Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Hiking in hunting season

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
 

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby MoapaPk » Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:05 pm

This is a very meaty thread; lots of good points all around. But before I make a decision, I want to hear Darija's opinion.
User Avatar
MoapaPk

 
Posts: 7653
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Thanked: 758 times in 491 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby simonov » Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:46 pm

mrchad9 wrote:The issue is hunters endanger others. Significantly. Climbers endanger themselves.


Careless or negligent hunters endanger others, just like careless or negligent drivers endanger (a hell of a lot more) others.

Careful and thoughtful hunters endanger no one.

Some perspective: I betcha there are more careless or negligent drivers contributing to this thread than there are careless or negligent hunters.

Here in the west, to get away from the asshats, you climb. The hunters who actually walk or pack miles into the wilderness, rather than stick to the highway-side campgrounds, are generally the more conscientious ones.
Nunc est bibendum.
User Avatar
simonov

 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Costa Mesa, California, United States
Thanked: 466 times in 269 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby lcarreau » Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:22 am

Where the hell are them friggin' deer ???

Image

Image
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4056
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 920 times in 692 posts

The following user would like to thank lcarreau for this post
John Duffield

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby simonov » Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:50 am

lcarreau wrote:Image


Dude is seriously undergunned for deer. Aside from the weak sauce 5.56mm caliber, he needs a cup-holder and a bayonet.
Nunc est bibendum.
User Avatar
simonov

 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Costa Mesa, California, United States
Thanked: 466 times in 269 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby Arthur Digbee » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:58 pm

MoapaPk wrote:This is a very meaty thread; lots of good points all around. But before I make a decision, I want to hear Darija's opinion.

Well, you got some pictures from Larry. I hope that helps.
OCCUPY SUMMITPOST !
User Avatar
Arthur Digbee

 
Posts: 2284
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:03 pm
Location: Indianapolisish, United States
Thanked: 255 times in 173 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby Nitrox » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:19 am

Cascade Scrambler wrote:There's an enormous difference between being lumped in with someone who got lost or injured, and being lumped in with a group of people where one or two idiots has shot someone. Call me wreckless if you must, but because I don't carry in the mountains, I'm in no danger of shooting someone.


Sometimes climbers get there partners killed. I hear about a lot more tragic climbing accidents than I do hunting accidents.
Nitrox

 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: The Middle, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 7 times in 5 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby Nitrox » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:24 am

simonov wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:The issue is hunters endanger others. Significantly. Climbers endanger themselves.


Careless or negligent hunters endanger others, just like careless or negligent drivers endanger (a hell of a lot more) others.

Careful and thoughtful hunters endanger no one.

Some perspective: I betcha there are more careless or negligent drivers contributing to this thread than there are careless or negligent hunters.

Here in the west, to get away from the asshats, you climb. The hunters who actually walk or pack miles into the wilderness, rather than stick to the highway-side campgrounds, are generally the more conscientious ones.



No no no, there's only one type of hunter and they shoot hapless kids in trailer parks. Didn't you read the three or four article posted here? Its a fact.

Now then, I just got a new bottle jack and there's some trundling to be done.
Nitrox

 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: The Middle, Oregon, United States
Thanked: 7 times in 5 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:32 am

Nitrox wrote:
simonov wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:The issue is hunters endanger others. Significantly. Climbers endanger themselves.


Careless or negligent hunters endanger others, just like careless or negligent drivers endanger (a hell of a lot more) others.

Careful and thoughtful hunters endanger no one.

Some perspective: I betcha there are more careless or negligent drivers contributing to this thread than there are careless or negligent hunters.

Here in the west, to get away from the asshats, you climb. The hunters who actually walk or pack miles into the wilderness, rather than stick to the highway-side campgrounds, are generally the more conscientious ones.



No no no, there's only one type of hunter and they shoot hapless kids in trailer parks. Didn't you read the three or four article posted here? Its a fact.

Now then, I just got a new bottle jack and there's some trundling to be done.

Nope- Not one person said that. I simply said that I though the penalties for shooting someone should be greater than they currently are.

And I'm not talking about hunters killing those they hunt with (so the climbers killers partners is not analogous). I'm talking about hunters killing someone else doing a different activity.

If you or anyone else here is a careful hunter, then why should you have an issue with harsher penalties for those that shoot a person?
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4207
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1216 times in 825 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby Tanngrisnir3 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:41 pm

Nope- Not one person said that. I simply said that I though the penalties for shooting someone should be greater than they currently are.

And I'm not talking about hunters killing those they hunt with (so the climbers killers partners is not analogous). I'm talking about hunters killing someone else doing a different activity.

If you or anyone else here is a careful hunter, then why should you have an issue with harsher penalties for those that shoot a person?


