads safe from rogue deer, or whatever.

Nia,
I agree completely. The onus is upon the hunter to use the weapon responsibly. But… I also agree with Richard. It's not a requirement, but making those calls gives you a better idea of what your risk is for a given day.
I go to work at the same time a lot of other people do ("driving season"). My risk for having a car accident would be much less at 11pm, when there are fewer people with killing machines on the interstate. Each driver is responsible for their actions, but knowing your amount of risk may suggest alternate times/routes to better increase chances for safe travel.

See ya on the trail !
when ya come out of your safe room that is!

Hi Chris,

Oh yeah. I'm not stupid. I try very hard not to be on the trail when the hunter's are out.

But here's my problem. The same people are saying it's a tiny minority of hunter's who cause problems while at the same time saying the risk is so great that one would be a fool to go hiking during hunting season. To me if the chances of getting killed are high enough to avoid the wilderness altogether than there are far too many dangerous hunters out there to say it's an insignificant minority.

One more thing. In the US there is a right to bear arms. But there is no corresponding right to fire on public lands. That makes hunting a privilege. And a privilege that can be taken away at any time. I think if hunters (and their parents) started treating the sport as a privilege and not a right we would all be a lot safer on the trails.

"One more thing. In the US there is a right to bear arms. But there is no corresponding right to fire on public lands. That's a privilege. And a privilege that can be taken away at any time. I think if hunters (and there parents) started treating the sport as a privilege and not a right we would all be a lot safer."

I couldn't disagree more, Nia.

A little background: I am a complete vegan with the rare exception of meat taken through hunting or fishing by myself or close friends. This is something I take very seriously- As a tradition, as a means of self-reliance, as a way of life, as an ethical issue. Whether it's with a gun, bow, rod and reel, whatever- I do not want my ability to go out and secure my own food to be relegated to the status of "privilege". If we must eat to live then no person should have the right to deny us that. Eating is a right, and a fundamental one in my opinion.

I will respect seasons. I will respect bag limits, size limits, tag limits and all safety issues related to hunting or fishing.
But I will not respect anyone who says it is not my right to feed myself without going to the store.
It is about being connected to the land and to one's food.

That is something I feel few people understand about hunting and fishing. Have you ever had the satisfaction of eating a tomato when you labored to sprout a seed, plant it, grow it, water it?
To me, it is the same.

I think our bodies and our land would be quite a bit better off if your argument went the other way. Maybe driving on down to your local mega-mart to buy some meat trucked halfway across the country from a factory/feedlot should be the privilege, not the right (as your argument suggests). Maybe it should be viewed as a privilege to not have to labor to kill and butcher your animals. But who cares right? It's not an animal, it's a clean cut, no mess, no effort, nicely wrapped and handed to you by your smiling grocer.
Are you suggesting that stores should be the only places to get one's food?

When I hunt, it is to eat.
When I fish, it is to eat.
How is this not a right?

Is this how disconnected people are becoming from their landbase, from their food?

As far as the accident described and this whole dilemma, the person that pulls the trigger is the only one responsible for for what their bullet hits. Any hunting safety or firearms class will tell you that.
Was the shooter an idiot? Deranged? Incompetent?

Probably.

So are most of the drivers that cause the 45,000+ deaths per year in the U.S.

Hi Craig,

I fully appreciate the joy of being involved in the full cycle of life, food, and death.

I both grow tomatoes and have fished since I was 3 years old. I include fishing in virtually everyone of my backpacking trips, counting about 40 trout that I cought, cleaned, cooked and ate during 20 days on the JMT last year. They were pretty small, but still very tasty. :)

I see no moral difference between fishing and hunting. If my dad was a hunter I probably would be to. Instead we fished. So it goes.

I take pleasure and satisfaction in the kill of both fish and tomato. That doesn't mean I don't acknowledge and appreciate the involuntary sacrifice of the other that I make when I kill.

You ask when a right is not right.

When I was growing up in Oregon we had two main ocean fisheries: salmon and rock fish. We have now virtually destroyed both these fisheries and the have been closed for numbers of years. Now I personally didn't catch that many of these fish. If nobody took more than I did over the last 20 years then these fisheries would likely thrive today. Instead they have been closed for the last number of years.

I could say I lost the right to fish for salmon and rockfish because of the irresponsible overfishing of others. But I realize that I was a part of the destruction of the fishery and the regulations are necessary to protect the resource. If the fisheries would open both would likely be extinct.

To be legalistic, there is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing my right to fish for salmon. As such either states or the feds are free to regulate in any way they see fit. And in this case did the right thing and shut it down for now.

The strength of the United States is that in virtually all cases we default to allowing any and all privileges. And where there are regulations we try to do the minimally intrusive thing. The only times in my opinion it is reasonable to regulate is when the activity causes harm or denies the same or similar privileges to others.

As such hunting is already regulated. Hunting is prohibited in most cities. The chances of killing someone is far too high to make this reasonable.

And now we get back to the point I was trying to make and that Chris I think I ignored. To me it sounds totally illogical to defend the current regulations while at the same time agreeing with common knowledge that it is fairly dangerous to go hiking during hunting season.

In taking the rights perspective it is claimed unreasonable to expect me to be responsible in any way by the foolishness of others. If they screw up that's there responsibility. But it shouldn't have any effect on me.

But the reality is that we live in a community and are effected by the actions of everyone. When a few idiot backpackers fail to tend their fire properly we all face greater restrictions on generating heat in the wilderness even though none of "us" was at fault. This is good and necessary to protect the wilderness.

When a few idiot hunters shoot a few people in the head, why is it unreasonable to make additional restrictions to protect human life. Is one man's "right" to hunt greater than another's right to breathe?

p.s. Did I say ban? No.