Woman shot, killed by bear hunter

[Cross-X]

Woman Fatally Shot By Bear Hunter

POSTED: 4:25 pm PDT August 2, 2008
UPDATED: 9:50 am PDT August 3, 2008

SKAGIT COUNTY, Wash. -- A woman was fatally shot by a bear hunter on Sauk Mountain, said Chief Deputy Will Reichardt of the Skagit County Sheriff’s Office.
A 54-year-old woman from Oso was hiking with a friend around 10:30 a.m. Saturday when a group of hunters were also in the mountain.

One of the hunters, a juvenile male from Concrete, spotted what he thought was a bear and fired a round, fatally wounding the woman.

Deputies said a preliminary investigation indicates that the woman was stopped on the trail putting something into her backpack when the hunter mistook her for a bear and fired one shot.

The incident happened along Highway 20 west of Rockport. Reichardt said it’s legal to hunt bear in that area and it’s also a popular hiking area.
The hunter was accompanied by at least one other person, police said.
Police said no one is currently in custody and they continue to interview the hunter and the woman who was hiking with the victim.

Copyright 2008 by KIROTV.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[vicpinto]

Always be aware of your intended target... dumbass.

 

[Big_Red]

Always know your target...always know your target...always know...

To me this is negligence and the hunter should be charged.

 

[drew]

Big Red, couldnt agree with you more, lets just hope he hasnt reproduced or is capable of reproducing any off-spring....

 

[Fixxah]

Unless she was wearing a black fur coat and eating berries etc., he's screwed and should be.

 

[Erebus]

Unless she was wearing a black fur coat and eating berries etc., he's screwed and should be.

Yep no excuses for this at all.

Although my father did find a guy in the woods wrapped in a bear skin once. He was bear hunting himself and he said the bear skin was his camouflage. He had fallen asleep leaning against a tree. Luckily it was my father that came across him and not some dumbass that will shoot at anything.

But still, I can't see how a hiker fumbling in a backpack can resemble a bear at all. Even if every stitch of clothing was brown.

 

[ateamrob]

Always know your target...always know your target...always know...

To me this is negligence and the hunter should be charged.

100% in agreement... Stupid ass.... I dont care what the heck he says... he obviously did not make sure he identified his target. period.

 

[Jose]

Why wasn't he arrested? It's negligent manslaughter; he admitted it. If this were a self-defense case, the victim would already be in cuffs, charged with assault or some crap. But, it's an "accident," so they don't do anything.

Sigh.

Actually, Washington State (including libtard-infested Seattle) is VERY self-defense friendly.

What happens in Massachussetts to people who shoot someone in self defense is most definitely not the rule in most of the rest of the states.

 

[Jose]

To me this is negligence and the hunter should be charged.

+1 Negligent Homicide has a nice ring to it.

 

[Scrivener]

+1 Negligent Homicide has a nice ring to it.

Roger that.

And if the cops don't have the stones to do it, there's always a civil suit to be brought. Not that the shmuck is likely to have any assets.

 

[Admin]

+1 Negligent Homicide has a nice ring to it.

+2 I can't stand idiots that call themselves hunters. Utter bullshit. Absolutely no reason not to correctly I.D. your target before pulling the trigger...

 

[Jose]

Not that the shmuck is likely to have any assets.

Knowing the area they are talking about and assuming the hunter is a local, you would be right.

 

[Tater]

Woman Fatally Shot By Bear Hunter


One of the hunters, a juvenile male from Concrete, spotted what he thought was a bear and fired a round, fatally wounding the woman.

.

probably inexperienced at acquiring and identifying target then taking precision shot. Most likely he heard noise, saw movement, squeezed trigger.

 

[strangenh]

probably inexperienced at acquiring and identifying target then taking precision shot. Most likely he heard noise, saw movement, squeezed trigger.

The hunter was accompanied by at least one other person, police said.

