Thread: 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

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?




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