Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

     Yep, it's going to be another media fiasco. I watched the local
    (Portland, Maine) station last night and the story came off as "hunters
    vs. non-hunters". 
     Even my wife, who is in a neutral position in guns/hunting saw through
    this hype. Several times I've become angry when the news is "reporting"
    some act of violence and has a picture of a gun plastered on the
    screen. Even if it's a stabbing fer cryin out loud.
     Personally, I can't help but feel that hunters and shooters are
    responsible for where their bullets go and what they do. A flash of
    white, a moving bush, the noise of a snapping twig, or a combination of
    all of these still should never constitute a safe target. One of the
    shoot/don't shoot sceneraios seen in the hunter safety course is some
    dummy carrying a deer out of the woods on his shoulders. No orange,
    nothing. All you see is a flash of the tail, an eye and nose of the deer,
    and movement.
     I wonder if this guy was using his scope instead of binoculars?
    Another pet peeve of mine. In this particular case, the wardens
    searched for hours looking for sign of deer, and didn't see as much as
    a single print. There was, however, a relatively unobstructed view of
    both the house and the position of the woman where she was shot.
     *I* wouldn't want to be in the same county as this guy when he's
    "hunting".
    
    
     Bob

    RE:0
    I saw the story about a year ago. Anyone who would defend the hunter
    doesn't belong in the woods with a gun themselves. The guy shot her
    while looking through a scope. To tell you the truth, I felt there
    was more to the story than a hunters mistake. I can't believe that
    he could have mistaken her for a deer. 

    Jim

    20 years is getting off easy in my eyes.
    
    Mark.

    Murder is murder.  I can't see how anyone  mistake a human being for a
    deer.  I don't care if I do see white, or what looks like a nose, if
    it's not a deer don't shoot.  Unfortunately, it is hunters like that
    that give hunting a bad name to the media.  I wish someone would really
    do a special on the benefits of hunters.
    
    The hunter should have got alot more than 20 years, with no parole!
    
    Bob
    (10 days and counting!)
    

    
    Its about time the prosecuted this bozo, if I remember correctly, they
    originally were letting him off. The basic attitude of the community
    was that it was the womens fault. They felt she should have known
    better that to go outside with white mittens on.
    
    In my opinion the guy made a mistake, someone died from it, isn't this 
    the definition of negligent homocide?  He should get what ever the
    penalty for that is, if its 20 years then that what he should get.
    
    He should not be allowed to hunt again, he has proved that he does not
    act responsibly while hunting, he showed blatant disregard for the laws
    by being so close to the houses, as well as disregard for the
    "unwritten laws" of hunting: no you target, know where the bullet is 
    going to go if you miss etc.
    
    --Bob
    

    A OCCASIONAL READER CHECKS IN WITH A OPINION....
    
    The hunters "defense" appears to be that Mrs. White should not have
    been in HER YARD, Wearing WHITE Mittens, with no blaze orange
    on..during the hunting season.....and it is total BS...
    
    No defense at all.....Twenty sounds good and plenty to me...specially
    for a "outastater"......but given his ridiculous attempts to get off
    on the grounds that it was her fault..fourty would be even better.
    
    I am sure it'll be barganed down to negligent manslaughter, the guy'll
    get 7 years with six suspended, lose his Maine hunting priveledge forever
    and get out in 60 days on good behaviour and be back hunting in New
    Jersey next week....!
    
    Yes, it is being made into a hunter vs nonhunter issue but only by the
    hipacritical radical anti hunting/fishing/killing/eating gang...who
    consider Maines hunting tradition barbaric..... A unfortunate case of
    negligence on th hunters part.....
    
     Just noting
    
      E
    
    
    

    
    re;6
    The hunter was a local yocal from that area of Main.

    Jim

    
    Something occured to me that may be relevant to the hunter/anti-hunter 
    angle. 
    
    The story I read about this when it happened stated that the husband of 
    the lady killed is a hunter. It went on to state that in his opinion,
    the shooter made alot of mistakes and should be punished, but this in 
    noway should reflect hunters in general and he personally will
    keep on hunting.
    
    The out-of-stater people may be thinking of is the family who had the 
    mother/wife killed. They had recently moved into Maine, which appeared
    to be the main defense, that they aren't from here so its her fault for
    not wearing orange.
    
    --Bob
    

    
    They said last night the the couple had moved to Maine from Iowa
    and after the tradgety the father took the kids back to Iowa to
    live. They are however in Maine for the trial.
    
                                         Walt

   Theres got to be more to this! No one is that stupid (maybe?)!
I 've met a man who shot his best friend while hunting. He's now a safety 
training director. His contention is that sometimes a person wants a deer so bad
is so psyched that the mind wishes the object into reality from a mere noise,
movement, or white flag. Sounds kind of bizarre but the mind is pretty powerful
and messy. The message he kept hammering away during safety training is to
verify verify verify your game. Has anyone else heard of this mind game? 

    Yes, I have heard of this "mind game"; It has and does occur
    here in Colo.;  There are people who are SO HARD-UP for a KILL, that
    they become a very BIG LIABILITY too everyone, including his/herself.
    The person/hunter made a very Big mistake by not identifying his
    target, as well as not knowing what lay behind the trajectory of the
    bullet.  I feel this individaul should be punished, but my question is
    "The punishment that WILL be issued, will it be "fair"; And what I mean
    by this..Is the punishment going to be more severe, than say Joe Blow
    unintentionally killing somebody in a holdup, or drug deal gone awry?
    
    Will the punishment be more severe because the person was a hunter, and
    was hunting in a negligent manner?
    
    
    REMEBER:  ALWAYS, ALWAYS identify your target, and know whats in the 
    general area behind the target.
    
    
    Jeff  

    
    RE .7....oh..ok..I got her name wrong too.....
    
    I was sure the Kennebec Journal said he was from away....but then thats
    
    the chance you take when you read the Journal....;*)....
    
    LAst time I'll be over here...;*).
    
    E
    
    

I read the story about a year ago. At that time they were talking about
letting the guy go. I am glad that they changed their mind because this guy
is dangerous. Even if he did not see the woman it his hard to miss seeing
a house and a back yard. To shoot at things in someone elses back yard is
irresponsible, to shoot towards a house is irresponsible,
to shoot at a white flicker in someones back yard and then discover that it
was a person is murder. To show no remorse and blame the dead person is worth 
doubling the sentence.
    
