Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!doug.cae.wisc.edu!osnome.che.wisc.edu!hunting
From: HUDSON%EIVAX%UALR.BitNet@vms3.macc.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.hunting
Subject: Re: Hunting "Accidents"
Message-ID: <1991May31.094933.27675@doug.cae.wisc.edu>
Date: 31 May 91 14:49:33 GMT
Lines: 22
Approved: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu
Originator: hunting@osnome.che.wisc.edu

>Shoshana L. Wodzisz stated "...because of the keen eyesight on a turkey...
>you can't wear orange..."
 
Yes, that was my point.  I believe we are required to wear orange to avoid
being shot by other 'hunters'.  Anyone who would actually mistake and shoot
another human being for game is not, in my opinion, a hunter (at least, not
a 'good hunter').  I am upset with the requirement since I feel that the
'hunters' of this type should not be in the woods anyway.  When I hunt, I
follow the rule of "don't shoot what you can't identify".  It has to be a deer,
not a COW or PERSON, period.  I see no resonable excuses, and I thnk folks that
shoot others during hunting should be prosecuted (probably MANSLAUGHTER).
 
While I am at it, how about the media (and just about everyone else) calling
people that shoot up property or hunt illegally "hunters"?  I always thought
that people who shoot up other property were called "VANDALS" and that illegal
"hunters" were called "POACHERS".  I think both can be called "CRIMINALS".
 
Keith Hudson
hudson%eivax@ualr.bitnet