Unless you can cite some statistically significant rising trend in hunters negligently shooting people, it seems like a rather unnecessary legal option to increase penalties.
Tanngrisnir3

 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:51 pm
Thanked: 59 times in 35 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby simonov » Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:56 pm

mrchad9 wrote:I simply said that I though the penalties for shooting someone should be greater than they currently are.


You said, "The issue is hunters endanger others." A gross simplification, and absolutely incorrect to boot.

When you choose to couch your arguments in sweeping generalizations like this, it tends to diminish the impact of your thesis, however much merit it might actually have.
Nunc est bibendum.
User Avatar
simonov

 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Costa Mesa, California, United States
Thanked: 466 times in 269 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 5:37 pm

Tanngrisnir3 wrote:Unless you can cite some statistically significant rising trend in hunters negligently shooting people, it seems like a rather unnecessary legal option to increase penalties.

Consider the goal of reducing the number of occurrences that are happening versus the current frequency. I don't thing the penalties should be harsher to stop a rising trend, and I have no idea how you got that impression. They should be harsher in order to decrease the number of incidents from the current level.

simonov wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:I simply said that I though the penalties for shooting someone should be greater than they currently are.


You said, "The issue is hunters endanger others." A gross simplification, and absolutely incorrect to boot.

When you choose to couch your arguments in sweeping generalizations like this, it tends to diminish the impact of your thesis, however much merit it might actually have.

You are in danger when a hunter shoots you, so hardly incorrect. That is all "The issue is hunters endanger others." means. If have difficulty understanding that or you want to disagree with it then that is your prerogative. This is old, neither of us are legislators, and I don't really care anymore.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4207
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1216 times in 825 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby Tanngrisnir3 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:28 pm

mrchad9 wrote:
Tanngrisnir3 wrote:Unless you can cite some statistically significant rising trend in hunters negligently shooting people, it seems like a rather unnecessary legal option to increase penalties.
Consider the goal of reducing the number of occurrences that are happening versus the current frequency. I don't thing the penalties should be harsher to stop a rising trend, and I have no idea how you got that impression. They should be harsher in order to decrease the number of incidents from the current level.


OK, what data do you have that indicates/suggests:

A. what the current number of accidental shootings by hunters are?
B. that there's a correlation between any potential increased penalties and a decrease of the current amount of shootings?
Tanngrisnir3

 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:51 pm
Thanked: 59 times in 35 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:43 pm

Tanngrisnir3 wrote:A. what the current number of accidental shootings by hunters are?

It is non-zero, and the penalties are small compared to what the result of the incident is. BTW I think if you cause another's death via numerous other mechanisms the penalties should be greater as well. This is not an anti-hunter thing. I'm a big fan of the Singapore style of justice. It's a very clean and safe country, no crime issues. One of the best cities in the world IMHO.

Far example, I think we should have the death penalty for voilet rape, we used to. But to be effective it needs to apply frequently, not just in a very small percentage of cases as it is currently used, and not after 20 years.

Tanngrisnir3 wrote:A. what the current number of accidental shootings by hunters are?
B. that there's a correlation between any potential increased penalties and a decrease of the current amount of shootings?

Of course there is a correlation that increased penalties will decrease the amount of crime. You don't have to limit is to this particular type of incident even. Take the Singapore example. Do more severe penalties decrease drug use? Hell yes. That is not even debatable. Increase prison terms to twice as much, might be too small to notice the correlation. Increase them by an order of magnitude and you have a real impact.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4207
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1216 times in 825 posts

Re: Hiking in hunting season

Postby Tanngrisnir3 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:02 pm

It is non-zero, and the penalties are small compared to what the result of the incident is.


So essentially you want new legislation and criminal penalties to address a problem that you are unable to quantify.

BTW I think if you cause another's death via numerous other mechanisms the penalties should be greater as well. This is not an anti-hunter thing. I'm a big fan of the Singapore style of justice. It's a very clean and safe country, no crime issues. One of the best cities in the world IMHO.


I'm not a big fan of paternalistic, authoritarian quasi-police states, myself. HS Thompson once called it 'Disneyland w/the death penalty' and I tend to agree.

Tanngrisnir3 wrote:A. what the current number of accidental shootings by hunters are?
B. that there's a correlation between any potential increased penalties and a decrease of the current amount of shootings?
Of course there is a correlation that increased penalties will decrease the amount of crime.


Excellent. Go ahead and provide that data, then.

You don't have to limit is to this particular type of incident even. Take the Singapore example. Do more severe penalties decrease drug use? Hell yes.


Really? Then quite apart from such issues as having a historical drug culture or not, you'll be able to provide data indicating what drug use once was, when the current laws were put in place and what the rate of use is now.

That is not even debatable. Increase prison terms to twice as much, might be too small to notice the correlation. Increase them by an order of magnitude and you have a real impact.


But, of course, everything is debatable in the absence of any relevant data, and Singapore is irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.
Tanngrisnir3

 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 4:51 pm
Thanked: 59 times in 35 posts

PreviousNext

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.