camo in the bush

interesting thing to think about. 2 of us were out in the wop wops looking for deer. we saw nothing but on the way back on the river bed we saw a couple of goats so thought why not. we lay down and took a few shots. 1 missed and I hit. as we got up a guy in full camo (even face all comoed up) emerged from the bush past the goats we shot. he was angry and swearing etc that we were trying to shoot him etc. question is- who would be in the wrong? this was up the lake and there were no other boats around, no notes/entries in either of the hut books, the shot we took was from one side of the river to the other, maybe 100m. he would have seen us cos we were on the bushline but wearing orange. he was just in the bushline aswell but all camo so we didn't even know he was there. infact if wed shot him we wouldn't have even known. we left and took the boat back and there was no cars in the carpark-no sign of anyone else at all. dunno how he got there even. so is it us for not checking where we were shooting? or him for not making himself visable?
same sort of question, if someone was on a riverbed say, and dressed in a guille suit, and was shot, whos to blame? to the shooter it was just a tree lol. just wondering anyway, cheers guys

he was a muppet

It's one thing to opt for being camoed up, quite another to loose your cool when someone can't see you!

Idiot, I blame the clothing company's with there desperation to sell the next product, spouting drivel about hunting clothing, question them about how animals see in shades of grey, real tree was invented for Turkey hunters, as turkeys see in colour, and before the usual people jump in sayin more people are shot using blaze ( American statistics) it's because you have to wear blaze in most states while hunting, wearing a face veil is actually one of the most important things when hunting, apart from being down wind, as it's the first thing animals recognise, it's as bad as silent clothing, you will make far more noise walking than your clothes will make, again silent clothing only comes into use when tree stand hunting with a bow, jeez if a deer can hear your clothing from 150mtrs away you have no hope , RANT OVER

In fairness you wouldn't be taking potshots at trees so unlikely to happen.

A ricochet off a rock is a possibility when shooting in rivers but i wouldn't stress it

Tell him to pull his head out of his ass

ive been in the same situation, was looking at a deer in the tararaus years ago thru binos , it was out of range, and a guy stood up or moved into what would have been the line of fire and he was all camoed. I didnt see him till he moved

Was the camo hunter rifle or bow hunting? I can understand bowhunters being camo d up more than one with a rifle. A shooter still needs to take into account and study the possible impact area though.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

To answer your question, in my opinion I'd say if you'd hit him you'd be at fault unfortunately. The responsibility to properly ID your target (which you did on the goats), but also check your firing zone is yours as the hunter/firearms license holder.

This is probably another point where quality optics come into there own.

Sent from my ALE-L02 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deepsouthaussie

This is probably another point where quality optics come into there own.

Sent from my ALE-L02 using Tapatalk

---

And thermal optics?

You own the bullet when it leaves your rifle and are responsible for whatever it hits. Still, yet another argument for not using cammo

If you did shoot him, he is the victim and suffered a harm, I do not think anyone other than himself, would per se blame him. The law definitely does not blame him and his medical bills will be covered by ACC.

The real and only question is are you to blame. I would say it depends on the circumstance. We can all accept that you did not see him, the question would be, was it reasonable for you not have seen him. In other words, were you sufficiently diligent before you fired the shot. The conclusion can easily be either way. His camo could have been considered, objectively, super good and an reasonably diligent person could not have seen him. Or his camo was not that good and you were not as diligent as the firearm law requires.

Expert witness may be required to provide an objective assessment.

Bro do you want to be seen or not?

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...41e5796ecb.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My two cents:
1. He would have been safer wearing a pink Tutu
2. You would have been in the shit up to your eyeballs if you had shot him (rules 4 & 5)

Would you have seen him if he was wearing blaze??

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Would you have seen him if he was wearing blaze??

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

---

Or what about "normal" outdoor clothing eg?

It's an interesting subject

I had an unexpected hunter stroll through a clearing I was looking over one morning and his blue blaze top stood out like the proverbial dogs bollocks

Attachment 53787Attachment 53788

If he was in camo & "not visible" how could it be the shooters fault ????

If you can't see him, he can be "in your firing zone" & near your target without your knowledge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pengy

Attachment 53787Attachment 53788

---

The blaze Hat certainly makes a difference in those condations. Still, in the camo theres no mistaking im a deer, you have to be a idiot to shoot at movement if you saw me at all. With the blaze i prob dont look like a deer either, but if i was sitting down and you only saw my blaze hat, covered in a little snow and behind some scrub so it wasnt visable that great hasnt there been cases recently where people have been shot because the hunter thought the little bit of blaze they saw looked colour likely of a deer......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Would you have seen him if he was wearing blaze??

