|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Oct 30, 2006 12:39:43 GMT -5
You can never have to many regulations when it comes to safety, if were up to me, it would be against the law to be in the stand without a safety harness, but thats just me. Lug I'm sorry, but that is just asinine. But Hell, have it your way. Maybe we should regulate away guns entirely - "For safety's sake".  As to not wearing a harness? Well, IMO Stupidity should be lethal. Your choice to fall. Ditto for Ground Hunting in DNR "Free Fire Zones". As much as I am a Stalk/Still hunter, I'd be daft to try it on Pulaski. But if I did, it's my own damn fault if I walk into someone's shooting lane. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Oct 30, 2006 13:10:58 GMT -5
If stupidity were lethal, we wouldn't be overcrowded. But just to keep the pot stirring, why do you suppose seat belts are required in a car but helmets aren't on a motorcycle? I've never been able to figure that one out.
However, Lug does have a point. Just suppose that because of someone else's stupidity, they were trespassing on your property. They weren't wearing orange and you happened to shoot them on accident. Regardless of who was at fault, etc., you'd still feel horrible (and some up to the point where they may stop hunting altogether) if you shot that person on accident. With that being said, I agree that we don't need regs to put people in trees but maybe I could go along with the amount of orange necessary if hunting on the ground. I couldn't see requiring people to hunt in the tree but I do know of plenty of states that require much more orange than what Indiana does.
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfhound on Oct 30, 2006 17:29:53 GMT -5
<snip> With that being said, I agree that we don't need regs to put people in trees but maybe I could go along with the amount of orange necessary if hunting on the ground. I couldn't see requiring people to hunt in the tree but I do know of plenty of states that require much more orange than what Indiana does. I hunted Indiana Last year with a friend. We both wore caps (as required). He had shot at a deer and was looking for any sign (he actually had missed) I couldn't see him. He radioed me and let me know he was on the ground and looking for one he shot at and was waving his hat at me and I still couldn't see. Here in Illinois you can see dot's of orange just driving along stretches of woods. An orange requirement is nice but it should probably be something useful. But that's just my opinon. Most people don't like wearing orange. |
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Oct 30, 2006 20:52:32 GMT -5
I've only hunted one public property in Indiana and really did not find it too over crowded or the least bit scary.
You have much better odds of getting killed or injured on your drive to the hunt, than you do hunting, but I aint gonna quit driving.
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Oct 31, 2006 7:31:24 GMT -5
No new restrictions!
|
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Oct 31, 2006 16:52:43 GMT -5
Lug - Although I understand what you're arguing, the flip side of the safety thing is Hunter Ed 101...
- Wear orange at all times during firearms seasons.
- Never shoot at a target you cannot fully identify as a deer (no shooting at noises).
- Don't fire unless you know where your round will end up, i.e. no shots at a deer running the top of a ridge line.
- Know where others in your hunting party are positioned and don't move unless they know (radio/cell) that you're moving. (granted public ground presents a problem, hence the orange and awareness of who/what is moving around you)
- Don't set up in a position where cover is so dense your orange is obscured.
I knew a guy in Virginia who carried an orange streamer flag 2"x12" with a line on it and had fishing weights on the end where the streamer was tied. When he hunted from a ground blind (brush around a down tree) on public ground, he would toss the streamer up over a limb above his position and tie it off. There was no doubt where he was sitting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Indiana there are usually only one or two shooting accidents (thank god not more) during gun season each year, and they are typically on private ground involving people who know each other (friends or family) and are related to failure to wear hunter orange and/or shooting at a target that was not identified (shooting at noise).... that's an education/performance problem, not a regulation problem, IMHO...
|
|
|
|
Post by jameslyon on Oct 31, 2006 20:33:58 GMT -5
I remember hunting on opening day of gun season on private land. I was sitting by a tree on the ground, and I actually had four or five slugs whiz by me. Luckily, they were coming from behind me, and after the first one zinged by, I made myself as small as possible behind that tree. I watched as the next three or four slugs kicked up leaves thirty yards in front of me. Scary? For sure. Would I regulate that everyone hunt from a treestand during gun season? Heavens no. I LOVE still-hunting and spot-and-stalk during gun season, and these types of hunting cannot be done from a tree.
|
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Oct 31, 2006 23:39:32 GMT -5
Lug, Why would someone want to get in a spot where it is more dangerous? Falls kill more deer hunters than guns. If we had such a stupid rule (and we already have enough of them) then we would lose deer hunters. A bunch would quit first before they would climb a tree. . If you don't wear your safety harness, who's fault is it? Woody, i'm not to worried about someone shoving me out of a tree. Ok so maybe the treestand thing is a bad idea, but i agree with Hoyt that we as hunters need to wear more orange, than a sock cap. Lug |
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Nov 1, 2006 6:11:24 GMT -5
You're almost as likely to be hit by a stray slug while sitting in a tree stand as you are on the ground , so I vote no new "nannyism" regs . If strays concern you then perhaps suggesting single shot weapons only would make you feel better . I've hunted public land far more times than private land , and while the cacophany of gunfire was occasionally unnerving I never truly felt in danger .
|
|
