Agreed! I was SHOCKED to see that 20% of people said, "no minimum." SERIOUSLY???? You want it to be okay to give a 5-year-old a gun and send him off in the woods alone. Without a gun, I believe sending your child off into the woods alone, unsupervised, can get you a charge of reckless endagerment.

I absolutely agree with you. What are people thinking. The parent must be mentally deficient to put a gun in the hands of a child. The parents should be punished ig the child hurts someone.

According to tiredofhaters I guess that I am just one person of 20% that have shocked you. As a person who grew up around hunting and guns. NO MINIMUM on age to hunt alone is just fine. But I do agree with you any one who would give a 5 year old a gun and send them into the woods is stupid but seriously do really think that a responsible parent would send their 5 year old into the woods with a gun alone. Its people like you that would send their 5 year old into the woods with a gun alone just because the law says "NO MINIMUM AGE". As I said before I grew up around guns and hunting as a child it was always treated as privilage to be able to hunt and only once we showed maturity and passed a gun safety course were we allowed to hunt. Yes not every hunting family is responsible but most are. When I started to hunt my dad didnt just hand me a gun and send me into the woods. How stupid do you think people are? Or are you just to stupid to think before you act and thats how you think everyone is? My dad SHOWED me how to hunt RESPONSIBLY and only once I was trained to hunt safely was I allowed to be alone which was at 13 but even then my dad was still in visible sight of where I was in the woods he just wasnt right next to me. It wasn't until I was 16 that I sat by myself out of sight of my dad. I know that not all parents do this with their children but seriously NO MINIMUM AGE doesnt mean a parent is going to send a 5 year old into the woods with a gun it means that the government is actually letting a parent decide when their child is responsible enough for this. If we continue to let the government tell us when it is ok to do something pretty soon we will all have a pda attached to us that tells us when we are allowed to go to the bathroom, take a shower, turn on the light, or even watch tv. When that happens will you finally think that the government controls too much. My guess is no because if you think that right now we need more laws telling us how to live or raise our kids you will be first in line to get that pda to tell you when to sh*t!

I am so sick of people trying to take away others' freedoms. Let the kids hunt.

Rural kids grow up with exposure to guns, hunting, fishing, wildlife and acquire backwoods skills at an early age. A farm kid in the midwest is likely to feed and handle large livestock by himself before he begins elementary school and is likely to be driving pickup trucks, tractors and combines on his family's farm as soon as he's big enough to reach the pedals. There is absolutely no reason to restrict their freedom to hunt. Some of my fondest childhood memories were of time spent hunting and fishing with my dad as a kid. I hunted under his supervision when I was 11 and we were both carrying guns by the time I was 13. I used to get off the school bus, run into my house, grab my gun and go out the back door and begin hunting.

City kids, not old enough to drive, are not wandering the woods with shotguns, they're wandering the streets with handguns.

THIS IS AMERICA!!!!! WE SHOULD PRESERVE OUR LIBERTY. STOP the control freaks from regulating us to death. The story in this article, while tragic, is an accident noteworthy for its rarity. These accidents are extremely rare and, while the fault lies with a careless teen, the hiker should have taken a few safety precautions, such as wearing blaze orange clothing during hunting season.

As for hikers who are so stupid that they are unaware of hunting season - maybe they should be regulated!!!! How can anybody not notice vehicles on the highways filled with men wearing camoflouge or hunter-orange clothing, with dog boxes in the back of their pickups and guns in the racks. How can anyone not notice the vehicles parked along rural roads, the men walking along the roadsides carrying guns, or hear the echoes of gunshots. Anyone with an IQ over 20 knows that in the autumn when the leaves change color and begin to fall it is hunting season. Hikers should practice common sense and wear blaze orange clothing for safety, or better yet just hike in city parks for the short few weeks when hunters are in the woods. To suggest that innocent hikers are unaware of hunting season is dishonest, or the hikers are as dumb as dirt.

Sportsmen are Americans too and ought to have a few rights.

This is a loaded question. I have taught Hunter Education for over 15 years in Wisconsin.

Some kids are more mature than others. I have seen adults in their 50s that shouldn't hunt. I have seen kids at 12 in Wisconsin that could hunt alone very well.

(Wisconsin has a hunter education course that allows hunting within non mechanical voice contact at 12 and 13 with their legal guardian. At 14 the hunter can hunt alone outside of voice contact.)

We also have Blaze orange laws that people who are hiking should follow during hunting seasons. Although I do not know all the particulars of this accident, but why anyone would be out hiking with dull colored clothes on during hunting season is beyond me. I have already stopped joggers on the road and given them a blaze orange vest to wear after I explain to them that even though they have the right to do as they wish, it is better to wear the vest so hunters can see the blaze orange at longer distances. Blaze orange can be seen through brush and at very low level light conditions.

30-06 style bullets can travel up to 4 miles (at optimal elevation of the barrel) and still be deadly. Our accident rate in Wisconsin has gone down to minimal since the inception of the education course and the blaze orange requirement.

Hunting is a heritage in America. States have their own right to pass what laws they see fit as long as the voters let them. This accident was unfortunate and I hope that people can learn from it.

There are many responsible hunters who do teach their children and the education courses are also a great way to reinforce safety. I don't wish to take anyone's personal freedoms but I support that children under the age of 16 should be supervised. Look at driving a vehicle, you must study and take your diving test, but in our state you aren't allowed to drive alone until you are 16. I don't understand how you can put a loaded weapon into a child's hands at a very early age and allow them to hunt unsupervised. If we don't consider a child responsible enough to handle a motor vehicle until 16, why are we allowing them to carry a firearm without supervison before that age?

Moose,

With all due respect, I don't understand how you can support children hunting alone. How very dangerous! Don't assume children are responsible-- especially since many adults are not. I grew up in the mountains of PA. My high school gave us the day off on the first day of deer season (no one came to school anyway). This is one of NUMEROUS news items that I have read, regarding hunters accidentally shooting people. It's common and you know it, if you hunt. I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I also support strict gun control and background checks for those wishing to purchase firearms. We can't have a free-for-all. We need to have rules, limits, and education on responsible gun use.

On a sidenote, I have always despised the term "Sportsman" to describe hunting. Hunting is not a sport. Sport implies a fair fight, and a human with a high-power rifle against an animal with only their skills to hide, is hardly a fair fight.

I hunted by myself when I was 10 years old. It is a lot safer to let a 10 or 12 year old hunt by them sleeves then letting them be by them self at the mall or dropping them off at the moves at that age. I am sorry if you can’t teach our children how to be responsible but should not be to stop who people can.

The government steps in and regulates when people will not regulate themselves. The protection of the life or good health of an individual is more valuable than allowing a minor the "freedom" of hunting without adult supervision. Although most kids might be well trained in gun safety, it's the few who are immature and implusive that necessitate laws to establish a minimum age of hunters. Hunting in America is not a "heritage". Our ancestors had to hunt for food and survival. We no longer need to do that.

I have to agree, the animals should have high-power rifles too.

But seriously......if you saw how some of these humans with "high-power" rifles shoot....you would not be too concerned being the animal with skills.

REAL hunters never "accidentally" shoot anything and they do not claim to be "sportsmen(women)" either.

Besides what child likes to hunt alone??? What does that mean.....Dad was in the next field? Or was Dad at work.....eating dinner??

Like I said before most children that truely hunt alone are probably using a BB or Pellet Gun, if not one of those airsoft things.....Maybe they should do a poll on that.

scales67

"Our ancestors had to hunt for food and survival. We no longer need to do that."

Did you forget about the places in America where we still do? Walmart still is not in every corner of America....at least not yet. I heard they are having a hard time finding employees in North Alaska, the natives think the stores are too warm :)

And YES....HUNTING IS A HERITAGE..........

Considering the mentality of most hunters, I vote for age 35.

Neurofuzzy,

I still live and hunt in PA, so I am surprised about your comment about hunting accidents being common in PA. You're just wrong. Most injuries during hunting seasons come from falls and pre-existing medical conditions. Accidental shootings do occur, but for the couple that occur each season amoung million plus hunters it does not justify being referred to as common place. Any accicdental shooting is a tragedy, but all are preventable. Safety and responsible hunting practices make good hunters and stewards of nature ( and God ).