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

---

most likely. hes was just in from the bushline so probly 2 metres in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pengy

Attachment 53787Attachment 53788

---

was kinda like the 2nd pic but more scrubby type shit, we never saw him move or even saw him at all, was just after 2 shots he popped out

I don't know about normal clothes, he was only a couple of metres in but as you know, when its a bit shady/dark in the scrubby shit. I think blaze would have been seen but not full cammo

he had a rifle with him, and that was also cammo taped lol

So if you sit or lie on the road in the half light wearing an asphalt camo suit, deliberately trying to be invisible and get run over by a passing car, who's fault is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoshC

To answer your question, in my opinion I'd say if you'd hit him you'd be at fault unfortunately. The responsibility to properly ID your target (which you did on the goats), but also check your firing zone is yours as the hunter/firearms license holder.

---

I do understand that. if we had shot and killed him though-we wouldn't have even known he was shot or even there. the firing zone is a hard one in the bush too. its not like you can quickly run 1000m past the target to check for people. we had already checked the area for boats/huts for gear and the hutbooks and there was no mention of other hunters/people at all in the area

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

So if you sit or lie on the road in the half light wearing an asphalt camo suit, deliberately trying to be invisible and get run over by a passing car, who's fault is it?

---

haha good example haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feral

Was the camo hunter rifle or bow hunting? I can understand bowhunters being camo d up more than one with a rifle. A shooter still needs to take into account and study the possible impact area though.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

---

na he had a rifle. also probly 50m into the bush was a steep hill so weren't really shooting into nowhere. had a backstop as such, was just weird haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

My two cents:
1. He would have been safer wearing a pink Tutu
2. You would have been in the shit up to your eyeballs if you had shot him (rules 4 & 5)

---

but that's the thing, if wed shot and killed him-we would have never known he was even there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grutsyboy

but that's the thing, if wed shot and killed him-we would have never known he was even there

---

If you had shot and winged him I'm sure you would have heard him!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grutsyboy

was kinda like the 2nd pic but more scrubby type shit, we never saw him move or even saw him at all, was just after 2 shots he popped out

---

Did he come out and wave or what? Why would he even walk out into your firing zone,what an idiot. id be turning around and finding cover well before walking out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deer243

The blaze Hat certainly makes a difference in those condations. Still, in the camo theres no mistaking im a deer, you have to be a idiot to shoot at movement if you saw me at all. With the blaze i prob dont look like a deer either, but if i was sitting down and you only saw my blaze hat, covered in a little snow and behind some scrub so it wasnt visable that great hasnt there been cases recently where people have been shot because the hunter thought the little bit of blaze they saw looked colour likely of a deer......

---

You answer your own question, you should not shoot unless you identify 100% your target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matto1234

Did he come out and wave or what? Why would he even walk out into your firing zone,what an idiot. id be turning around and finding cover well before walking out.

---

na we had had our shots, got up, put out packs back on and then saw him emerge waving his arms, so we waved back haha. then we could hear him abusing us for tryna shoot him etc. we did kinda say if we WERE tryna shoot him he wouldn't be standing. in the end we just walked off and left him, after a few words of our own anyway lol

No one is to blame here ,but you are responsible for the bullet that leaves the rifle. A mistake is a mistake .To many people been shot by due to silly mistakes and lack of thought .

Legally the shooter would have been responsible if he had shot the other hunter. From what I can make out he IDENTIFIED the target and CHECKED the firing zone. How the fuck would he know if the camo clad hunter would have been there after taking the two above steps....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wtf-surely if he saw you hed have immediately realised holy shit this is not good and outed himself immediately-yeah you would have crapped yourselves but it would be better than his decision to stay stumm and hope you missed(bloody selfish idiot).
Like others said IMO-if tragedy happened youd have been arseholed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tiroatedson

Legally the shooter would have been responsible if he had shot the other hunter. From what I can make out he IDENTIFIED the target and CHECKED the firing zone. How the fuck would he know if the camo clad hunter would have been there after taking the two above steps....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Second that comment. Rules 4 & 5 were observed. Why the hell would anyone go full camo in NZ bush? There were no other hints that there was any one else in the vicinity. However, had the guy been hit and survived, the shooter would have been before the courts for sure. This is why I never wear anything like camo when I'm bushing. Also, after the first shot, had I been the camo guy, I would have made my presence known for sure.