$0.02 from a hunter

    
    
     re .12 Hey Ed, don't take it so personally :-)
    
     IMHO I really believe that Donald Rogerson (the accused "hunter")
    should have been tried when this first happened. A grand jury refused
    to indict him, citing no evidence of criminal negligence. It was 
    discovered some time later that there were certain irregularities 
    concerning the grand jury that heard the case. The case went before
    another grand jury, which then handed down the indictment.
     
     I'm sorry, but there is no excuse for what he did. Mistakes can be
    made...accidents will happen, but to shoot at a flicker of white is
    a violation of every written and unwritten code of hunting. I don't
    care if he was 10 miles from the nearest dwelling. You *never* shoot
    unless you are sure , sure , sure of your target and beyond.
     I say all that as a Maine certified hunter safety instructor. When 
    instructing a class I use Rogerson as an example of stupid, irresponsible 
    hunter behavior. I always tell my classes that they are the future of 
    hunting....that their behavior and safe and ethical use of firearms and 
    the wildlife resource will determine whether or not their children will 
    be able to enjoy it. If many more idiots like him take to the woods
    then Fund for Animals, PETA, Greenpeace etc. can sit back and relax.
    
     He should do time for what he did. He should never be allowed
    *anywhere* with a loaded gun again. He is obviously a menace.
    
    Ok, I'll get down off my soapbox now. 
    

    I don't want anyone to get me wrong on this, because I am in no way
trying to defend this guy. 

    Calling what he did, murder, is wrong. He did not murder that woman, 
manslaughter "YES". He should do time for what he did, but 20 years is a 
bit much. What he did was very stupid and irresponsible, but to send him
to prison for 20 years? He will have to live the rest of his life with what 
he did. I personally would rather be dead myself than live with something 
like that. What he did is inexcusable, let the punishment fit the crime but
the crime is not murder.

    This gives hunting a black mark that most hunters go into the woods and 
shoot at anything and everything that moves (not true). He should never be 
allowed to hunt with a firearm again. He has proven that he is unable to 
handle a firearm safely. It is very unfortunate that someone was killed 
because he made a mistake.

    The fact that he is trying to blame her for the accident is an attempt
on his part to stay out of prison. People should not have to fear for their
lives when out in the woods during hunting season. You should not have to 
wear blaze orange while hiking, camping, bird watching or any other out door
activity just because it is hunting season. Good hunters are very safety 
conscious about the identification of their target, the area around and 
behind their target at all times.


    Before I get hammered for my opinion here are the facts.


    MURDER: The unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of a person.

    MALICIOUS: Having, showing, or caused by malice (desire to harm another);
               spiteful.

    PREMEDITATED: To plan or think out beforehand.

    MANSLAUGHTER: The killing of a human being by another, when unlawful but
                  without malice.

    1.  He did not have a desire to harm that woman.
 
    2.  He did not plan it out beforehand.

    3.  He did kill another human being without malice.

   
                                  Jim

    
    I think what will happen is that he will be found guilty of involuntary 
    manslaughter, and given 2-5 in the pen. Since he will be a convicted 
    felon he will be unable to own/carry firearms therefore he
    won't be able to hunt. I think we all agree that this guy messed
    up real bad and is making all of us look bad. 
                                                 
                                                 Walt

    re .15:  Good argument, but I would add that his punishment (if he's
    convicted) should also deter others from making the same mistake.
    
    Mark.

          With a review of a felons case he can apply for a permit to 
    have in possession a firearm

    re .18 I believe a convicted felon would need a Presidential
    pardon to escape the federal laws around this.

    re .11
    I think the theory that Larry is refering too is not that people
    don't identify the game carefully, but that they look right at
    something and the mind makes a switch. That picture in your brain
    is definitley a deer, no doubt about it. The guy aims, shoots, goes
    over and low and behold it's a person. Sounds far fetched, but that's
    the way I heard it. Something to do with the intense focus of the
    mind along with some adrenalin and presto, instant deer.
    
    Marty

    
    
    Knowing only what I have read in this note, and having read a brief
    article in the local newspaper about this situation would like to pass
    along the following comment.  
    
    We will never know all the facts no matter how 'well' the media
    reports the 'facts', because we will never really know what was in the
    mind of the person when the trigger was pulled.  The question is what
    will/or what should be, the penailty for his actions.  In attempt to
    clarify my position perhaps the following will serve to explain, in
    part my opinion in this situation.  Where I hunted the owner of the
    property stated that they wanted no button bucks or still spotted deer
    killed, even thought according to the law they were legal game.  The
    area being hunted provided close and long range shots.  Shooting one of
    the selected protected would get you banished from the property, and
    some were, no excuses.  I will not make the assumption that most hunters 
    are cautious, words are cheap, many know the language, talk the language
    but forget what it means when they get in the woods.  Also put your
    self the position of the family who bears the lost, nothing will ever
    replace that lost.  There may be other far reaching effects that we
    will never hear once the verdict comes in on the hunter, like what is
    the real effect on the family. Plus, we may now have some future 
    anti-gun owners and anti-hunters.  There are accidents, but was this
    really an accident?  One may speculate that it was, but do you really
    know?  The hunter violated several rules of hunting, the most obvious
    two were, 1. clearly identify your target before shooting, 2. know the
    area being hunted/ in leiu of two, be extermely cautious.   In one of
    the previously replies the definition sperating murder from
    manslaughter was given, dead is dead to the victim they don't know the
    difference.  Man has got to start taking responsibility for his actions
    and quit trying to skirt the situation with or by claiming ignorance. 
    A human being has been denied the right of life by an irresponsible
    individual, that person should pay the ultimate price.  Put your self
    in the victims family, think if this happened to you immediate family
    member, and it could, how would you feel?  
    
    There are accidents, were it is clear there was no intent, malice etc.,
    like a deflected bullet striking another person.  So there is a gray
    area, that area is a hair line, other wise there is only right and wrong.
     
    Well off the soap box and off to writing up how opening day went.
    
    Cheers
    Leonard
    
    
    
     
    

    Back a few notes, it was stated that the media has turned this into a
    hunters vs. anti-hunters.  I need to know a few things, and would
    appreciate replies to my questions and statements.
    
    First, I do not mean to diminish the tragedy or importance of this
    topic. I truly feel for the family of the slain woman, and cannot fully
    express the need for safety while hunting. The 20 year sentence is 
    getting off easy as far as I'm concerned.
    