It's interesting that people think that parents make good decisions, so let them decide. What about the parents who are molesting and beating their kids? Some parents are brain dead. Why not let kids drive whenever a parent decides then? Why should states infringe on when kids can have sex and with whom? What if the parents think that's ok? This makes no sense

The term "sportsman" is such a crock. Give the animal an equal chance to kill the hunter, and THEN we can talk about calling it a "sport."

Let me correct myself after checking out the Pa Game Comission website. There were 35 shooting injuries in all of 2008. 3 were fatal, 14 were self inflicted and most actually occurred involving hunters 20 - 50 years old. There are also less than a million hunters in PA now, there were 1 million plus in 2004, but now about 975000.

Also, Dave in NM: Many of the larger game animals that SPORTSMEN hunt are capable and willing to kill a human if the opprtunity were to arise. Humans are the apex predator and steward to this planet, but only with intelligence and tools. Maybe you should try hunting or a shooting sport before dismissing it as merely "killing". There is a lot more to hunting than killing, but it is a part of the experience and a pathway to the grill.

Its not a matter of age... its a matter of physical and emotional maturity. I doubt seriously any parent would allow their 5 YO to go out alone and hunt, but I'd rather leave that decision and the risks that go with it to parents judgement.

I respect folks who decide not to hunt/shoot, but their opinions are skewed in this type of discussion... what about signage - why was the public land not "posted"...

As for recognizing a women versus a bear... there are plenty of cows painted "cow" just to avoid being confused with a deer... so what does that tell you about adults...

Slippery slope - no easy answers.

respectfully offered

Rick,

Yes you have to be 18 to purchase a rifle. Depending on what state you live in you can be given (Christmas, birthday, whenever) a rifle/shotgun as young as the age of 8. You can own one, you just can't buy one or the ammo until 18.

It is the same as a car. You can't buy a car until you are 18 in most states because you can't legally sign a contract until you are an adult. Now mom and dad can give you one, but it is in their name until you become an adult.

I shouldn't be shocked at all of the comments from obvious urban residents, but wow. It used to be nothing for me and a friend to go hunting and fishing all day and night. Sometimes miles down the river and not coming back til dawn. If parents would parent kids and teach them rather than just saying "guns are bad, m'kay?" then we wouldn't have all these idiots you're so worried about with guns and misinformed people afraid of them.

If you parents think you have the common sense to have a gun and hunt alone then it's their responsibility. A gun is a tool. The only exception to this is in sport such as skeet shooting or target practice. Both are incredibly fun if you've never done it. It beats playing some console game any day.

I agree with those who've said 18 is a better age to allow an individual to hunt alone. However, I would say that age is the very least, but only after attending and successfully passing an extensive gun-hunting safety course, that is even before any firearm is shouldered by any young, inexperienced potential hunter. I do know for a fact that there are some very responsible parents who take their right to hunt very seriously and ensure their younsters are well trained in the sportsmanlike principles of hunting, firearms safety-handling, firing, etc., and positively identify game being hunted, before shouldering any firearm. Binoculars should be made mandatory for identification purposes, not the scope installed on a firearm. The purpose of a scope is to zero in on game after positive identification and when the trigger is intended to be pulled. In other situations, when scoping isn't necessary, because the game is unmistakenly in clear view, shouldering the firearms in this case should be safe. Binoculars for glassing the area in search of game. No sound or movement shots should ever be a reason to pull the trigger. We, in the country, are currently blessed with our freedoms to hunt and possess firearms, don't give the politicians more ammunition to use against to remove those freedoms.

I said 16, its one of those things that at that age most kids are either old enough to know that their actions have consequences or have been hunting with their parents enough to know what is going on. The way I see it at 16 we give them car keys and say have a good time, and frankly I'm more scared of a 16 year old with a car than a 16 year old with a gun.

You have to be at least 18 to buy a gun, but you can legally fire that weapon at any age with supervision. Additionally, There are numerous hunting accidents (fatalities) each year, made by people of all ages. One thing which the article didn't mention was, before anyone under certain ages are allowed to hunt they must complete a required safety course.

The real issue here is there are people out there who feel that they can exercise their right to free speech, but don't want to allow others their right to bear arms and look for any reason to restrict people from all of their constitutional rights.

Additionally! It would seem that the state should be held to blame as much as the person firing the weapon simply due to to the fact that they don't recognize the need to post signs warning hikers that there are hunters close enough to shoot them (not to mention the rediculous idea that allows hunters to be in close proximity to hikers in teh first place).

It is sad and misfortunate that anyone should lose their life in any hunting accident. However, don't penalize the young hunters because the state hasn't met their minimum obligation to keep the non-hunter safe.

And a final comment for Dave in NM: You are a true idiot!

I was 12 years old when I was allowed to hunt by my parents and grandparents. I had absolutely no problems whatsoever.

I definately agree with those of you that are saying it should be 18. If you can't legally own a gun, then you shouldn't be able to hunt with one. I'm so sick of people complaining about government control and socialism, please, it is common sense and when not enough people seem to have it, they have to pass laws.

I blame the liberal media, and this site in particular for even bringing this topic up....... just try and legislate more or our personal, and FAMILY decisions for us, why don't you ask what's in it for MSNBC to push a left wing extremist topic......... oh maybe because they have been in bed with Obama from the begining!!!!!!

KEEP YOUR GOVRONMENT OUT OF MY FAMILY, AND OUT OF MY LIFE......... THIS IS A DECISION BASED ON INDIVIDUAL MATURITY, AND TRAINING, AND A DECISION THAT SHOULD BE MADE BY A CHILDS....... P A R E N T S ...........PERIOD!!!!

Nuerofuzzy.... do you eat beef? You call a slaughter house a fair fight? SCALES67.... for those of us hit by the economy, yes, there are still some of us that need to hunt in order to survive. Educate yourself on hunting and what it can provide. Bet my venison steak has a lot less crap in it than your store bought "beef". Who are you to say "we no longer need to do that?" Yes, we do. How much is your grocery bill?

you are all idiots. hunting is a way of life in the south and we're SMART about it. with experience comes skill. and with skill comes fewer accidents. instill this knowledge into the kids at an early age and this kind of nonsense will no longer happen. people who want to limit the age of hunting need to wear a fur coat into the woods and experience their own "hunting accident." at least you'd all shut up.

Hunter courses and boating safety are routinely taught in schools here. You'll probably find some of the 14 year olds who have taken those courses are a good deal more capable than 18 year olds and older who have only age as the qualifying factor.

BTW you'll probably find more accidents thanks to moronic adults who leave handguns laying around only to be found by some 5 year old than accidents involving teenagers accidentally shooting someone while hunting.

In some cases the minimum age should be 30 and in others a 12 year old could be responsible to safely. Parents need to be responsible for their kids, we've all handed off our choices to the government and checked our brains at the door. Government knows best - that would explain the economic mess we are in, the skyrocketing budget deficits, the fact that we import oil while we have reserves larger than Saudi Arabia underneath our feet, the high unemployment rate (all Bush' fault of course). My family and I used to do a lot of outdoor activities together but all of the government regulation has soured me on buying a hunting license, paying for a fishing license, an ORV sticker, insurance on things like boats, ORV's, etc, costs of classes to operate a boat, a PWC, a motorcycle. Every kid should learn to shoot a gun safely, you never know when you might need one to hunt or for self protection - after all the first thing the government cuts when it wants more money in the form of fees and taxes is police protection and schools - standard play book of all politicians. Did you know that taking too much Ibuprofen is bad for you? What age should do you think you should be to take Ibuprofen? I see people driving their bicycles unsafely every day where I live, I think we need an age requirement, mandatory classes on how to ride a bike, and license for that and require them to wear body armor and a helmet. There's also a chance that swimming could lead to drowning, should there be a minimum age? How about mandatory life jackets and swimming lessons - why don't we require that? trampolines are dangerous too, maybe we need a class along with a safety certificate and again helmet, neck brace, and a padded suit would be good to have on while playing. This is life....life is inherently dangerous....get over it ....it's not the government's job to protect us all....bad things happen to good people.....get it?

