Maybe she had on one of these?
Posted on 06/05/2009 5:48:21 AM PDT by marktwain
When Washington State – which had not recorded a hunting fatality that involved a non-hunter in more than 25 years – saw two non-hunters killed during a single season last fall, more than eyebrows were raised.
Also raised last year were voices—sometimes shrill—and blood pressures, but curiously, one of these tragic deaths elicited a lot more emotional reaction than the other. The first victim, Pamela Almli of Oso in Skagit County, was a hiker, and she was fatally shot while standing on a trail on the wide open slope of Sauk Mountain on the opening day of last year’s black bear season.
Compounding matters, the hunter who shot Mrs. Almli once in the head with a Tikka rifle chambered in .270 Winchester was a 14-year-old who was hunting under the “supervision” of his then-16-year-old brother. This youngster fired a shot at a target without absolutely confirming that he was shooting at an animal, not a human. That is a violation of the most basic principle of hunting, and while one can try to analyze it (as some attempted), one cannot excuse it (as nobody did).
"The more I read about last week's incident, the stronger I feel that this isn't about land use or sharing terrain, and it isn't about people being too young to hunt. It's about a lack of supervision."
That youngster was convicted this week in Skagit County Court of second-degree manslaughter, and could face up to 15 months in detention. This may or may not provide “closure” to those involved and many others who argued on the sidelines, but it demonstrated that we still have the rule of law and while it may not make everyone happy, it does suggest that the system works when we allow it to.
The outrage that followed Almli’s death was epic. A popular hiking forum had a chat thread that spanned a remarkable 90 pages, garnering 1,349 comments (some of them mine) and more than 59,400 visits. Anyone familiar with Internet chat forums will recognize that as significant, though it still pales in comparison to the traffic generated by discussions of the 2006 Pinnacle Lake trail murders. Reading through the Sauk Mountain discussion, one just might get the sense that some (certainly not all) hikers get hysterical pretty fast, some hunters could improve their people skills, there are sharp divisions between user groups and people get lost in rhetoric when emotions take control.
"There is no reason to believe the "kid" will never hunt or own firearms again, in fact when school starts he may be bragging to his buds how he killed some beyotch ecoterrorist."
On the Washington Hunting forum, another discussion played out. It was somewhat more morose, the anger was more subdued, there was disappointment and in comparison to the hiker forum, this thread was almost sedate. There was little sympathy toward the youngster who fired the fatal shot, but there was talk about establishing a memorial fund for Almli, something that didn't appear elsewhere. It hardly spanned 90 pages of comments, nor elicited the level of emotion as did the hikers’ discussion.
Outrage flared up again on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s reader feedback page after the young shooter’s conviction was announced.
"Hunting is such a primative activity - enjoyed only by the intellectually and emotionally stunted individuals."
In the aftermath, legislation was proposed to more tightly regulate hunting by teenagers, but it died in committee. Another measure was introduced that would have required hikers to wear hunter orange, and it also died after angering even the hunters, who thought the idea to be nonsense.
Contrast the anger and emotion following Almli’s death with the aftermath of the Nov. 1 killing of Juan Rojas Cortez by an elk hunter. Rojas Cortez was not a hiker, but was with two other men, harvesting bear grass in Clark County, which is used in floral arrangements. The man who allegedly shot and left him, Craig A. Sjoberg, has been charged with first-degree manslaughter. We will see how that plays out.
Gone from the relatively brief discussion anywhere about this second fatality was the fury, absent was the righteously indignant outrage, yet Mr. Rojas Cortez was certainly just as innocent, and certainly just as dead, as was Mrs. Almli.
"You can’t compare hunters to any other group, except maybe snuff film producers."
I’m not certain what to make of this disparity of reaction.
One might wonder if, perhaps, the Department of Fish & Wildlife’s Hunter Education program is up to snuff. The man who runs that program, Mik Mikitik, is a longtime acquaintance, and anyone suggesting that Mik doesn’t do his best to offer a solid program is a liar.
Others might argue that the WDFW’s enforcement division should stop trying to be “police” and go back to being “game wardens.” If that seems unfair, consider the cover of the Winter 2009 enforcement bulletin, featuring a cadre of game cops outfitted with camo clothing and assault weapons, and define the message sent by that photograph. (Would you want that bunch checking your kid’s fishing license on opening day?)
We can all learn from both tragedies, not just one or the other. Perhaps the thing we need to learn first is that screaming at one another, pitting one user group against the other, accomplishes nothing, and it proves even less.
And, in order to make sure they remain rare, the kid should do the entire 15 months.