    What also burns me, beside the fact that there are hunters that totally
    disregard safety, is what happened at my house. My younger brother
    watched the 6pm news this past Friday 10/12, I think it was channel 4.
    When I arrived at the house he asked me if I had heard about the story.
    He went on to say that Hunters are on the side of the erroneous hunter.
    I replied that hunters are not on the side of this man, that most
    hunters will tell you that safety is utmost and this man was wrong.
    "Well, this man on TV. Some President of some hunting association said
    the woman should not have been wearing white mittens during hunting
    season... blah,blah,blah" was my brothers response.
    
    Well we proceded to get hot and heavy into this topic, until surounding
    family suggested we cool it. 
    
    Did anyone see the news broadcast? Do you know who this guy was and
    what organization he represented? I think the organization in question
    is a hunters group in Maine, but may be mistaken. Is this truly how 
    "hunters" feel about the situation? Or is this just the media reporting 
    what it wants to report!
    
    If the later is the case then we do have an uphill battle on our hands.
    If hunters really do feel that way then the battle is lost. I cannot
    believe hunters have this opinion. I have not read anything of the sort
    in any report I've read about this, nor from any of these replies. Or
    from any hunter I've talked to about this. 
    
    Whats the real story
    Don

    re: -1
     I didn't see the broadcast, but wouldn't doubt for a second that the
    media is poking a stick into a bees nest with this type of reporting.
    What better time of year, too? 
     Another thing to consider here is the hunter's partner who was in the
    woods with him, and came to his defense by stating the garbage about
    the woman causing the accident by wearing white mittens. It's been
    rumored that this partner is (was?) one of the NRA field reps (or
    whatever they call them). Can anyone else verify this? I'll try and get
    his name this week. It sure would put a lot of egg on the wrong faces
    if this is true.
    
    Bob

    
    
    I seen this story run when it first happened.  The guy drove by the
    lady's house, parked his truck, walked 200 feet into the woods, turned
    around and shot- twice! It wasn't like he was hiking through the woods
    for hours and just happened apon this. He knew exactly where the hell
    he was. The thing that pissed me off the most was the idiotic attitude
    of the people who were sticking up for this guy. She should have been 
    wearing hunter orange- 20 feet from her house in a open area back yard.
    They even stated that she was yelling at the guy to get the hell away
    from her house. I think that this guy was wacked and has no right being in
    the woods period! He should be locked up longer than what they are
    going to give him. I think they should also lock up those looney
    bastards that were sticking up for him. There is just no way he should	
    not recieve the max. sentence.
    
    Wildman 
                                          

>Is this truly how 
>    "hunters" feel about the situation? Or is this just the media reporting 
>    what it wants to report!

 There are two sides to every issue. They went looking for, and found, someone
with "the other" viewpoint. What is wrong about this is that they are painting
it to look like "the other" viewpoint is held by hunters, while the "right"
viewpoint is held by antis. They want to make headlines, that's all.

 The Doctah

    I just heard from a reliable, but second hand source, that Rogerson
    has been aquitted.
    
    I'll follow with details if someone else doesn't get to it first.
    
    Mike

 That would be a surprising development.

    
    It's official, he has been found innocent of manslaughter.

    According to the (AP);  A Penobscot County Superior Court jury found
    Donald Rogerson innocent of manslaughter after nine hours of
    deliberations.
    
    "The verdict makes it clear that the jury feels it was an accident,"
    said William J. Vail, commissioner of the state Department of Inland
    Fisheries and Wildlife.  "It's my hope and it's my belief that this
    will put the case to rest.  Accidents are accidents.  I think there are
    many who feel this makes some sort of a social statement about Maine
    and hunting.  But I don't think that's the case....It was a tragedy on
    both sides."

      One thing that surprised me, which I hadn't heard in this notes-
    file, was that he (according to the paper):
    
      "testified Tuesday that he saw a deer in the scope of his rifle
       and fired once. He said he saw what he thought was the white
       underside of a deer's tail and fired again."
    
      Of course the white turned out to be the white mittens. I'm not
    saying that this in any way justifies what he did, you definetly
    have to be 100% sure of your target. But it does shed a little dif-
    ferent light on it (IMHO). If there had been no first shot at a deer,
    he probably wouldn't have shot the second shot at the "white".
    
      Anyways, it was ruled an accident, and he was found innocent of
    the manslaughter charges.
    
    -Ron-

    
    re .30
    
    According to all reports I read, the Fish and Game scoured the area
    looking for any sign that a deer had been there. There was none, not
    one tract or any other type of deer sign anyplace between the 
    shooter (not hunter) and the women.  He says he saw a deer, well
    good trick, since according to the wardens there was no deer there.
    
    --Bob
    

    
    There will be a show on this tonight, Chronicle, ch5 at 7:30
    (Boston area).
    
    I believe it is tonight, I saw 2 ads for it last night, one at about
    8:30 saying it would be on tomorrows (todays) show, the other at about
    10:30 that said tonight (yesterday) show.
    
    I would guess it will be tonight, does anyone know different?
    
    --Bob
    

    I still believe the guy was guilty and should have been charged. 
    Although I hasten to add that I didn't follow the case, I have read
    enough about the charges and his testimony to reach the conclusion that
    1) he did shoot her, 2) it was an accident, 3) she left a husband and 2
    children.
    
    If you think we've been hassled by anti's, you haven't seen anything
    like the barrage we'll see over his aquittal.  A guilty verdict and the
    appropriate  sentence would have sent the right message to all hunters 
    regarding safety. 
    
    Mark.

 I don't know anything about Maine law, but it seems to me that the guy ought
to have been found responsible for the woman's death in some way; if not
manslaughter then involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide or _something_.
The verdict does not seem to be sending a very clear message about safety,
and we'll undoubtedly pay for this politically. I don't know if under Maine
law, he could be found guilty of a lesser charge than manslaughter- but I think
his responsibility in the death ought to have been acknowledged with some sort
of conviction.

 Of course, this is all very easy to say sitting here. I know if I made such a
monumental mistake, I'd have been shitting bricks and would have been positively
jubilant at the verdict. So in some small way, I can understand how the verdict
isn't such a horrible thing. It sure would have been nice to get him on
something, though. As it is now, he is free and clear. And that just doesn't
seem to be right.

 Prepare for an anti onslaught. They'll just love this. One martyr for them...

 The Doctah

    The only conclusion I can draw is that there must have been more
    evidence on the "hunters" side than came out in this note.  Otherwise,
    I can't believe they acquitted him.  Also, 9 hrs of deliberation is
    not a heck of a long time for manslaughter charges.
    