Manslaughter, negligent... one fails to live up to the duty of a reasonable person in a situation in which a reasonable person would know the failure to meet the duty to act reasonably could result in the death of another, and such death actually does occur as a proximate result of the failure to meet the duty.

So we have one failure to exercise reasonable care in the use of a firearm hunting; and one failure to exercise reasonable care in the supervision of a minor with a firearm. Two manslaughter cases; two wrongful death lawsuits.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[EddieCoyle]

+1 Negligent Homicide has a nice ring to it.

It depends on what she looked like.

 

[matt1956]

I'm sorry... i dont get these... unless the woman was about 400 lbs and wearing a freaking fur coat (it is summer) with a bear mask... I don't see where you make that mistake.

 

[gene]

One of the hunters, a juvenile male

Poorly trained?

 

[sksguns]

I agree that he should have identified his target before shooting....but......if people are allowed to hike in an area where people can hunt it should be required that people entering the area where bright colors. Safety orange comes to mind....

I know, I know, the hunter is young and inexperienced and I agree with all the reasons mentioned, but had she been wearing safety colors she may be alive today.

 

[clinotus]

I'm sorry... i dont get these... unless the woman was about 400 lbs and wearing a freaking fur coat (it is summer) with a bear mask... I don't see where you make that mistake.

Poor lighting and rummaging through a back pack while crouched, would give the appearance of a bear pawing at the ground.

 

[matt1956]

Poor lighting and rummaging through a back pack while crouched, would give the appearance of a bear pawing at the ground.

I can see that.

Mind you, i have not gone hunting (yet) so i really have no experiance in this.

although i also have to agree with SKS.

If you are hiking in a area known for hunting... take proper precautions.

 

[clinotus]

I agree that he should have identified his target before shooting....but......if people are allowed to hike in an area where people can hunt it should be required that people entering the area where bright colors. Safety orange comes to mind....

I know, I know, the hunter is young and inexperienced and I agree with all the reasons mentioned, but had she been wearing safety colors she may be alive today.

Its a double edged sword and unfortunately both sides of the issue are woefully and sometimes fatally ignorant of what is going on around them. Out here we have a shooting range that if not for the sake of a berm and many many yards is a hiking trail.

Most of the range shooters are aware of it and there are plenty of signs posted through the surrounding land and at least 25' from the berm (if you were walking towards it from above). All for the benefit of the hikers who go astray.

Yet, ever so often someone waves at us from the top of the berm. [sad2]

 

[sksguns]

Its a double edged sword and unfortunately both sides of the issue are woefully and sometimes fatally ignorant of what is going on around them. Out here we have a shooting range that if not for the sake of a berm and many many yards is a hiking trail.

Most of the range shooters are aware of it and there are plenty of signs posted through the surrounding land and at least 25' from the berm (if you were walking towards it from above). All for the benefit of the hikers who go astray.

Yet, ever so often someone waves at us from the top of the berm. [sad2]

I hear you. It's tough to account for every situation and even the signs are sometimes ignored.


But your range might do one bette rif they own any of that land beyond the berm. You could put up a funce with the signs posted on the fence. Hopefully that would stop the hikers from peaking over the top.

 

[Scrivener]

Poor lighting and rummaging through a back pack while crouched, would give the appearance of a bear pawing at the ground.

True.

And knowing that there are things OTHER than bears in the woods and confirming the target before shooting it are the the hunter's responsibilities.

Shooting at mere motion and / or noise is gutless, lazy and irresponsible. Yet again, someone has been shot by such a "hunter."

 

[Admin]

True.

And knowing that there are things OTHER than bears in the woods and confirming the target before shooting it are the the hunter's responsibilities.

Shooting at mere motion and / or noise is gutless, lazy and irresponsible. Yet again, someone has been shot by such a "hunter."

+1 As a hunter you are completely responsible to I.D. the target before pulling the trigger. Seeing brown, black, fur, or whatever doesn't mean fire away.

 

[Mark from MA]

Poor lighting and rummaging through a back pack while crouched, would give the appearance of a bear pawing at the ground.