The issue here is not whether or not there should be an age requirement. The issue is who has the right to tell anybody else how to raise their kids? The government? Some majority? No. That's why there should not be an age requirement. Sure, good common sense tells us that you shouldn't hand your 5 year old a gun and say 'bring home dinner', but for a law to be passed saying that you don't have the right to determine whether or not your kid is capable of hunting alone is just absurd!!! I mean what would be next, not allowing you to choose your own health coverage? Oh wait they are already trying to do that too. We must put a stop to this liberal freedom-stripping madness.

City folk need to stay out of this. I started hunting when I was 5 with my first BB gun, got my first pellet gun at 6, .22 rifle and shotgun at 8, and was hunting alone shortl;y thereafter. My father taught me the right way to hunt - safety first.

If I had been raised in a city, completely different circumstances.

huntingchick,

I happen to be a vegatarian, thanks.

JAC,

I would be greatly interested in knowing where you live. City/State.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with your outlook on hunting age.

This is not a choice the parents should make. This is why to drive is 16 and to drink is 21 because parents just don't understand that while their child may seem old enough and mature enough to handle a car, a beer or a gun, there not. This is how mistakes happen. People are being killed here. This is not a whats right whats wrong discussion. People are dieing because of this. Don't you people understand that? I can't even believe there actually are parents out there that would and do give there young children guns. And we wonder why there are no many young kids killing each other, but when the parents are the ones giving them the guns how can you blame them.

Your point contradicts your conclusion. Since you must be 18 to purchase a firearm, children who are hunting (at whatever age) must have the permission of the adult who purchased it in the first place.

Dave in NM, how about if we give you a bolt action rifle, 3 rounds and drop you off in bear country. Good luck! I guess you think everytime someone goes hunting they come back with their bag limit.

You can drive a car on private property at any age. Can't own it, but can drive it on the streets at 16. If anything, I could see changing hunting licenses to make 16, 17, 18 whatever, the legal age to hunt on public property alone.

Heartcry ................ or should I say "Bleeding Heartcry"...... you are a moron, that is exactly what we need, more legislation so people like you don't have to bother parenting their children, just let the govronment tell your kids what they should do, when they should do it, and for whom they do it, sounds a bit socialist to me......... oh and for your information, a parent can give a minor alcohol that they have purchased, within the confines of their home, as long as it is not endangering the child.

let me clarify........ a minor child of theirs, not just any minor.

The boy was 15, is 16 that much different. If that law was set at 14, then it wouldn't have changed anything. What is the miniumum age to ride a bicycle unsupervised? I'm sure more kids are involved in deadly cycling accidents than hunting. Walking to school? With hunting you take a course and get a license, any fool can grab a helmet and a bicycle and ride out in front of a car.

From here and here bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac-safety.html Possibly by a factor of 7, which is alot.

Also, the setup of the article, with the first 50% talking about how nobody is aware that 10 year olds can hunt legally, followed by a few paragraphs from pro-hunters, and finally a few paragraphs from anti-youth hunters is kinda biased. Also the lack of mentioning mandatory saftey courses, blaze orange and license age requirements etc.

OMG are you aware that there are no minimum age requirements for riding a bicycle... skateboard... walking??? We're like totally all doomed and deserve to punish ourselves for letting 89704r89043 kids get hurt in skating accidents! In California they even let you out in the sun without sun screen! The minimum age for swimming is ZERO!

Iceminn.....First off, I have no children, second no I do not believe the government should step in and tell the people what to do and how to do on everything, trust me I have a lot of issues with them, but when parents have already been given the chance to do right by there children and people are killed because of their lack of responseible, yes, by all means the government should set limits. But you feel that what? lets give our kids guns and let them run around the woods shooting at anything that moves? or how bout we give them guns and beers as long as the mommy is there? and I'm the moron? lol Lets hope you do not have children. Why don't you tell that to the over 5,000 families of teens who died due to "supervised" teenage drinking last year or the thousands of families who lost there children, fathers, mothers and friends in hunting accidents because of children and adults mistaken them for deer.

ok, 2nd time my link went missing, lets try again.. volokh . com / posts / 1140198176 . html w/o the spaces of course.

Heartcry.... thousands? Do you mean ever, because I believe the total accidental hunting fatalities per year is under 100?

DelFarichild -You commented that you didn't know why anyone would go walking through the woods without an orange vest. Many people haven't had any exposure to guns and may not be aware that people are hunting. On the other side, why would someone pull a trigger of a gun or rifle before they can identify their target? I believe the responsibility is on the side of the person with the gun.

Just like in driving, a person shouldn't be able to say, "Why was that person walking by the side of the road carrying groceries home on foot, they should have gotten out of my way. People with guns need to be careful that they don't take their rights or their privileges for granted.

Maybe hunting should be restricted to particular hunting areas that are overpopulated with deer, moose, buffalo, etc. so that everyone, including city folks, can forage something. Why have police go in and kill a bunch of deer and give it uninspected and unprocessed to the poor. Let everyone eat whatever they kill.

And everyone should get a hunting permit before they go hunting just like before they go fishing, and signs should be posted warning people that guns may be fired in the area. Even in light of all of this, the person with the gun needs to know what they are shooting before they pull the trigger.

It's unfortunate that so many restrictions have to be made but we live in times where most people rely on the corner grocery store. Sure, knowing how to forage is great but it's probably not realistic that everyone can do it.

Moose-1064301

I hope you don't really mean it's the victim's fault that they got shot.

I guess my parents were mentally deficient then. If you take the classes and learn the proper way to hunt. I dont see any problem with it at all.

EG - kudos!

Del - Too many people have the "I have the right . . . " mentality, without the ". . to be responsible" part. I have had numerous "discussions" with kids (usually in the 10-14yo range) about activities near - and in - roads. I always hear "pedestrians have the right-of-way"!

While that may be true, the fact is that roads were created for vehicles much larger than a teenager and for purposes much greater than a playground. I then suggest they hold their comforting thought with them as they lay broken in their hospital bed because they stepped into the path of a car and it couldn't miss them. If it's their own fault, they won't be rich in their wheelchair.

Hunting season exists and whether or not you agree with it, YOU need to accept the responsibility for your own safety when in, or near areas that may be hunted.

Yes - the hunter erred; but that isn't necessarily an age thing - - and it doesn't remove any responsibility from the victim.

HOPE - Moose may not say it - but I will. Just because someone becomes a victim, doesn't mean they had no responsibility for the outcome.

How the previous post by me got "flipped" a bit is a question. Undoubtedly, I did something wrong.

The last three statements should start with the one addressed to HOPE.

Bounty - Actually, there was 1,150 total accidents/deaths in ONE state alone in 2007, with almost 500 of those being caused by children 1-19 years of age.

In 21.5 percent of Pennsylvania’s fatal accidents the hunters responsible were under the age of 18. Hunters between the ages of 10 and 19 were responsible for 26 percent of the United States’ and Canada’s fatal hunting accidents between 1996 and 2001. That age group also was responsible for 553, or 20 percent, of the 2,793 nonfatal accidents reported in the United States and Canada. In Canada 15 hunters were killed because a hunter slipped or fell and their gun went off. An additional 58 hunters were injured, but survived similar accidents. These are just some of the reports. Look, I am all for living your own life and leaving the government out of it, but if we set limits for the animals, to protect them, by having certain hunting seasons, why wouldn't you want to set limits for your kids, to protect them?

I joined the military at 17. If the government believes I am responsible enough to kill a man on my own, why not kill a deer on my own?

You are wrong. Millions of kids hunt safely every year.

Ok give them a knife and send them out... come on keep the government out of my life. use your own mind and decide for yourself

Hey, we'd never let an 8-year-old drive a car, even with adult supervision. Why should we let one carry a gun? The government needs to do what it can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, crazies, and children.

