Bow hunter fatally shot in San Juan National Forest

[TOGIE]

i don't see how he has a case, but i guess lawyers would never have clients if they weren't able to convince people they do have a case.

i can imagine the prosecutor now:

"per the defendants written statement, he claimed to have seen white in the trees and decided to shoot at it. ladies and gentleman of the jury, do you see any stark white colors on this animal in any more than marginal amounts, if at all?



case closed. what a scumbag.

 

[nrpate05]

Bullshit, post the statute that says a non-consumptive user of crown land has to wear blaze orange.

I'd have to agree, although I can't speak for Canada. I don't think the state wildlife agency has the authority to require non-consumptive users to wear orange, or manage non-consumptive users in any way (other than on state wildlife property). We've seen this in the shed hunting debate. The state agency can tell shed hunters that it is illegal to pick up sheds at certain times of the year, but can't say it is illegal to mountain bike at certain times of the year, as that falls outside of their purview.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'd have to agree, although I can't speak for Canada. I don't think the state wildlife agency has the authority to require non-consumptive users to wear orange, or manage non-consumptive users in any way (other than on state wildlife property). We've seen this in the shed hunting debate. The state agency can tell shed hunters that it is illegal to pick up sheds at certain times of the year, but can't say it is illegal to mountain bike at certain times of the year, as that falls outside of their purview.

I think the Canadian Gov or USFS whichever the case could require blaze during hunting season on their lands, but not the state/province game and fish.

So your telling me, during Nov folks in Ontario are required by law to wear blaze while walking around in their yard? Give me a break.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I think the Canadian Gov or USFS whichever the case could require blaze during hunting season on their lands, but not the state/province game and fish.

So your telling me, during Nov folks in Ontario are required by law to wear blaze while walking around in their yard? Give me a break.

Their yard, is their yard, not crown land. The presumption is that no one is hunting their private land but themselves.
This is a welfare state and the people here generally accept regulations that are intended to look out for their welfare. Making everyone in the bush wear orange during hunting season instead of just the "consumptive" ones with loaded guns seems to make some sense to me. If the consumptive ones were only a danger to each other then it might be a different matter. But the archery hunter in camo who was shot could have just as easily been someone on a bike wearing brown or black clothing: a "nonconsumptive" user of the public forest. It's for this reason I have always opposed mandatory hunter orange. It encourages recklessness because it encourages hunters to rely on it to ascertain safe targets. Happily, it is not required in Africa. Seems it's not required in Alaska either but I may be wrong.

 

[OntarioHunter]

I'd have to agree, although I can't speak for Canada. I don't think the state wildlife agency has the authority to require non-consumptive users to wear orange, or manage non-consumptive users in any way (other than on state wildlife property). We've seen this in the shed hunting debate. The state agency can tell shed hunters that it is illegal to pick up sheds at certain times of the year, but can't say it is illegal to mountain bike at certain times of the year, as that falls outside of their purview.

Regulating shed hunting is not about safety. It's about resource management. Apples and oranges.

 

[Bigjay73]

Bullshit, post the statute that says a non-consumptive user of crown land has to wear blaze orange.

You're starting to sound like Buzz

 

[TOGIE]

Regulating shed hunting is not about safety. It's about resource management. Apples and oranges.

missing the point. the point is about legal authority.

 

[OntarioHunter]

i don't see how he has a case, but i guess lawyers would never have clients if they weren't able to convince people they do have a case.

i can imagine the prosecutor now:

"per the defendants written statement, he claimed to have seen white in the trees and decided to shoot at it. ladies and gentleman of the jury, do you see any stark white colors on this animal in any more than marginal amounts, if at all?

View attachment 209943

case closed. what a scumbag.

He's trying to delay the case till he can get an expert on board, presumably one that can verify the victim's flesh tone face resembled a bull elk's golden hide. Sounds like he's having trouble finding that expert and the judge is not inclined to wait any longer for such a ridiculous fishing expedition. Hope his honor is not jeopardizing a conviction.

 

[OntarioHunter]

missing the point. the point is about legal authority.

No, you're missing the point. Govt has the legal authority to require ALL of us to be on the same page when driving vehicles (e.g. no impairment, slow school zones, etc.) because public safety is at stake. So, why is using the woods during hunting season any different? You MIGHT be able to legally drive around on your own property drunk, but not on public property. Up here I seriously doubt it's legal even on private property because the public has to pick up the bill for hospitalization after an accident. Why should I have to pay for someone else's recklessness?

 

[TOGIE]

No, you're missing the point. Govt has the legal authority to require ALL of us to be on the same page when driving vehicles (e.g. no impairment, slow school zones, etc.) because public safety is at stake. So, why is using the woods during hunting season any different? You MIGHT be able to legally drive around on your own property drunk, but not on public property. Up here I seriously doubt it's legal even on private property because the public has to pick up the bill for hospitalization after an accident. Why should I have to pay for someone else's recklessness?

You hittin the bottle early today?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You're starting to sound like Buzz

I'm taking that as high praise, Buzz knows his shit, you don't often... or ever catch him wrong on regulations.