    Mark,
    

           I really don't know what to think. I beleive that it was the
    mittens that saved him, even though they were not a good enough 
    reason. If it wasn't for the mittens I don't see how they could of
    fallen back on " I thought it was a deer". I would hope that the F&G
    would yard his license from him for good but probaly won't. One problem
    that I can see coming from this is that lawyers will use this case in
    comparision with similar cases in the future. I saw in todays paper
    there is a similar case in N.H. where one guy shot a bow hunter dressed
    in camo. with a .54 cal. muzzel loader.

    No way should this guy get off scot free. I'll give that it was
    unintentional but he killed a human being. Involuntary, but none the
    less she is dead. He is responsible for the act, and should pay for his
    mistake.
    
    Hypothetical scenario:  You have a LTC, and do carry a weapon. You go
    with your family to the local McDonalds for dinner. Some gun wielding
    nut shows up firing. You return fire, hit and kill someone in the
    fight (of course you take out the bad guy too). In court ballistics 
    proves the bullet came from your gun, even though it ricocheted off a
    bust of the Hamburgerler, you get a manslauter charge.
    
    Which is more justified? Which should/would be penalized?
    
    Don

                     <<< Note 798.38 by MCIS2::MCCARTHY >>>
    
>    Why couldn't it have been Cleveland Amery or Chi Chi Obrien or a 
>    member of the anti hunting coalition rather than an inocent Mother.

    What an asinine thing to say.
    
    Mark.
    

    Mark,	
    
    HERE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    I don't care who it is!!! NO ONE SHOULD BE SHOT BY A PERSON CLAIMING
    TO BE A HUNTER!!!! PERIOD!!!
    
    	Steve

    ABSOLUTELY GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AS A HUNTER WHO HAS VACATIONED OR LIVED
    IN MAINE FOR THIRTY YEARS BUT ORIGINALLY FROM "AWAY" I AM ASHAMED AND
    EMBARRASSED AT THE VERDICT. IT GIVE ME, MAINE RESIDENTS, HUNTERS, GUN
    OWNERS, AND ANYONE ASSOCIATED WITH GUNS AND HUNTING A BLACKEYE. ANTI
    HUNTING AND GUN LOBBYIST WILL MAKE HAY WITH THIS. ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
    
    IF YOU SHOOT A HUMAN BEING 40 YARDS AWAY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES YOU
    ARE AT A MINIMUM CRIMINALLY NEGILGENT
    
    I BELIEVE IT WAS A CASE OF DOWN EASTERS PROTECTING THEMSELVES FROM
    "PEOPLE FROM AWAY", AND THIER "WAY OF LIFE" AS ONE OF THE WOMEN
    INTERVIEWED ON T.V. PUT IT.(NOT A JUROR).
                                                                   
    
    
     

    I'd personally like to see the laws around discharge of weapons
    changed to read 500 feet. (Or at least in residential areas.
    We live with it in Mass. where there is a lot less land than in 
    Maine. Personally if someone fired a high-power rifle within 100 
    yards of my home I'd be mighty PO'd.
    
    Maine is as big as the rest of New England combined, there is simply
    no reason to be hunting so close.

 I don't think that would solve anything, frankly. What would be more helpful 
would be if the laws we currently have were enforced. The verdict sent a
bad message. "It's ok to be careless." Well it isn't, though the press will
kill us as if it was.

>Personally if someone fired a high-power rifle within 100 
>    yards of my home I'd be mighty PO'd.

 If they were within 100 yards, they'd be in violation of the current law.

 The Doctah

 There's currently a case going on in NH, where a Hudson town worker shot
a bowhunter (completely in camo) with a muzzleloader. I think it happened in
Londonderry. From what I've heard about this case, it seems more likely
that it was an accident than the Maine case, but I still think there's a
problem that remains with the fact that the hunter did not shoot a deer, he
shot a person. And he is supposed to identify his target 100% before pulling
the trigger. It will be interesting to see if he gets off or not. I suspect
the political climate is markedly different in Southern NH than in Maine.

 The Doctah

It doesn't matter *what* she was wearing short of a deerskin with antlers tied
to her head; anyone should be able to wear anything, anywhere in the woods
(not to mention your back yard) and not get shot at.  Remember (at least in this
state) a hunter must wear blaze orange, but anyone else does not have to.  Be
*sure* of what you're shooting at.  If you're not, be willing to accept the
consiquences.

From the information that I've heard here and elsewhere, and in this file, the
decision was a travesty; both in the loss of life and the general population's
feelings (fanned by the media I'm sure) about firearm and hunter safety as a
whole.

                                Roak

     After the trial results were reported, a local (Portland) TV station
    conducted a call in survey. 80% of the call ins were for a "GUILTY"
    verdict. This dashes the theory of locals protecting locals or a way of
    life. 
     I totally agree that this woman, or anyone should never have to
    concern themselves with wearing certain color clothes in their own
    backyard during hunting season. Plain and simple, the guy blew it in a
    big way. Perhaps if he had been convicted and sent to the slammer, the
    next trigger happy pinhead would think twice about pulling the trigger.
    If people can't be concerned about the safety of others, then maybe the
    thought of spending a few years in a cell with a 300 pound sex offender
    would open their eyes a little.
    
    Bob

    Bingo!
    
    Well said, Bob.
    
    Mark.

    LOCAL'S ARE BANGOR LOCAL'S. PORTLAND RESIDENTS ARE PRETTY MUCH A
    DIFFERENT BREED OF CAT.

    It seems to me that the jury and the judge are the only ones that have
    been presented with all the facts and laws in this case.  And with
    that they have reached the only unanimous decision that they could.
    
    So far all we've heard is just what the Media wants us to, and a few 
    wild rumors.  The antis would like nothing better than to gets us
    fighting amongst ourselves, and they have almost succeeded.
    
    Yes, Maine has lots of unpopulated places, so maybe we should enact
    a law which prohibits the discharge of any firearm within 1.5 miles
    of a house.  I'm sure the antis would love it and I'm sure some of us
    'hunters' would vote for it.  Then we'd really have a knee-jerk law to
    complain about.
    
    Mike

    This seems like a open and shut case, to me, regardless of what the
    media and rumors say. 
    
    The guy admitted taking the shot. He said he "Thought he shot a deer".
    He's guilty as Hell. You don't "THINK you shot a deer" you had better 
    "KNOW you shot a deer". He should have been sent up the river for the
    maximum penalty the law allows. Any "hunter" that disagrees with that
    should go with him.
    