In truth, I believe what that hiker was exposed to that day was darwinism. plain and simple. She was running in the WOODS during the middle of HUNTING SEASON! These city dwellers just want more gov't regulation, Oh Barack, Oh Barack where art' thou? There's kids with guns omg omg.... Seriously people when did we go from a land of freedoms where laws were mala in se, to the US needing non stop regulation pay this, get your inspection sticker, register you rifles, how about some free healthcare for people who want to use the fruits of their labor to buy an iphone or Baracks' cutl little crackberry instead of insurance. Way to go America lets not follow what we've preached against for the last 61 years. YAY SOCIALISM YIPPIE or should I say yuppie??

So you're saying that all public lands should be closed off to anyone but hunters during hunting season? She was on a jogging trail, for heaven's sake. Even if she'd been a hunter herself, she'd still be dead. No-one, child or adult, should be allowed to hunt without TRAINING and passing a TEST where they are able to convince the tester that they will not shoot anything until they have confirmed conclusively it is a wild animal and validly in season. "I thought it was a bear" should NEVER be an excuse for anyone, child or adult. If you don't KNOW it's a bear, don't shoot. It's as simple as that. And any parent who has failed to instill that in their children is as guilty as the child when an innocent victim is shot.

Entrepreneur, I can't believe you just lumped my son in with crazies and criminals. Its not the governments job to protect you, and you don't need protection from children hunting, I think they need to be protected from you.

electos,

No one is saying all public lands should be closed off during hunting season. Now public lands that allow hunting SHOULD be closed off to hikers during hunting season. The kid in question DID pass a hunting class and test. He had training. If she would have followed the signs at the entrances of the park and wore an orange vest (which even hunters are REQUIRED to wear), would have stayed on a MARKED hiking trail (she was not on a jogging trail btw), and would not have decided to wear a large black coat (not sure if it had fur on it. Different news reports said yes and no to that); then she might still be alive today.

John gault,

You are over the age of 6 so you should know how the mind of a liberal or someone who reads the Brady Campaign website's mind works.

Maybe they should have trained him to tell the difference between a bear and a woman then.

It seems that there is a certain element that just doesn't believe we should have laws -- oh, except to ban gays from marriage.

Debbie, I agree with you 100%! These gun activists are always screaming about their rights but they are the first ones to say that others shouldn't have rights that every American should enjoy!

John Gault-

Actually, protecting the people is the primary job of all governments throughout history.

The question is: Who should decide what that age is. This a state issue and the many states have each come to a conclusion by acts (or lack thereof) of their legislatures.

The truth is that children who grow up in families that hunt or shoot for sport are the kids that know firearm safety the best. They have been taught to respect firearms and know how to handle them safely. A 12-year old who grew up with training in his home is far less of a threat than an 18-year old who learned just enough to pass a hunter's safety course to get his license.

Most states have age requirements for getting hunting license I believe, they were just totally neglected in the article. Also I believe it was an accident, we don't ban 65+ year olds from driving just because one is involved in an accident. Also, "the leading cause of death among U.S. teens is motor vehicle crashes accounting for 36 percent of all deaths in this age group." So ban driving until age 20 before you go after some other group that you don't represent, you'll save more lives that way.

Hikers don't contribute dollar one to the system that purchases and maintains these lands, hunters, fisherman foote the bill.

Soooo, the taxes paid by people that hike don't contribute? You're also dismissing groups who maintain watersheds, riparian areas and trails so that hunters and fishermen have areas in which to pursue their activities - don't paint with such a wide brush, you'll only get messy yourself. The only reason that the kid should be at fault is that he shot while not being absolutely sure it was a bear - you don't shoot thinking your target is "X", you shoot fully knowing what you are shooting, better safe than sorry. Yes, the hiker is also at fault - I would venture to guess that she either disregarded the fact that hunters were in the area or was naive enough to think it would just be herself and soft and fluffy little bunnies in the woods (call it inexperience). Either way, it was a horrible tragedy and, as a caveat, I've known adults who I wouldn't let hunt alone with a pointy stick, let alone a rifle, since blaze orange or not their reflex was to shoot first, gut it later...

masshunter, are you nuts? We ALL pay taxes that keep the national parks going every year! I read that a rifle bullet can travel 4 miles, so I guess we should all stay out of your way for those months of hunting season? There should be designated hunting grounds that are kept FAR away from the public. I agree that wearing an orange vest is necessary but if this child shot this woman that quiclkly, without making SURE if it was a bear, a vest wouldn't have helped her. Children of that age do not think of the consequences of their actions but this poor kid is going to have to live knowing he killed an innocent woman for the rest of his life.

Your right, I dont blame the kid.. I blame the parent. He should have had a adult with him. What if it was a bear. And why in was he hunting in the fog.. Now that is just asking for an acident to happen. I dont thinks the issue is if he should have been hunting just if he should have had an adult around to guide his decisions. We do it with driving a car, why not dealing with a gun.

The sad part is that there are now two victims here. The hiker and her family as well as the fact that the boy will have to live with this the rest of his life.

You cannot have gun control laws AND the right to bear arms. obviously you do not understand what a Right is. It is something that cannot be taken from you. Any law controlling the manufacture, sale, possession or use of anything removes the quality of having a Right to the thing.

Hunting is a seperate issue. That is a privelege in most states (it requires a license). Individuals that show they have knowledge of firearm and hunting safety should be allowed to hunt. It should be up to the parents to educate and supervise until they are convinced the child is ready to hunt alone. Don't pass anything else along to the legislature that parents should decid for their family

In Pa. where I grew up you had to be 16 to hunt without supervision. That being said I was sixteen before my father would let me hunt alone. But by the time I was twelve I allready owned a double barrel shotgun and a twentytwo rifle. I was brought up in a household where gun safety was beat into my brain from the time I was five years old. There were guns leaning in corners ammunition in drawers we knew how to load 'em and how to shoot them, but we also knew better than to mess with any of it without permission. I couldn't hunt till 16 but I regularly shot that little twenty two unsupervised from the age of twelve up, always safely in a hollow behind the house into a hillside. There are houses all around and there was never a problem. That being said some of my friends weren't raised around guns and started hunting at 16 and I have to admit some of them made me so nervous I wouldn't hunt with them after the first time, so it really is on an individual basis. I would like to add that the person who mentioned using scopes to identify game hit that one right on the head, the first most important rule is you never point your muzzle at anything you don't wish to shoot. Number two, there is no such thing as an unloaded firearm treat every firearm with the respect it is due even with an empty chamber. And lastly there is no excuse for shooting anything or anyone by mistake, always identify your target, once you pull that trigger you can't bring it back. It is sad that the hiker was mistaken for a bear you should be able to wear a fur coat through the woods and still not get shot you still don't look like a bear. Anyone who gets so excited at the prospect of shooting a game animal should really be extra careful I would much rather let the biggest buck I ever saw walk away than make a mistake that could put anyone in danger.

Ways of the woods? pfffft! Are you serious, Paul Bunyan? Guns are historically VERY new and have nothing to do with "the ways of the woods". I'm glad your parents were so responsible. So, what do we do with all the parents who are not?!? I grew up with guns, hunting, and camping, hell, I can pack my own ammo, but many of the people in our community were not responsible. In fact, I would say my father's caution and healthy fear and respect for the guns he owned was rare. Usually, most of the people in our community didn't give it a second thought - and that is the problem. They couldn't see past their own selfish desires and wants. I'm all supportive of gun rights, but IT IS POSSIBLE to have gun control laws and gun rights. IT IS NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. It is not a one or the other. That argument is a falicy of fear marketed by corporations to support their own economic and political agendas. People who can't think for themselves or can't consider the fact they live in a society with other people (typical ugly american stuff here) simply follow what some big money grubbing corporate conglomerate or lobbyist spout out into the media or public hearings. There is NOTHING to support the idea that this particular type of gun control regulation would dictate how to raise your children to be responsible stewards of our resources or rights. Any argument toward such is an act in futility. In fact, it would enforce the responsibility of parents to raise children who understand and respect firearms. This extreme and ill-informed perspective is getting tiring and old, and it is on it's last leg - everyone knows this. It is only a mater of time. You can come to terms with it, or keep wining and crying like a spoiled child who doesn't like to be told to wait. If you want resonable gun control regulation, it would be in your better interest to come up with more resonable gun control laws that speak to everyone - especially the ignorant majority that lives in cities and are unaware of your great wisdom from the woods - before you are told what to do by that angry majority. There are a lot of people who hunt and have guns who also KNOW that gun control laws are too weak and outdated. We can have guns AND regulations together.