 

[S-3 Ranch]

It’s negligent homicide / manslaughter,
a idiot in a sea of idiots , everyone running around blowing calls on public land (#1 blows a bugle #’s 2-30 return a cow call , ect)
I am waiting for next year when a archery hunter shoots a muzzle loader hunter

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Their yard, is their yard, not crown land. The presumption is that no one is hunting their private land but themselves.
This is a welfare state and the people here generally accept regulations that are intended to look out for their welfare. Making everyone in the bush wear orange during hunting season instead of just the "consumptive" ones with loaded guns seems to make some sense to me. If the consumptive ones were only a danger to each other then it might be a different matter. But the archery hunter in camo who was shot could have just as easily been someone on a bike wearing brown or black clothing: a "nonconsumptive" user of the public forest. It's for this reason I have always opposed mandatory hunter orange. It encourages recklessness because it encourages hunters to rely on it to ascertain safe targets. Happily, it is not required in Africa. Seems it's not required in Alaska either but I may be wrong.

Nope, not weaseling out of this one.

If there was a statute for non-consumptive users it would be in the code for the province. Ontario Fish and Wildlife do not have the authority to regulate non-hunting activities on crown land.
Where is the law? https://www.ontario.ca/laws

Blaze rules are part of the Wild Life code ONTARIO REGULATION 665/98, and even those rules don't require all hunters to wear blaze. For instance, waterfowl, small game, and archery hunters hunting big game during the bear rifle season don't have to wear blaze.

You can't make factually inaccurate statements and call people commies.

 

[elkduds]

Delaying trial as long as possible almost always benefits the defendant, and is a standard ploy of defense attorneys. I appreciate the judge calling BS on that.

 

[Bigjay73]

I'm taking that as high praise, Buzz knows his shit, you don't often... or ever catch him wrong on regulations.

I cannot argue with that

 

[COEngineer]

You can't make factually inaccurate statements and call people commies.

I think he was calling Coloradans Individualists (or whatever is the opposite of Communist), i.e. free people. Commies are the ones that tell you what is good for you and make you pay for it too. Americans still have the right to shoot each other and then assign blame in court

 

[OntarioHunter]

Nope, not weaseling out of this one.

If there was a statute for non-consumptive users it would be in the code for the province. Ontario Fish and Wildlife do not have the authority to regulate non-hunting activities on crown land.
Where is the law? https://www.ontario.ca/laws

Blaze rules are part of the Wild Life code ONTARIO REGULATION 665/98, and even those rules don't require all hunters to wear blaze. For instance, waterfowl, small game, and archery hunters hunting big game during the bear rifle season don't have to wear blaze.

You can't make factually inaccurate statements and call people commies.

During rifle season archery hunters have to wear orange as soon as they step down out of the tree blind ... unless the regs have changed recently. I'll check on that. A few years back I was warned by a CO that walking back into a wooded swamp during rifle season to jump shoot ducks in camo might constitute a violation ... might being the key word. I wouldn't go back in there until leaves were off the trees. For some reason I've never been able to figure out, there's never been many deer or moose in that area although it seems to be excellent habitat. Doesn't get hunted a lot.

Edit: The regs have not changed. All hunters of anything in the woods during rifle season must be orange unless archery for bear in tree stand. As I read it even archery for deer in a tree stand must be orange but that doesn't make sense. Do bears see orange better than deer? So how does a CO know if a camo waterfowl hunter with a shotgun isn't really after deer? Interesting question. Since lead slugs and buckshot are illegal for waterfowl, a check of hunter's ammo might tell the tale. However, I do routinely carry a slug or two in my coat when goose hunting because so many bears are in the area. They hide in the standing corn while I'm shooting birds from the edge. The buggers will stay in it till the last rows are being cut with combine. I haven't bought a bear license in my life. If I ever shoot one, it will be from necessity.

Several years ago, maybe twenty, a buddy and I were "warned" about the "requirement" for wearing orange while cutting firewood for trapper's cabin. I took the CO at his word that everyone had to be orange. Guess I shouldn't have. Now that I think about it, we had a .22 on the snow machine for dispatching animals in snares. I guess that qualified.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

During rifle season archery hunters have to wear orange as soon as they step down out of the tree blind ... unless the regs have changed recently. I'll check on that. A few years back I was warned by a CO that walking back into a wooded swamp during rifle season to jump shoot ducks in camo might constitute a violation ... might being the key word. I wouldn't go back in there until leaves were off the trees. For some reason I've never been able to figure out, there's never been many deer or moose in that area although it seems to be excellent habitat. Doesn't get hunted a lot.

I'm not seeing a link to a statute for berry pickers wearing orange.

 

[TheTone]

How often does anyone go in an plead guilty to a felony? Any chance of a plea or working out a judgment isn’t going to happen if you plead guilty at initial appearance

 

[COEngineer]

How often does anyone go in an plead guilty to a felony? Any chance of a plea or working out a judgment isn’t going to happen if you plead guilty at initial appearance

My impression, based on exhaustive research (I have watched at least two episodes of Law & Order), is that if there is going to be a plea deal, it is agreed to (lawyers figure it out and the judge approves/denies it) before the court appearance. Then, once the trial starts, the chance of a deal goes way down and is only discussed if there is new evidence/testimony that changes the calculus. Maybe someone with actual experience will chime in - everyone on the internet is a lawyer as I understand it.