    Good God man think about it he had a scope on the rifle. If you can't
    recognize the difference between a human and a deer, regardless of what
    they are wearing, with a scope you shouldn't be handling a gun at all.
    
    Well off the soap box.
    
    Cowboy
    

    Sorry, but I have to agree with the Cowboy. This guy blew the call! 
    
    He should be doing time, long time.
    
    I dont care what facts we dont know. She would have had to gone up to
    this guy and take his gun, shoot herself, give back the gun, run back
    to her yard and say he did it, for this guy to get off scot free.
    
    He aimed at her, and shot her. You are done in my book, if you do that.
    I guess it's good for him I was not in that jury.
    
    Don

    The jury and judge got all the details, not us!

    Now lets say it was an accident like they called it.


    CAN YOU IMAGINE (TRY NOW) WHAT THE HELL THIS MAN FEELS LIKE?


    His whole personna is screwed up for life! 

    He'll never return to the happy times you and I will have!

    He'll always have to face the people who know, and feel the remorse
    forever. (assuming he doesn't move)

    He'll carry this as a weight that no one can begin to understand!
 

    Now you want to throw him in jail as an example? What purpose will he 
    serve to society? We'll all forget him in a couple days. 

    I met someone who shot his best friend and believe me the scar on him
    was huge. After the accident he dedicated himself to firearm safety, 
    training hundreds of young kids in hunters safety every year. Isn't
    that better?


    No we'll never bring the dead back or drive home a lesson that will 
    last forever by throwing him in jail. Lets go on and be safe and teach 
    others to be safe together not divided.

    
    re .52
    
    You want reality, here it is: 
    
    1) the guy made a mistake, and due to his mistake someone died, I 
    belive this is the definition of negligent homocide.
    
    2) He walked away unpunished. You say he will have to live with it,
    well how he feels cannot be controlled. Sure he may feel like crap for
    a long time, maybe forever. He also may feel that she got what she
    deserved after all the woods belong tothe hunters and she shouldn't
    have been wearing white mittens.  Don't say no, someone said this.
    
    3) He said he shot at a deer, there was no sign of a deer. This is
    fact, the wardens attempted to find any fresh sign of a deer, there
    was none.
    
    What it comes down to is that he made a mistake and someone died from
    it. The message from the acquital is "ooops, sorry". This is not a
    hunter vs non-hunter argument. It is a question of justice.  I have 
    read and seen as much as I can find on the case, and from everything
    that has been made public, the guy is guilty.
    
    If there is some earth shaking evidence that came out in the trial,
    then it would benefit everyone if it came out to the public. What they
    have now is a public relations controversy. It would benefit all fair
    minded people if this earth shaken evidence came out.
    
    --Bob
    

   Why don't we start a linching party and serve justice ourselves? 

   Maybe we can have her friends and relatives join in, I'm sure they've got
   a few grievances to burn!

   As a mattar of fact if we act quickly enough we can get the Hudson man
   before he goes to trial!

    re .53 hmmmm, negligent homocide ? I haven't heard this one 
    yet :-) 

    
    re .55
    
    Negligent homocide, as was described to me by a law student friend, is
    what happens when as a direct result of a negligent act on your part
    an innocent bystander is killed. I had never heard of it before this
    incident either.  
    
    re .54
    
    I can see that you and I will never agree on this. In my opinion the
    guy is guilty and should have been punished. In your opinion (correct
    me if I am wrong) the guy went on trial, was acquitted and case closed
    he did nothing he should be punished for.
    
    I simply feel that justice was not served and barring the relevation of
    some evidence not yet seen by me, I will always feel this way.
    
    --Bob

    re:.54
    
    I hear ya...  Isn't it refreshing to know that everyone in this file is
    perfect?
    
    It's nice to see that we have so many compassionate people here
    
    I want to ask some of you hunters who've shot at running deer as they
    fled... were you aware of where your bullets were flying or if there
    was anyone in the vacinity of the fleeing deer...  probably not!
    What of stray bullets killing innocent people... and it just so happens
    to be your bullet... your up for manslaughter???
    
    Put yourself in a position where this could be you... Isn't it great to
    have so many compassionate people out there who are such perfect folk, 
    who never do anything wrong or make mistakes.  You will all no doubt, be
    sitting on the right hand of our Lord upon judgement day
    
    I didn't want to get into this topic, but having read some of your
    replys, I couldn't hold back any longer.  Yes the man made a monumental
    mistake, something he will live with forever.  Scott free, naw, loss of
    license, probation, take away his 2nd ammendment right etc... Lets 
    face it, it was not pre-meditated murder, it was an accident, and 
    accidents can and will happen.
    
    I never realized we had so many F. Lee Baileys noting.
    
    Fra

    Fra, all the more reason not to shoot at running deer.
    
    BTW, I'm as compassionate as the next guy, but I'll reserve my
    compassion for the victim in this case.
    
    JMHO.
    
    Mark.

Re:                      <<< Note 798.57 by KNGBUD::LAFOSSE >>>

>>    What of stray bullets killing innocent people... and it just so happens
>>    to be your bullet... your up for manslaughter???

    Yes.  Anyone else agree with me?

                              Roak

        Anyone (not including Mrs. Wood) who takes to the woods during 
    hunting is aware of the possible dangers involved in the sport. My
    advice is know the area that you hunt AND the people you hunt with.
    Previous reasons is why our hunting party just posted about 1500
    acres.

    RE: 52
    A GUILTY VERDICT WITH A SUSPENDED SENTENCE AND FINE WOULD HAVE AT LEAST
    TOLD
    PEOPLE HE WAS GUILTY.
    

    RE 54  WHY DON'T WE JUST SERVE JUSTICE. GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!  ALSO GUILTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    

    The reason why this guy shot the woman in my opinion is pure greed.

    Many hunters I've met have a greed for filling their tag. I don't know
    why it is. Yesterday I was at Ron's dinner in Westminster, Mass. which 
    is, right up the road from Monty Tech. The bread man comes in and tells us
    about a guy who is out in the field behind Monty Tech, in full camo.
    with a bow, going after some deer that have been feeding in that field.

    You all know bow hunting season isn't open yet. Is this guy's family 
    starving ? Most likely their not, but this guy has a greed that won't 
    stop him from doing the wrong thing. It's the same with the main hunter.

    Now I don't think he should do jail time if it was accidental, but the
    reports that I've seen make it look more than just a hunting accident.
    I mean, nobody is that stupid.
    