That's all these liberal idiots can do is think of more laws to make to constrict and constrain the vanishing freedoms that we still have.....and while this is a sad story, as was stated earlier, this woman wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer hiking in the woods during hunting season. I'm suprised she didn't have a bear or a moose costume on.

"vanishing freedom" ?!?! I love that tag line. What real, substantial "freedom", in your lifetime, has vanished? I've been around this crazy country for quite some time, and I haven't seen any vanishing freedoms!? Again, a bunch of corporate BS followed by ignorant consumers and mindless boobs. People use this word "freedom" so readily, but the content of their statements and arguments is often superficial and selfish - typical. Freedom in America simply means the ability to do what ever the F one wants, but freedom is so much more. Using freedom in this content is misleading and almost misanthropic.

How about our vanishing freedoms under the Bush administration -- such as the right to privacy?

Mike Wood "Let us exercise our free will, and hold us accountable and responsible"

The problem is when your free will hurts or kills other people THEY are bearing the burden, not you. No matter what is done to the shooter, it couldn't compare to what's happened to the victim nor help them in any possible way. So, who is really bearing the responsibility for the action?

And before you all tell me how I don't understand guns--grew up in a house with them, was taught how to handle them and to shoot before I was 12. They aren't a mystery to me, I just don't find them very interesting.

While I don't "get" hunting, if that's how other people want to spend their time, fine. However, there needs to be laws in place to protect people who want to go enjoy nature as this tragic case and many others like it, prove. And those laws would not only benefit innocent hikers (and shame on you people who are trying to blame the victims) but also save kids from having this tragic experience as well. And kids should be protected from this.

You don't hear people screaming to let the parents decide when to let kids drive and just allowing them to turn their car keys over to their 12 year old. By the logic here, if I give a child a few classes or just teach them myself, any 10 year old could be on the highway alone. I'm sure there are a few that could do quite well but would we, as a society, do this? Yet, turning a kid out with a high-powered weapon seems logical?

Children's activities are, for the most part, determined by laws; they must go to school, they cannot drive until 16, are not considered adults until 18, cannot drink alcohol until 21. To all the parents who say that they should be the last word on what happens to their kids, if you had common sense, you would realize that kids are just that...kids. They need laws curtailing some activities and need parental supervision over others. Yes, I'm sure there are people out there hunting for their food but most hunters are recreational and they should all be there, with their kids, to ensure the respect the activity (I don't call it a sport either) is due. I do have another question....what do all those hunters who are hunting for their daily meat do when hunting season is over...starve?

They need laws curtailing some activities and need parental supervision over others

OK you can have your law the minute they pass a law determining qualifying factors for adults to breed. How come you can't see the mistake the girl made also?

As for your question about what we do with meat, I guess in urbania you don't have freezers or have never heard of fishing?

Donna.................. we DO NOT need laws..................we need parents, your kids do NOT have to go to school........ parents have the right to home school them........... and the harvesting of some animals (I.E.....deer) is essential for the overall health and survival of the species, so in closing, learn what you are talking about BEFORE opening your mouth.

To donna-397871:
"To all the parents who say that they should be the last word on what happens to their kids, if you had common sense, you would realize that kids are just that...kids. They need laws curtailing some activities and need parental supervision over others."
I have a lot of common sense. At least enough to know that I am a much better judge of the maturity and responsibility of my children than any government official.
Laws are not needed, parents who educate and supervise their children are. Unfortunately, too many people want the government to run their lives because they are not willing to take the responsibility themselves.
Who decides what activities need curtailed? There does not need to be sepeate laws for children. Oh, and not all states limit driving to 16-and-over, look it up.

mindlessbuddha, we already have laws and regulations. You get training and a license. More people die from swimming, should we enact swimming licenses, minimum swimming ages, maximum swimming ages, IQ requirements and an aptitude test? By a huge factor other recreational activities are far more deadly, seems most people are freaked out by the gun, not the amount of actual harm. Also, historically are you kidding? Kids have been hunting as long as we've been anything resembling humans. The tools have evolved, but the responsibility of the parents and peers hasn't, that's why we have hunting licenses, and why hunting is so much safer than other sports. Most of you are pissed that a gun was involved. If it was a 16 year old and a car accident (much more common), you'd just say ohh well.

There is a .pdf on the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment that shows between '96 and '98 they had equal number (5) of accidental fishing deaths and hunting deaths. FISHING!!! 12 horseback riding, 21 boating/water skiing, 21 rafting, 26 swimming, 30 bicycling, 36 skiing and 37 hiking. I'm sure not many of these cases have one participant killing another on accident, but the ruin caused by these other activities is obviously much greater. Throw a fit over them.

By this "logic" if a kid can pass a driving test at 8, 10, or 12 years old, they should be allowed to drive a car. Or if 12 or 14 year old boys and girls can pass a "sex test" they should be able get pregnant or get some girl pregnant?

It's a loose analogy with the car (a car requires well-developed motor and decision-making skills, whereas a gun just requires one not to be an impulsive idiot), but I don't at all see the analogy with "sex test". Knowing anything about sex has nothing to do with understanding the responsibilities behind proper parenting. There is no way to test that (a pity, really).

I've never really known a teen who is capable of the responsibilities of parenting (even financially, it's not like they even stand a chance to try; those who think they can are delusional and have an entitlement complex), and I've known few and far between who could handle a car, but I've known plenty who can responsibly handle a firearm.

What are you all talking about? Kids that age ARE having sex! And by not educating them about their sexuality, sex and birth control you are insuring that children will be having children. If you want your kid to hunt....great! Just make sure they have the best training available. (And hunting takes more than pointing and shooting). If you don't want your kids to become young parents, for God's sake, educate them.....now.

The fact of the matter is...No an 8,10, 12 year child that can pass a driving test should not have a license.  At the same time an 8, 10, 12 year old that can pass a hunter safety course can possess a hunting license, does that mean we should let them hunt in the woods unsupervised?  This whole blog has become kids in the woods with guns, when the question is simple.....Should there be an age limit as to when kids can hunt on their own. 

Besides most of us parents enjoy the time spent hunting with our kids until they are parents of their own.

Actually, on this we're in agreement. I never said we shouldn't educate kids about sex. I just pointed out the loose application of your analogy. Actually, I think that the inevitibility that teenage sex will happen in a free nation is all the more reason we DO need to educate kids about sex. On all fronts, regardless of ideology, maintaining the liberties we enjoy requires offering a thorough education to ensure that rights are exercized with full responsibility in mind.

On the subject of teen sex, I just said that kids should be made aware that parenting is about a lot more than just having a baby. Unless they're wonder-teens that got whisked past high school to a college scholarship, odds are their ability to earn necessary income isn't exactly feasible. The fact that the notion of teenage pregnancy has become so romanticized in our culture is appaling, because it ultimately leads to grandparents getting a whole new mouth to feed and kids losing what should be their youth.

There is a news story over on msn.com regarding a young boy shooting a mid-50s woman to death. The boy could not tell the difference between a human and a bear. This isnt about at what age a child should have a gun permit (I would say 18), or be able to hunt without parental supervision (again, age 18). Its about identifying one's target. If the child can not identify the main difference between a bear (who has lots of fur, growls alot, walks on all fours, and isnt named smokey) vs a human (stands on their 'hind' feet, and doesnt have fur)/

You can have all the gun safety courses in the world, provided by the best instructors money can pay for, and have the child demonstrate several times what animals look like. You can do all that, and it still would not convince me the kid can be trusted with a firearm, alone, in the woods. If the kid injures/kills someone or damages property with their firearm, both the kid and parent of the kid should be held responsible.