They make new because the NEWS MEDIA IS ANTI-GUN, ANTI-HUNTING
that is why it makes news.
Anyone who pulls a trigger and does not positively know what they are shooting at (regardless as to age) should be made an example of in the criminal court. That also goes for anyone who shoots a gun without knowing what is in back of the target and hits property or life.
Accidents are made. They do not simply pop up without any blame on the individual making them.
I’ve been hunting and shooting all of my life and can always remember the two rules my father taught me: 1. Always be positive of the target you are shooting at and 2. Never fire a gun without FIRST checking out what is behind the target.
I would almost be certain that these boys had a .270 with a scope on it and how the kid didn’t know what he was shooting at seems very strange to me.
That said, when I lived in Maine in the late 80's, one of those years two of the hunters who were shot and killed were wearing hunter orange. Buck fever does strange things to people.
I have a hard time calling this an accident.
I don’t hunt anymore but still enjoy getting out into the woods. I avoid the woods during deer season simply because I don’t want to get in any one’s way. If I did go into the woods during that time I would dress as a hunter.
During turkey season this spring I even coordinated with some hunters. They told me where they would be and suggested where they would like me to be visible to encourage game in their direction. In fact, I may even go with my neighbor next spring to sit in the blind and get pictures of turkeys he calls in.
Anyone, no matter what precautions you take, can be killed by negligent stupidity. When guns are in the mix, stupidity will almost certainly kill someone. I would never let my kids go hunting without an adult that takes it as seriously as I do until I am 100% certain my kid knows what he’s doing. The parents of this child were negligent, IMO. I don’t believe in letting kids hunt without adults until they at the very least have their drivers license, but I can see that some kids would be mature enough before then.
I cannot overemphacize not only knowing your TARGET, but also knowing what is BEHIND it! These rifles PENETRATE. In WWII, the Germans lined up some prisoners in rows, and killed as many as 8 with a single bullet from one of their bolt-action 8mm Mausers with FMJ ammo, a round just a tiny tad more potent than the US 30.06.
Rare or not. If you’re 14 and you’re carrying a lethal weapon and fire it indiscriminately with recklesness, you do the time. He should have been imprisoned for 30 years minimum. Then the next 14 year old who is untrained, and unqualified, and unsupervised would think twice before shouldering a weapon. Hunting is fine. Owning a weapon is fine. Being irresponsible with a weapon and causing someone’s death is not fine. It demands retribution. Harsh retribution regardless of age. The brother should have also been tried and sentenced.
Years ago, I did some seasonal work for the US Forest Service during hunting season. Most of my time was spent where there were lots of trees. I heard the whine of bullets more times than I cared to count. Each time, I would start shouting, and the shooting would stop.
Never saw the shooters. Darn sure they never saw me. But I hard the bullets whine more times in 2 weeks in Utah than I did in 6 months in Afghanistan...although I was old enough by Afghanistan that I didn’t get out much.
these are both terrible hunting deaths...but I wonder if the outrage over the hiker is more of an example of the clash between anti-hunters and hunters over public land use....I’ve been a licensed hunter for 45 years and there are fewer of us every year...hunter recruitment and hunter retention are the two biggest buzz words in our state’s Fish&Game Dept....at this rate the anti-hunters are gaining.
Some other drunken idiot bagged a red pickup truck as it drove by.
Hunted the muzzle loading season in the Sacramento Mts. in New Mexico in the early 80's. That was back in the caplock and flintlock days, before blackpowder became popular and straight line. I wore full camo and practically had the whole woods to myself. Wouldn't dare venture out there dressed like that now, unless I had a death wish.
I am all for hunting and 2nd Amendment rights, but when I lived in the eastern Sierras, Opening Day of hunting season was a day when NO ONE HIKED. Lots of city folks would turn out for this one hunting event of their year. Any number of cows would be shot, humans injured, etc. Folks who were not experienced were out shooting everything that moved. Any of us locals who had to be out in hiking areas for any reason would wear orange everything.
Although your idea has merit (lock him up for 30 to send a message), keep in mind the next 14 year old hunter that accidentally shoots someone will likely be 5 years old now or not even born yet. The chances of him (next young hunter) learning from this experience are next to nothing. The fact the hunter/killer deserves whatever justice is given is a product of the rule of law as set forth by our founding fathers and adhered to today.
When I was a kid, a deer hunter in my hometown killed a woman out behind her house. It was a real tragedy, made all of the national papers, but the "journalists" only wanted to crucify the hunter, without providing all of the facts.