    Jim

    Roak,
    
    You must be one hell of a shot...  Sniper no doubt!  I guess it's only
    people like you who should be allowed to hunt.  I have missed deer. not
    with a rifle yet, but with a bow many times.  I know many hunters who
    are excellent shots and true sportsman in every sense of the word, yet
    they have missed deer (incredible as it may seem).  And your sitting
    there, telling me they should be charged with manslaughter should a
    stray (possibly deflected) bullet happens to kill another person over
    the next ridge...  I disagree!
    
    Mark,
    
    For the record, I use a bolt action, and all my deer have been one shot
    kills.
    
    Is the guy Guilty???  Of course he is... but you people want him locked
    up and the key thrown away....  I say no!
    
    Fra 

    
    Fra,
    
    I understand what you are saying about the stray bullet, but this guy
    was barely 300 feet from the womans house, and supposedly closer 
    than 300 feet to another house.  He had to know the houses were there,
    then he shoots at what he thinks is a deer, and he shoots in the
    direction of the house.  He should have passed on the shot.
    
    Hunters should have the control to hold off on shots when there is a
    house in the background. I have held on shots bird hunting because the
    bird flew towards where a house was or where I thought a hunting
    partner was.
    
    There is a difference, in my opinion, between a stray bullet killing 
    someone and this case. One is a mistake, one is a mistake brought on
    by pure stupidity.
    
    --Bob
    

    
    Bob, I understand exactly what you are saying...  I think we both agree
    that the hunter in question was in the wrong.  What gets me is that
    everyone is out to hang the guy.  It was an accident... As Bob Allore
    stated.
    
    I have compassion for the womans family and friends, but feel that
    throwing the guy in prison is not going to help anyone involved.
    
    Take away his license for life, take his guns, lifetime of community 
    service etc...  This is more productive than having him wasting away 
    in prison, and having tax payers foot the bill.
    
    Would others be whistling a different tune should a similar accident 
    involving them occur?  I wouldn't wish this on anyone, and pray to god
    it never happens to anyone else.
    
    Fra

Re: <<< Note 798.65 by KNGBUD::LAFOSSE >>>
    
>>                                               I have missed deer. not
>>    with a rifle yet, but with a bow many times.  I know many hunters who
>>    are excellent shots and true sportsman in every sense of the word, yet
>>    they have missed deer (incredible as it may seem).

You *can* miss safely.  Rule #3: Always be sure of your target and what's
beyond it.

There's a difference between firing a bullet that glances off three rocks and a
tree an kills someone (an accident), a bullet that is fired over a ridge, misses
the target and kills someone 1/4 mile away (manslaughter) or someone who takes
aim at and kills someone through mis-identification (negligent homicide).

In other words, I guess we disagree.

As someone stated before, if there was some earth-shaking news that we havn't
heard that would change our minds as it (supposedly) did the jury's (such as if
she was wearing a deerkin cape and hanging some antlers on a tree 500 feet from
her house, which she then ran to after being shot) why havn't we heard it?

                        Roak

>    Take away his license for life, take his guns, lifetime of community 
>    service etc...  This is more productive than having him wasting away 
>    in prison, and having tax payers foot the bill.
    
    Fra, all of the above would require a guilty verdict.  That is the only
    thing I was looking for out of the trial.  It looks like we're not in
    disagreement.
    
    Mark.

    
    
     I thought a good alternative sentence would to have the gentleman serve
    sixty hours, in a deerskin suit, with white gloves on, in a orchard,
    at night, during the season, along Rt11 north of Sherman Mills, Maine.
    
    Good luck dude!!!!
    
      :*)
    
      e
    

From my dictionary:

negiligence - failure to exercise care that a prudent person usually exercises

negilectful adds a more censorious implication of laziness or callousness

In my book shooting this woman was a negligent act not an accident. I don't
know what he was charged with or what facts came out at the trial but the
woman was in her back yard  which means that there was a house there.
Shooting towards a house = negligence. Criminal law requires more 
stringent proof then civil law. The husband should sue.

 Hasn't realized  it's homicide not homocide either!

I had a noisy line. It is tough to see what you are typing when every
few seconds you get #%^*& displayed on the screen. Why give me a hard time
over it?

    	Let us all take the day off and go into the woods. The weather is
    real nice here today. The last couple days I think we all got winter
    note fever. Kind of getting on each others nerves. Maybe it's the buck
    fever that got us all down.
    
    	Steve

 Let's have a sense of humor too! gads I thought the typo was funny, 
I'm just as bad as the next guy when it comes to typos. Afew days in
the woods never hurt though! Good luck this weekend! Hope they're flying!

    
    It has probably been already noted that the Maine hunter was found NOT
    guilty  BUT  the NH hunter was.
    
    On the Maine incident, the only information I'm re acting to, is from 
    what I read via the Yankee mag - and a couple of short newspaper articles.  
    
    In brief that the Maine incident occurred within 150 feet of the woman's
    home - while she was wearing red  and, that the NH incident happened out
    in the woods, while the victim was wearing camouflage.
    
    I'm not saying that the NH incident should be "excused", etc - Mainly the
    different verdict between the two states  - is there a right one?  
    
    
    
    

 The charge in the NH case was for "negligent homicide," a lesser charge than 
in the Maine case. And yet the negligence on the part of the NH hunter was
in my eyes at least significantly less than that of the Maine hunter. It seems
like the Maine case was set up to fail.

The Doctah

         From the Boston Globe, Oct 24                                       

         OSSIPEE, N.H. - A hunter was convicted of negligent homicide
         yesterday in a shooting accident that killed a bow hunter
         last year. It was the first conviction for a hunting death
         in New Hampshire. Richard Low of Derry was found guilty by a
         Carroll County Superior Court jury in the October 1989 death
         of Ronald Byers, 34, of Dunbarton. The jury deliberated
         nearly two days. Low faces 3 1/2 to 7 years in jail. A
         sentencing date has not been set. 

         Low, 48, said he mistook Byers for a deer and shot him with a
         muzzleloader in the Tuftonboro woods on the first day of
         muzzle loading season. Byers was wearing camouflage, and Low
         said his movements, colors and position made him think Byers
         was a deer. County Attorney Warren Lindsey argued that Low
         fired before he was sure of his target. 

         There have been no hunting deaths in New Hampshire so far
         this year. Last week, a Maine jury acquitted a hunter of a
         manslaughter charge after he shot and killed a woman. (AP)
         -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                              

         I'm no deer hunter, but I've done some reading and one thing
         that's always emphasized is don't shoot at a deer that's
         facing away from you. In other words, you don't shoot at a
         flag even if you've got a good view of a legal deer and can
         shoot safely.