I don't think an 8 year old should be in a national forest by themselves, but I also don't think there should be 4 year olds on the front lawn by themselves either. I don't think parents should give their 4 year old Mountain Dew (but god do I love it!) I'm not sure that's a reason to make new laws regarding Mountain Dew. (Hunting is a good form of exercize though, teaches teamwork and gets kids out of the city.)

There are already requirements to get a license that have age limits. If there are a large number of 8 year olds who are smart enough to pass a written test and behind the wheel driving test, then we probably need to re-evaluate some things. Also, I'd put at car at least 4x as deadly/dangerous as a hunting rifle in civilian matters.

No one here is asking for any apologies. People hunt, have hunted since the beginning of their existence. But, please don't make blanket statements about how all the media is from the big cities...your hometown newspaper is the media, so is the radio and TV stations, and everyone likes to hear about a sensational story. I'm from PA and I do buy my food from a supermarket as do most hunters around here. Vension is great but it's not a staple in anyone's diet here and I'm sure it's not where you live either.

I do agree with your thoughts about having young (and old) hunters go through training and education. The problem is, without laws, you cannot force good sense into some people. Sometimes laws are necessary for the protection of the majority.

Donna - you are wrong. PERIOD. Venison IS most definately a staple food of the Southern United States. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!!!

Actually the most dangerous gun totin' youths seem to be urban kids with stolen or street weapons.

Statistically, you're absolutely correct. You've a much greater chance mathematically of being shot dead or being seriously wounded by some juvenile delinquent gang member in an urban area or its suburban fringe than by some overly eager, negligent, or reckless young hunter out in the woods or mountains. It's probably a difference of several thousand percent...

"Education is the key and the NRA has a wonderful gun safety program."

So by this arguement the obvious thing to do is for the NRA to run gun safety programs for urban kids, drug gangs, and adults in Washington, DC and the murder rate should go down. So why isn't the NRA doing this?

There are parts of California and some other western states in which I would not go hiking because of the risk of being shot by a marajauna grower protecting his crop than a hunter trying to shoot some animal.

I don't agree with anyone hunting....not at any age. This same accident could have happened with an adult just as it did with a child. Esp. an adult who was drinking alchohol......

The point is: No one should hunt. We don't need people running amok in the woods with loaded weapons. Not only is it dangerous for the animals, it is dangerous for innocent people hiking in the woods. All hunting should be banned.

how many times have you seen dead deer or other animals on the side of the road hunting keeps populations of animals under control in illinois if deer hunting stoped for one year you would see a dead animal every 1/2 mile and there would be so many deer they would slowly die agonizing deaths from starvation and dissease simmilar things would happen all over the U.S.

i hunt alone just because some kids are iresponsible stupid and immature dosent mean we all are

You can't even form a correct sentence let alone possess the responsiblity required to hold a gun.

Prove through the use of previous research that overpopulation of animals would exist if we didn't shoot and kill them!

No it's not. It covers a much wider area than Appalachia. There are redneck hillbilly freaks everywhere in this country. They act proud of the fact that they are backwards, unintelligent persons who do not have any knowledge of grammar or social graces. They know their NASCAR though!! LOL

Yes, hillbillies and gays -- the last two groups to be discriminated against.

That is what makes America great you can be a redneck and it's nobody's business. I own a hunting camp and the place next to mine is a club for idiots out of NYC. City folks should not be allowed to own guns. Look at Cheney. You people won't be happy until only criminals are the one with guns. The Brits can't even defend themselves from robbers. And why is it city people's impression of country folks is always something out of "Deliverance." This shows your ignorance, peasel.

LOL Cheney was born in Nebraska and raised in Wyoming! LOLOL not a very good argument from someone calling people idiots.

I'm not anti gun or anti hunting. I grew up in rural colorado where there is an age limit. There is nothing wrong with age limits for hunting. Think of it as spending quality time with your kid.

Debbie - I agree with all of your comments except that hillbillies and gays are the last groups to be discriminated against. You forgot the ever popular hatred most Americans display towards smokers.

No it's not. It covers a much wider area than Appalachia. There are redneck hillbilly freaks everywhere in this country.

Any small amount of research on your part would reveal that this word originated as a sort of lowland insult of those living in the Southern Appalachian mountains and, later, the Ozarks. While some folks from that region have adopted the word to describe themselves, it was originally an insult, with an approximate meaning of "hill hick." There are different theories as to how the phrase was coined. However, it is a derogatory term for a group of people and has been used for over 100 years to perpetuate stereotypes as to their lifestyle, level of intelligence, and general level of culture. Your imprecise use of the term doesn't change those facts.

By the way, I am from that area originally and hold several graduate degrees, including a master's degree, a J.D., and, with any luck, soon I will hold an M.B.A. Most of these degrees are from well-regarded institutions ranked in the the top tier academically nationally. I'd be glad to provide documentation to that effect, if you'll do the same as to your education and employment background. I have had several college professors as friends who have achieved much more and are also from the same area.

There's no way to defend calling anyone a "redneck hillbilly freak," unless they actually are from Appalachia and earn their living in a circus sideshow. Then, I'd still bet they'd prefer a somewhat more sensitive term for it.

How does a story about hunting bring out a comment about "smokers' rights"? Smokers deny me the right to clean, breatheable air. Cigarette smoke causes cancer, even second hand smoke, so I don't think there should be extra rights given to these people. Gays, on the other hand, are only looking for the same rights enjoyed by every other American. If a gay couple gets married, it doesn't affect anyone else around them...except for bigoted, homophobics who think their lives are somehow affected by what a committed couple does.

Donna - is everything about gay rights to you? Why?

1 automobile puts out 50,000 times more carcinigens than i smoker[(give up your car dont ride the bus or any outher meens of motorised transportation you are VIOLATING MY RIGHT TO CLEAN AIR AS A MATER OF FACT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE UP ANYTHING FOOD CLOTHING SHELTER THAT HAS TOO BE SHIPED BY ANY MOTOR VEHICAL)YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED} the right to keep and bare arms is an inalienable right oh do your research DOCTORS ARE THE 3RD LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE US just how many died due to gun acidents. the woods aint downtown LA, NY NY or chicago let us who live in the wilderness eat my uncle took me shooting when i was 4 yrs old at 6 yrs old i could hit a small bird in flight with a 22 now read the nazi gun control act of the 1930s and read the us gun control act of the 1930s THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS IS THE ONE RIGHT APONE WHITCH ALL RIGHTS DEPEND the nazis knew that im not going too goose step for you or anyone im taking my grandson shooting just like my uncle took me but keep preaching treason while you still have freedom of speach because when we the people have no guns you will have no rights

how young is too young?

The scarey thing is, these hunters who accidentally shoot people also have kids who are hunters. What are they being taught?

To donna-397871:

It's called an accident for a reason. If you have a traffic accident does that mean you are unfit to teach your child how to drive?

If the shooter is negligent than they should be held responsible, regardless of their age. But they are negligent it wasn't really an accident was it?

Do you honestly believe that a 5 year old can understand the full scope of handling a firearm?

Anyone who thinks there are armies of five-year-olds roaming the woods with firearms really is a befuddled person.

But more likely they are just a liar. There are no 5 year-olds out there hunting. This is a straw man argument that has been put out there by the intellectually dishonest liberal control freaks in this forum.

If you want to argue your position at least be serious and not a moron.

My five year old daughter knew how to check and make sure a weapon was safe. Although she has never gone hunting she is very familiar and knows how to handle them and make it safe. She was taught at an early age, and now at the age of 17 she goes shooting with me all the time and is quite good. I hunt to save money, I don't expect some of you to understand that nor do I care. I do my best to take care of my family and hunting for my food is just part of it( only if I get lucky), I also enjoy the experience of being a sportsman. I do not do it because it upsets some people or I am trying to make a statement, that would be as silly as some of the statements I have read here.

You shouldn't have children.

If she kills someone, you should be charged. I think the question should have been more concerned with that kid 30 day sentence than whether children should be able to hunt. Something tells me if this was an urban kid, playing with a gun, and he killed someone an got thirty days, there would be an outrage.