As a hunter of 25 years experience, although I mainly bowhunt only now, I cannot go along with that. I can understand something like that happening by accident especially with an overly excited youth hunter, but...there's no way to justify it. You must know your intended target and must not shoot until absolutely sure what your shooting at. Rule #1. Sad thing is it could probably happen to anyone just making a quick decision at the wrong moment.

There are no excuses for it and charges should be filed, and the induvidual should step up and accept what punishment is deemed fit.

I have passed many a shot in thick brush, when I absolutely knew it was a deer, but could only see brown. Choosing not to shoot has likely cost me a few deer over the years, but no deer is worth having a hunting accident.

 

[Admin]

I have passed many a shot in thick brush, when I absolutely knew it was a deer, but could only see brown. Choosing not to shoot has likely cost me a few deer over the years, but no deer is worth having a hunting accident.

That pretty much sums up the way I feel about the incident too.

 

[mark056]

I don't hunt anymore (nothing against it and I encourage people to hunt) but I do go out in the field hiking during the several hunting seasons, I do a couple of things: in mixed use areas (hiking and hunting, which I try to avoid, but it is not always possible) I stay on the marked trails, and I always wear international orange. It doesn't eliminate the risk of being shot, but it does minimize it to a degree.

It sounds like this had all ingredients of a major accident waiting to happen: young inexperienced hunter with 'buck fever" (I know it was bear season) who could not properly identify his target, but at the same time more than likely saw what he wanted to see...in a state of heightened excitement this does happen.

Of course there is absolutely no excuse for his behavior. One life was terminated and one life ruined.

Mark L.

 

[Mikey]

I agree that he should have identified his target before shooting....but......if people are allowed to hike in an area where people can hunt it should be required that people entering the area where bright colors. Safety orange comes to mind....

Required!? Lets not start trying to create new regulations b/c you know the hunters and shooters will be the ones who have to bend and not the hikers.

Hunters need to understand that they share the woods with everyone else and they are the ones with the gun taking the shot. This is a simple case of a BAD hunter. Lets hope he is punished.

 

[sksguns]

Required!? Lets not start trying to create new regulations b/c you know the hunters and shooters will be the ones who have to bend and not the hikers.

Hunters need to understand that they share the woods with everyone else and they are the ones with the gun taking the shot. This is a simple case of a BAD hunter. Lets hope he is punished.

I agree completely the hunter is at fault here. He's the one with the gun and the one that decided what to shoot at and the one who pulle dthe trigger and the one who killed the hiker.

I'm not sure what the requirements are for hunters in his state but in this state, Mass, you have to wear the safety orange when you hunt during black powder and shotgun season on deer. Why does the guy carrying the gun have to wear the gear but the hiker, in the same hunting area, doesn't have to? It makes no sense.

Carry a gun and hunt animals - Wear safety orange

Just out hiking through an active hunting area - no orange require

I hate rules and regulations but this one just makes sense to me. I have no idea what the specifics of the encounter are so for all I know this kid may have still shot and killed her. But what if he just got a glimps of her kneeling over her backpack and she had an orange vest on...or pink or bright green......she might still be alive.

 

[clinotus]

I dont know about that. As I mentioned earlier, both groups tend not to think of the other on a whole.

I mean look at us for example, we go on a hike in the woods, part of us looks around and spots a few 'Posted' signs on the way in or somewhere about and immediately we know the deal. Suzy Q goes hiking and sees a sign on her way in and thinks nothing of it.

With hunting on the decline across the state, its just not a common thing for your average person to think about when hiking in the woods. "People still hunt?" "People are running around with guns?" and so on... you know the logic.

I'd hate to have another law passed, but if incidents like this one make an upswing you can be pretty sure the first regulations will address areas of overlap between hunters and hikers. And we all know what happens when the lawmakers get a foothold on the topic.

It would do everyone well in the long run if people who went off the beaten path wore a bright color. And not just for the safety from hunters aspect.