         This Maine hunter fired at what he thought was a flag. After
         35 years of hunting he obviously hadn't grown into the kind
         of hunter that strives for a clean, one-shot kill.

         I disagree with those who want to label this as an accident.
         It was negligence. And the absence of a conviction for
         negligence is going to cost the hunting community dearly.  

         Last week, Chronicle devoted its entire show to this
         incident. It wasn't outwardly antihunting, but the content
         was nonetheless quite damaging:

         - A "re-enactment" shot of a hunter's boots stepping slowing
           through the woods.

         - A shot of the dead woman's unfinished needlepoint hanging on
           the wall--complete with needle and thread.

         - Lots of shots of the father with his two adorable kids.

         - Snapshots of mom and kids.
                                     
         - Mention of the white mittens, but for the benefit of those
           who don't know deer, no note of the white underside of a 
           deer's tail.
           
         I have a coworker who lives in Maine. She's been following
         the controversy and says this is going to result in posted
         land and local regulations prohibiting or restricting
         hunting.

         Doug

    I think this might be the exactly what happened and I was thinking
    of this earlier. It is pretty well accepted that the maine person
    was guilty but of what?
    
    What if he had been tried for first degree murder. If there was 
    no evidance it would also be aqquitted.
    
    I realized he was not tried for murder but purhaps the D.A. went
    for a stiffer charge than he could get...
    
    I admitt I am not a lawer ( I know my spelling gives me away :-) )
    I wasn't at the trial and have no information other than what was
    presented here. also it has been my observation that laws varry some
    from state to state. Purhaps the verdict of aquittal was correct and
    purhaps is was the only loggical one that could rendered.
    
    In Pennsylvania where I spent the early years of my life they seemed
    to have many more Manslaughter charges than the do here in New England.
    There it seem if there was an accident they would always charge someone
    with Manslaughter. You may be aquitted on the charge but if you were
    involved you can bet you would be charged.
    
    It does not seem to be used here as much in New England.
    
    Now, what can he be tried on... Purhaps nothing. I don't know.
    
    Does the rule that you can be tried only once for the same crime
    apply here??  I don't know.
    
   He may only be guilty of Thoughtlessness but to the Chinesse this is the
    worse crime of all
    
Bear

    Bob, I humbly disagree.  The guy didn't have an accident.  The bullet
    went exactly where he intended.  In my opinion, he mis-identified his
    target.
    
    Mark.

    I have read this note and all 83 replies. Recently, I was told that the
    information released about this tragedy aired on a TV program claims
    that the woman was beyond 300' from her house and a fresh deer track
    was found in the area. However, the deer track was somewhat disturbed
    due to the medical people and coroner etc. as well as the hunters that 
    were there in all the confusion. Replies that I have read here
    indicated that there were no deer tracks found and the the hunter was
    anywhere from 150' to 200+'. There seems to be contradicting info
    within this notesfile which resulted in the opinions that have been
    expressed. Without knowing the true facts and what was going on in the
    hunters head, it is difficult to assess this thing. The fact is that
    the woman is dead and that I hope that it reinforces to all hunters the
    criticalness of safety. We all know that unfortunately this will happen
    again to someone else. Honestly, I would not want to be a juror in any
    
    case such as this one. 
     
    
    I ran into a pheasant hunter in Bolton Flats (MA) very recently. He had
    been hit on the side of the head with a pellet and on the left arm.
    Fortunately, he was ok. He claims a hunter shot at a pheasant that
    hadn't gotten more than five feet from the ground in one of the
    cornfields. The wounded hunter was in the line of fire about 50 yards
    or so away. 
    
    A safe and successful hunting to all!
    

         Not one reply in this note suggests that the guy did this on
         purpose. Of course it falls under the strict definition the
         word accident, which includes carelessness resulting in
         unintentional harm. 

         But "accident" most often implies "no fault" so people avoid
         using the word when negligence is involved. When a drunk
         driver kills a pedestrian you don't hear many people calling
         it an accident.

         Let's not get hung up on semantics. The debate here is
         whether a hunting accident involving negligence should result
         in a penalty. That seems like a worthwhile topic for this
         conference to me.        

         Doug

    Doug

    Along those lines we might want the purpose of the penalty to be examined 
and how effective certain penalties will be in deterring a repeat of the
offense by others.

                                  The Maine Kahuna

    
    Just a side note: I heard on the radio this morning (B106 Nashua NH)
    that hunters in general have no sympathy for the NH man that was 
    convicted. They went on to quote the pres on Nashua F&G as saying the
    guy violated one of the basic commandments of hunting "No your target
    and what is beyond it", the guy violated this rule and deserves no
    sympathy (not an exact quote but that was the gist of his comment.
    
    I have never heard remarks either pro or anti from this station. This
    at least acknowledged that there is a hunting rule about knowing 
    your target before you shoot.
    
    --Bob
    

Posted with permission of the author:
    
    
          <<< LOSER::DISK$LOSER_PUB:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 1038.828      Media Bias - TV, Newspapers, Magazines, etc        828 of 828
LILAC::ZORE "I'm the NRA!"                           16 lines  26-OCT-1990 12:19
                         -< Anti cartoon in Ayer, Ma. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for our friends in Ayer, Ma and the surrounding towns comes this latest 
little gem which apparently is in response to the aquittal of a Maine 
hunter who accidently shot and killed a woman in Maine.

The 10/24/90 issue of the Times Free Press Public Spirit published out of
Ayer Ma has an editorial cartoon.  A large sign saying WELCOME TO MAINE
with a smaller sign attached at the bottom that reads "OPEN SEASON ON YOUNG
MOTHERS".  Next to the sign is a hunter garbed man, complete with ammo
bandoleer and AR-15 rifle with 30rd mag and a real big smile on his face. 
In the lower left corner is a little man saying to a deer "You DO look an
awful lot like a woman standing on her pourch!" 

The cartoon has the Davis by line on the side.  Copies available upon 
request.

Rich
    

    re. 90
    
    Darn it.  I never get to the good stuff before it's deleted.
    
    Ken
    

Perhaps this reply belongs in another topic, but it does pertain to
this incident.

Has anyone been reading the comic strip _Tank_McNamara_?  The current
topic of this strip is obviously borrowed from this incident.  It is
painting hunters in a pretty damaging light.  In a recent strip, there
was a supposed hunter on the witness stand taking up for the accused
and blaming the victim for being stupid enough to have his shirt tail
out (they changed a few of the details).  