Get off your high horse for one , my daughter does not go hunting , I do. She hates the idea but loves to go to the range with me.My point was , she was taught at an early age and knows full well what they can do. I shoot in a league for competition, you know for fun, a hobby and she enjoys it as well. I grew up here in Colorado where most of my friends when hunting with their Dads every year, for some it was the difference of eating good for a year or having to tough it out. I grew up around ranchers and farmers and most of them do it for the same reason as a way of life, just like their fathers before them did. Oh and my daughter knows about the bad side of it as well, since she has seen me getting carted off as a victim of a drive - by shooting a few years ago. I will never walk right again because of it and the punk that shot me never held a gun before that day. Hmmn something tells me that there is a moral to this story and that should outrage you just as much. I can see things from both sides, I understand how you must feel. I did not pick up a gun for a couple of years after that until I felt Iwas ready to, I try to be responsible and that is what I am teaching my daughter.

You mean the innocent bystander that wasn't using common sense don't you? It is the individuals responsibility to understand their surroundings, agreed? We teach our kids, and adults learn as well that if they decide to walk somewhere at night to wear reflective clothing right, so why in the middle of hunting season would someone hiking on public hunting land not wear something orange (vest, shirt, HAT)? Maybe it was her in this case that wasn't educated. Although tragic and VERY VERY preventable, the boy should not have been sentenced.

So, it's everybody's fault but the hunter's? Why shouldn't the hunter have the responsibility to know what/who he is shooting? Aren't the parents concerned their child might get shot by someone who thinks they are a tree? I can't believe a common ground can't be found on this issue.

I suspect he got such little time because she was partially cuplable. She was not wearing orange, she probably was wearing dull colors and gave no indication that she was a person. However, he should have seen his target clearly before firing.  It was an accident, accidents happen.

I voted no minimum, however, I would not object to a law regulating the age of those hunting on PUBLIC land, so long as there was not such a restriction on private land.  In some states there is a lot of public land, in others ( such as Texas) Not so much. If a "hiker" is shot on private land while hiking, well, tough. We used to shoot trespassers on purpose.  

mricks. that is THE most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life. You need some serious help. Fot sake of all of the children in the country, please get it.

Here in Western Washington (where this incident occurred), it's far more frequent for people to hike than hunt, but now all us hikers have to start to wonder if our peaceful trip in the mountains will be ruined by some 15-year-old hunter's bullet to the head. And of course it would be our fault, not theirs. Apparently your right to kill peaceful wildlife trumps my right to enjoy it.

I'm still trying to figure out how someone could confuse a 130-pound, 2-legged person with a 250lb, 4-legged bear. The whole lack of fur thing should have given it away...

What next no free speech until you are 18?

Parents are a monarchical dictatorship - there is no such thing as free speech until you are 18 (said tongue-in-cheek)

You can't walk into school wearing a t-shirt that says whatever you want.

I think that there are quite a few irresponisble parents out their. I think that the kids should have to pass a safety training course every couple of year until they are 18 to make sure that they know what is neccesary to be a responisble hunter. Keep them updated for the ones whos parents don't parent right....My dad always had us invloved if gun safety and hunter safety.

If we ban hiking this tragedy wouldn't have happened.

As for warning signs, you sound like a lawyer. What ever happened to expecting adult Americans to take responsibility for knowing what's going on around them. Only a moron could hike through the woods during hunting season and not know that hunting season was in progress.

How about this....since hunting season lasts only a few weeks, why don't we close the hiking trails during this time so inconsiderate hikers don't scare the game away?

The hikers get the woods for 10 months a year and the hunters get it for 2. What's unfair about that?

Dettie and her liberal brethren need to STOP trying to take other people's freedom away. I'm so damn sick of them.

Moose,

I don't know too many people, who can outrun a bullet. Do you? Hunters need to be mindful of what is going on around them. A hiker can't see a bullet traveling toward them.

Nope, don't know many folks who can outrun a bullet, but, then I don't know too many that can't see bright orange from a distance either. In this case, the tragedy might have been prevented had the hiker been wearing orange.

Did i miss the part that said he was hunting for fun or are you just assuming people don't eat bear? I'll go ahead and assume that your not a hunter and would rather buy your druged up food already packaged for you.

THank you MRicks. Are there people out there so well of that they do not need to hunt in order to put food on the table any longer? I know my family continuously fills 3 freezers year round. We eat venison like others eat beef. Money wise and health wise I will pit my venison, goose, duck, crabs and fish against your grocery bill any day. With this economy I think it is simply egotistical to assume people hunt just to kill something. We are meat hunters. A doe will go down just as quick as a buck with a rack. I am female and I hunt, yes I kill it and gut it and hang it and eat it. It is called a way of life that every god fearing person in this country has a right to do, at any age. My husband grew up the eldest of 4 boys and no father. Being taught to hunt by his grandfather, he was putting meat on the table at the age of 14. His family was fed. For those comments that hunting is disgusting and teaching children to hunt is teaching killing... I suppose you would let your children starve before picking up a gun to find the nearest squirrel. Or wait gee let's see, maybe we should file for government assisted programs so we can sit on our butts and not worry about having the responsibility of feeding our own children or teaching them how to survive.

Sorry 'huntingchick' but I have found that people who are capable of killing for sport (and please don't bleat about having to put food on the table) are seriously damaged human beings and have  emotional issues of some sort . Teaching children to kill is at best stupid and at worst turns them into cold, heartless adults.  America needs to open it's eyes to the stupidity of it's gun laws, and needs to change a constitution that has no relevance in todays violent society.

Pebbles - Correct me if I'm wrong but the point I was making (huntingchick as well) was people should be able to (have the option to) hunt and eat what they kill regardless of the many options in your local freezer section. Eating what you hunt and kill is a totally different thing than "sport" hunting. My feelings are the same as yours I assume when it comes to killing something your not going to eat (sport hunting), absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary. And we're not teaching are children to just kill, we're teaching our children how to 1. Hunt and survive. 2. Eat healthy. 3. Practice the rights that every man, woman and child before us had and should always have. According to your comment every butcher, processor or hell, everyone who eats meat are seriously damaged. After all if your gonna eat meat from the store you must condone someone killing it right? Think about it....

lol....would you like to take over my household budget and tell me my 3 freezers of food do not provide for my family. Educate yourself then talk to me. My family has hunted, my husbands family has hunted for years... so your saying that my people are heartless , cold adults..... so the volunteer work I do at the local mission and State parks and senior care facility.... yeah, I sure am a cold hearted killer. Those senior citizens are tuff to deal with.... what kind of volunteer time do you put in? I bet my husband spends more quality time and energy with our children teaching them right from wrong and the aspects of hunting and spends more time with a Bible in one hand and a gun in the other with muddy work boots on after a 10 hour work day than you could even fathom. Yeah, that's a real cold hearted man right there. Again, you work on my budget and tell me that I do not put food on the table from hunting. Do not spout on what you know nothing about. Go kill something and put it on the grill, you might like it.

I can honestly say, if it were not for venison and elk in the freezer, there were several times my children would not have eaten. Not everyone is as well off as you pebbles. i believe you are the one with severe emotional issues and heavily damaged, as you seem to have such a cold heart and hatred towards those of us that rely on the land to sustain us and not the government. as far as cold hearted, how many times have you had an abundant supply of meat and been able to put food on someone elses table that desperately needed it? I implore you to ask a hunter that same question, and i guarantee they have given far more than you could dare to dream of. Those darn cold hearted hateful hunters! pull your head out of your rear pebbles!!

Agreed!! When can we develop a Hikers Safety Class? Maybe the answer to it all would be for the hunting population to educate the hiking population on safety since they can't seem to educate themselves.

"If a parent thinks the kid is old enough to hung by his or herself..."

Are you kidding me? Ya that's the case in some instances, but last I checked there are a lot of idiot and irresponsible parents out there. Again, you folks who think 6 year olds should get to hunt need to remember YOU are NOT the ONLY parents out there. Boy do you have a lot of trust...