I will not disagree that the guy screwed up. He should have checked his target. Also, his location, he was hunting pretty close to the house. Absolutely inexcusable. I don't remember what his punishment was, but I vaguely recall that he eventually committed suicide.
However....the woman wanted to steer him away from her house. She went out in the woods...if I remember correctly, it was at dusk. She was wearing a brown jacket and white mittens, and was waving her arms to get the hunter's attention.
What the hunter did, IMHO, was absolutely inexcusable. I can't help but think, though, that if the woman who was killed had used a bit more sense, she'd still be alive.
There's always a little more to the story.
Was a member of a high school shooting team in 1961-63 in SE PA. Our coach was an NRA district officer of some kind. He was a great guy. He would show up with our equipment in his Woodie. One of the guys asked him if he was going hunting on opening day and he said it was too dangerous. Too many idiots out there. I doubt that things have improved from 1961.
Lots of state land around here and I wouldn’t hunt that if you paid me. Private land is a who different matter.
There is no excuse for this but when the adrenalin gets going, strange things happen to the eyes
- my first big game hunt at 16 had me convinced that the thing I saw in early early light was a bear that was sitting on its haunches and sniffing in the air
- I watched it for 10 - 15 minutes and the only thing that kept me from shooting was my training - but that bear was there at 6:45 AM
- somehow by 7:10, it snuck off and all that I saw was the tree stump that must have been in back of it. ;->
I went deer hunting on opening day, once. It was a little misty that morning.
When the mist lifted I counted at least a half-dozen hunters, all within rock throwing distance of me.
I'll never hunt opening day again.
Thirty years for negligence rather than malice is excessive. Would you impose the same sentence on a 16 year old driver who causes a death due to negligence. Cars and firearms are both dangerous tools which can cause death or serious injury, but there tend to be more unqualified fools behind the wheel than behind the trigger.
Absolutely! If you hike during hunting season and don't wear fluorescent orange, you are an idiot that is asking for trouble.
I havn't done any serious hunting since my younger days, back in Iowa.
I made the mistake of going fishing on opening day for deer, in Utah. Holy crap!
These days, the boy (14 yrs) and I do a lot of skeet 'hunting', along with some 22 plinking.
I love the fact that I can drive 30 minutes out of town and be in the middle of the desert - alone!
Maybe she had on one of these?
Never, Never wear white mittens as it simulates the flash of a white tailed deer. Use a red handkerchief not a white one.
Caution is the by word. I am very careful even when going into woods that I own.
Newspaper accounts usually leave out important details, because the reporters know not of what they report.
NO 14 or 16 year old should be allowed to go bear hunting without this supervision. Bear hunting is not a video game.
That might have been OK in the 1800’s to mid-1950’s. But 14-18 year old, by and large, are not experienced enough to be in this situation. IMHO.
I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen my father scared...and have some fingers left over. Once, while deer hunting with me, he took out his white handkerchief, shook it out and blew his nose.
It took about a second for him to realize what he'd done. He immediately dropped the handkerchief, hit the deck, and started cursing loudly. (I can count on two hands the number of times I've heard my dad curse).
Fortunately, there weren't any other hunters around, or if there were, no one was dumb enough to do something stupid.
It only takes a second of inattention.
Since it was black bear season, I wonder if the hiker was wearing black clothes and carrying a black backpack, and maybe was facing away from the hunter with black hair.
There was intermittent fog on the mountain at the time of the shooting. The following were presented in testimony at the trial (you judge what you think happened): The youth and his older brother both said they thought it was a bear. The younger brother only fired after his older brother confirmed it was a bear. Their binoculars were fogged up.
A University professor was brought in to testify that once your mind identifies something (say in bad visibility conditions) it is hard for you to recognize what something truly is unless the additional information is kind of overwhelming (the fog again). (I call this the buck fervor theory).
The kid's family had a good reputation in the community and was not what anyone would call a troubled child. The kid's grandfather was waiting at the trailhead for them.
There is a lot to this tragic tail, including the point of the article that the "hiking" community feels they own all public lands and is very close to having the political muscle to severely restrict hunting. Previous state initiative severly restricted hunting with dogs and another state initiative has banned taking anything with mechanical traps, including moles in lawns. It would not be out of the realm of possibility for the tree-huggers of WA to attempt to outlaw or drastically restrict hunting.
I tried to read this article but the words were too big. I'm waiting for it to come our in comic book form.
I agree with you.
Well, need I say more. First they guessed what the target was since their binoculars were fogged up. Second, the boy fired simply because his brother told him it was all right. A clear example of not knowing what the target was and an absolute violation of the most basic hunting laws. Idiots or simply kids who had no respect for law or man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.