This is the second time I've seen hunters and gun owners get this kind
of treatment in this strip.  It really makes me sick.

Jerry

    On the other side of the fence, anyone that has access to today's
    Boston Globe should turn to Tony Chamberlains's column in the Sports
    section.  Tony, who is an avid hunter, offers some long-overdue
    perspectives from the hunter.
    
    Mark.

    Mark,
    
      Could you post the article, or highlights of it in here for
    those of us outside the Mass area??? 
    
    -Ron-

    Hi Ron,
    
    Basically, he re-hashes some of the hypocrisy of the anti-hunting
    movement, but also raises some legitimate questions on why there hasn't
    been any "official" reactions to the Maine incident from pro-hunting
    organizations such as the NRA, The Sportsman's Alliance of Maine and
    other organizations.
    
    He mentions that the opinions of hunters he's spoken with and received
    letters from have basically agreed that 1) the incident was an
    accident, 2) the hunter made a mistake, 3) the impression to the public
    is that the hunting fraternity is just shrugging their shoulders and
    basically saying "gee, what an unfortunate incident", and most
    importantly, 4) why haven't we heard from the aforementioned hunting
    organzations regarding some sort of a condemnation ofthe incident.
    
    Mark.

    In Augusta, the Kennebec Journal usually runs Tank..
    
    This week it is missing. A few times before the KJ did not run
    Tank because they felt the strip's byline too controversial.
    
    This time, I'm glad they chose not to run it....There is so much
    bullshit going on up here about it. 
    
    The leading story on ALL local TV stations Saturday was about the
    guy who got shot in the foot. The news up here on EVERY station is
    very biased. I'm getting sick of it....
    
    $.02
    
    Jim
    

    After reading .95 I bought a globe to read Chamberlain's artical. Very
    well done, and to the point.
    
    I turned the page and there is Tank McNamara, and again, it deals with
    this topic. IMO they are done in bad taste.
    
    Don
    

    re: Mark
    
      Thanks for the update...
    
      I agree with him 100%, it is kind of strange that none of the groups
    mentioned haven't come forward with some type of reactions. It certain-
    ly does little for the hunting community when the organizations that
    support our sport seemingly choose to inore the case.
    
    -Ron-

    	I just finished a hunter safety course with my son. It was very
    well done.  When I first started hunting in Maine, completion of a
    hunter safety course was not required - now it is.  Course the
    grandfather clause covers me and probably covered the guy we're
    discussing too.  I feel good my son took the course.
    
    Andy I-learned-a-few-things-too-

              
    
                The Maine F&W Dept. is calling yesterdays shooting the
    first hunting fatality of the year. A 29 year old man, father of four,
    was fatality shot while working in a wood cutting operation yesterday
    in Hudson, Maine. The man dressed in blaze orange, was fatality shot
    while operating his chainsaw and skidder behind a trailer park. The
    person who did the shooting was nowhere to be found. The Maine F&W
    Dept. is investigating the case but as of yesterday they had no
    suspects. 

 Every deer I've ever seen was dressed in blaze orange and operating a
chain saw and skidder. 

           The F&W Dept has recovered a weapon and has a suspect as of
    last night but no one has been charged yet. Another hunter was found 
    dead late yesterday after family members reported him missing yesterday
    morning. No details were available at 11:00PM last night.

	I can't help thinking of the subject of this note
	in conjunction with the discussion we were having
	in another note about possible educational measures
	to enhance safety. To me this really screams for
	hunters to police themselves - rather than have 
	somebody else do it for us. Besides, it is also
	our lives at stake in the woods, not just everybody
	elses...

						- Mike

    For what it's worth, the incident with the logger is no longer being
    considered a hunting accident, but rather a homicide.  
    
    Mark.

    
    	I hear that the Maine Legislature just passed a law which requires
    that you wear two articles of blaze orange clothing.  A hat and vest or
    jacket.  Used to be that you only needed a hat...  I wonder if it has 
    something to do with the topic of this note??? 
    
    - Rob

     RE: last
    
     You're right. Two articles of hunter orange, one MUST be a hat. The
    other must be visible from all sides and cover some major portion of
    the torso.
     There are also some changes made to the correct identification of 
    game prior to shooting your firearm. Obviously put in to close some
    loopholes used as excuses in the past.
    
    Bob

    IF THE GAME WARDEN SEES YOU WITHOUT ENOUGH ORANGE, THROW YOUR  GUN
    AWAY.  ITS NOT NECESSARY IF YOUR NOT HUNTING
    

    RE. Last couple.
    
    Per the new Maine regs.  One article of clothing MUST be a hat.  Also
    the regs. say that both articles must be of SOLID colored hunter
    orange.  This rules out the camo patterned orange clothing, by my
    interpretation anyway.
    
    Pete
    

                   <<< Note 798.109 by DNEAST::SLADE_DICK >>>
    
>    IF THE GAME WARDEN SEES YOU WITHOUT ENOUGH ORANGE, THROW YOUR  GUN
>    AWAY.  ITS NOT NECESSARY IF YOUR NOT HUNTING
    
    Rather, how about wearing enough orange in the first place since the
    new regulations are intended to protect us and other hunters.
    
    Mark.

    I feel that they should pass that reg. that requires all hunt's to wear
    safety orange!!! I wear it everytime I go into the woods and feel a lot
    safer... It ain't that much more expensive then other hunter clothing
    I've seen. I like the fact that you can see it from a good distance.
    
    When I took my hunter safety course they told us to wear safety orange
    for the entire course. F&G also advised us to wear it while in the
    woods, to me it sounds like a safe thing to do.
    
    If you wear safety orange, you go into the woods, and you come out of
    the woods the same way you when in, Well that must be a plus???
    
    

     Saw a clip on the news this past weekend in Maine about a group of
    people who staged a walk through the woods (for the news) not wearing
    safety flourescent orange. They feel that they should be able to wear
    whatever they want in the woods, whenever they want to. They stated
    that they weren't against hunters or hunting....
     It's not a law in Maine that anyone not hunting is required to wear
    orange, I just think it's prudent. These people probably hop into their
    cars and fasten their safety belts though. To extend the same logic,
    perhaps someone should drive up and down the Maine turnpike on the
    last day of labor day weekend protesting the need to wear seat belts
    because of other drivers recklessness.
     Just a question of law vs. common sense. 
    
    Bob