The girl was on a hiking trail BTW. Pay attention. They noted it was a normal hiking trail. People SHOULD NOT have to wear orange vests when they hike.

Don't forget freedom goes both ways. My freedom to hike is just as important.

And this whole "getting involved in others lives" is a nonsensical argument. When more people are around, freedoms collide. My freedom to hike, your freedom to hunt. Last I checked it's a lot safer to hike than go around carrying guns. Hunting accidents happen ALL THE TIME.

Just as you want to let your 6 year olds run around with guns in the woods, I want the rest of us to be able to enjoy the outdoors without having to worry about getting shot.

You aren't the only ones who get to enjoy freedom, the rest of us do too. And the rest of us aren't creating a single threat to you or your family when we hike...

If you all are so perfect, then why do hunters shoot folks all the time, including their hunting buddies? If you can't tell the difference between a human and an animal in the outdoors, you shouldn't be hunting period, regardless of how old you are!

mvogel, you are so inconsistent you make no sense! You say most people are idiots and you don't like them, but then you want these same idiots to get to have their young children hunt unsupervised!!

Connect the dots buddy...

i never said hunters were perfect and hunting accidents dont happen all the time, and if some one is wearing a large coat they could very well look like a bear. and as for old enough hunt by themselves, i believe that the child should have hunted enough with a parent to super jittery when they see somthin that looks like it could be a bear or deer. ohh and car wrecks DO happen ALL the time. and im not suggesting making them illegal so your argument is dead

I agree.....Hikers Safety Class

might stop some bear attacks too...

in all seriousness a sort of Hikers safety class isnt such a bad idea, due to a combination of hunting seasons and just dangers of the woods, not that the woods is like a warzone or anything...

"People SHOULD NOT have to wear orange vests when they hike."

and they should not have to wear reflective or light-colored clothing at night when they hike/run..............

If hunters in the woods wear them, then is it not a good idea for everyone in the woods to wear them? Orange Safety Vests

really ppl shouldnt have to wear reflective clothing when running? i think drivers and runners would like to avoid meeting on the road up close and personal. im sure many more runners are hit by cars than bullets so dont try to turn this into hunters=mass murderers

I meant they're idiots for NOT doing either.....should have put "like" instead of "and"

oh haha, ya a sarcastic "like" makes that whole statement much more sensible

I just love people that knowingly move to an area that does not meet there standards and then expect others to change their way of life to accomodate them. You should have moved to a commune!

umm why so insultive? and if you live out in the boondocks you would relize that deer are overpopulated (as well as ppl... i hate ppl most of em are just too stupid to breed) oohhh and btw just to point out how ignorant you are.... YOU CANT PASS AN IQ TEST... ITS NOT A PASS OR FAIL TEST....

"Stop popping out babies with shotguns, rednecks"

So you're against white, hard-working, laboring southern people having babies??
That's what Merriam-Webster says about "rednecks".

plus as a bonus the kids can shoot too :)
We contribute our part to the population...... our children that help "protect your freedom".

lol try the urban dictionary

do your research, deer are massively over populated. It's the yuppies moving into the country, building mansions taking farm land for what?"to have a better life". I am 37, petite, female and drive a CHEVY I hunt and kill what my family eats, I actually organize trash pick up walks to clean up local parks.....does this make me a redneck? So, me_to, before you go stereotyping a "redneck", what do you feed your family? You may have money but I have a gun and I bet I could out survive you anyday. When the economy gets bad enough and you and your family need food, come on down to our house, we rednecks are friendly folk that welcome anyone in need. God bless America and the rednecks in it.

FYI - Wikipedia - Redneck refers to a person who is , particularly referring to those living in rural areas.

you are correct and those who know how to hunt may have to in the near future the way things are going. And yes I almost put an arrow in a lady hiker in New Mexico a 20 years back but something did not look right so i did not go full draw. She was wearing a dark brown/black furry coat in bear country during bow season.

I hunt, and have hunted all my life. I'd be called redneck by some, and other, more derogatory names by others, but i know, between the things i learned hunting and the things i learned during my military service, that hunting teaches us Many important life lessons-the Most Important of which is Judgement-when to shoot or not to shoot is a Life Lesson i took to the Police Department, to Military Service and to every day Life. If we teach these responsibilities to kids Before something happens, the lesson Sticks-After, the Shock Far Outweighs the lesson-they may turn liberal Anti or they may go crazy. Education is the Key-Hunting and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms keeps us Educated if we follow the Law, don't allow gang mentality and keep the faith instead of going "peace at any price" like Sarah Brady-going overboard only helps you drown, and accomplishes the task of the enemy.

Teach the kids, dont let the street teach them wrongly.

SSG Dave.

To me_too:

"I see the guys who hunt in PA and they are not particularly "smart" - do I want THEM to decide to have their dumb kid hunt too?... In addition to all the hunting safety stuff (which I can pass having never cracked a book about it)... but all these beer drinking fat lards who litter and park their Ford F350s on my street to amble into the woods should be prohibited."

Wow! Generalize much? You knew the property abutted the game lands when you bought it; Deal with it. Deal with people parking on your street (public property) or move!

How do you know whether you could pass a hunter's safety test? From what I've read, I doubt it.

Again, you generalize showing your unwillingness to genuinely think about the issue seriously.

You know the more I think about it the more it makes sense, Write a law that if you are going to use public lands for recreational purposes (whether for hunting, camping, hiking, fishing or whatever) you have to wear blaze orange during hunting season point blank.

no different than driving your car at night if you do not have your lights on so EVERYONE Else can see you then you will get a ticket, same should apply if you are on public land that allows hunting.

Obviously u are a hippocrit who has time to think up stupid comments like "Stop popping out babies with shotguns, rednecks." and how stupid r u no deer arent over populated but if we stop hunting them they will become over populated and guess wat they all die slow paiful deaths when that happens because of diease. Ur a loser i just proved that and im 15.

Paul you are so very right. but then they want to get thier panties in a bunch when to deer are in the back yard eating to flower gardens.

If we didn't hunt the animals would over populate and run amuck.

Me_to, I seem to have missed something who did you say was not particularly "smart"?

"""bmilleroh
FYI - Wikipedia - Redneck refers to a person who is , particularly referring to those living in rural areas"""

Internet Dictionary or Excitopedia....LMFAO

Does that not mean "All of Us" ? ..... So "Howdy" my fellow Rednecks :)
Wanna go visit the Big City after we take our kids hunting?

I just love all the people that stereotype.......I don't care if you are on the FORBES 100 List or the Bum at Exxon asking for $5.00....you can still be my friend...and I would probably give either one of you the $5.00...really rich people never have any money either.....This is The United Stated of America.

I shot guns since I can ever remember, so my children, if they want to, get to also. As far as alone, nah....I have too much fun going with them.

Riiiiiight. That makes zero sense. A kid can't buy a beer, but should be able to wield a deadly weapon, and kill animals with it. Time to EVOLVE people!!!

ohhh usaobama44!!! your soooo right!!! everyone from now on! no killing animals or plants to survive!!! time to eevvvoooollllvvveeee!!! wait....a.....minute.... im hungry still.... hey can you give me some pointers on how to get meat with out causing death to some animal some were cus im alredy havin a hard time.....

You mean you haven't heard the latest mvogel? Meat now days (or at least for USAOBAMA44 anyways) magically comes already packaged and ready to eat with not death or preparation involved. No animal dies, no butchering, just comes ready to "buy" from the freezer section.

Hey USAOBAMA44, whats going to happen to you if and when you ever fall on hard times and your family is starving? I assume become a thief instead of getting your hands dirty?

There are hunters who kill for the meat and that's great but there are many more who kill for the "trophy"; the thrill of the kill. Of course, meat comes to us through slaughtered animals, please don't try to bring everyone down to your moronic level. No one has a problem with hunters in general, it's when they think that their rights should supercede the rights of the "non" hunting public. I read in an earlier post that people should stay off of "public hunting lands" but that phrase is incorrect; these are just "public lands", for the use of ALL the public. The problem is, hunters can kill other people, hikers don't.