Sidney Smith
58 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 2,205
- Reaction score
- 2,312
The shooter was an *****, there's no other way to put it. He broke the cardinal rule of positively identifying your target before pulling the trigger. Now some may argue had the archer been wearing orange, it wouldn't have happened. In reality, nothing would've changed the outcome because the mindset of the shooter was probably such, that he wanted to see an Elk, and that's all his mind would let him see. Orange wouldn't have changed that.Last year a guy from here in Pa.was huntin in Colorao with an inline and shot a Archer that was in full camo.The Archer was on the ground.The article stated that they were in a very remote area and didn,t know each other or each others presence.The Pa. guy was huntin Elk and had one bulging and caught movement in the brush and fired.The Elk was no where near where the shootin occurred.The Pa.guy is in a world of trouble.
So. Was the archer wrong? In my opinion, no. He was more than likely within his legal requirements by not wearing orange. The fault does not lie with him, or his choice to wear full camo.