Now that would be an interesting data point. Were any of the non-self-inflicted wearing orange?
I couldn't stand it.
In 5 years, there was a single 2-party, deer hunter shooting where the victim was reported as wearing hunter orange. Uno.
Out of all the firearms incidents, 18/37 were other species. So not quite half. Vs I'd assume all treestand accidents were deer hunters.
When you isolate for non-self-inflicted DEER hunting firearm incidents, there are only 5.
5 deer hunters shot by another hunter. 4 of them either not wearing orange or unknown if they were wearing orange. 1 for sure reported as wearing it.
Contrasted to 54 hunters who fell from a treestand or while ascending/descending from one. "Treestand" here accounts for climbers, lock-ons, elevated box blinds (super common in the south), and saddles.
That's honestly worse than I would have thought. Especially since I'd think a 2-party shooting would be more visible in the news and likely to get reported by DCNR than a fall, especially if it wasn't fatal.
Strictly by the numbers I have access to, and assuming I'm not missing anything with 9pm brain, you're 10x more likely to fall while deer hunting than to get shot.
Hunter Orange was not required in NY until last year.
Here’s one that is a bit confusing, and should give a hint to the regulation’s actual intent: in Colorado, during elk/deer archery season, there’s a 10 day muzzleloader season. The gun hunters are required to wear orange. The bow hunters, in the woods at the same time, blowing elk calls, trying to hide themselves, wearing generally earth tones, are not required to wear orange.
A kid was shot a couple years back in the middle of a bugle fest by a guy with a muzzleloader. Both huntjng the same elk.
You’re required to shoot open sights, loose powder, no sabots. Effective range in low light, maybe 50-75 yards.
That seems hypocritical when you’re taking your so called “hard data” and broadly extrapolating across all of hunting in Alabama. There are too many other factors at play for you to boil it down and make it seem so simple and straight forward.Also, if we could keep anecdotal accounts and whattaboutism out of this thread, that'd be cool.
I don't mind if you have cold, hard data that indicates treestands are safe and you're more likely to be killed by a crazed gunman. I'm just insisting on it.
Stat not mentioned:
7 firearms deaths
7 treestand deaths
No mention if any are correlated. Otherwise, it's equal opportunity, ground vs elevated in Alabama, during this small period.
That seems hypocritical when you’re taking your so called “hard data” and broadly extrapolating across all of hunting in Alabama. There are too many other factors at play for you to boil it down and make it seem so simple and straight forward.
19% of firearms incidents reported over 5 years were fatal. Only 13% of treestand falls were reported as fatal.
So gunshots wounds are deadlier than falls, but falls are closer than I would have thought.
If you look at the causes listed for the 2-party, deer shootings, what's sad is about half of them involve some form of "careless handling" vs something like "failure to identify target," or, "mistaken for deer." IE, the victim most likely knew the shooter and got shot at the truck or around the campfire.
My data and statistics education is from the business world, and not the engineering one. We call data "hard" when it's quantifiable and comes from trustworthy organizations (ones that don't have financial interest in the outcome of the collection/interpretation.) A quick google suggests engineers call "hard" data information coming directly from instruments, so maybe that's the disconnect? I'd say my data is hard by the first definition, and I don't think we have a HunterDeathometer to consult.
It's a sample size, and I think I've already stated I have no clue the reported/actual variance. What I think we CAN interpret from the data is the percentage of accidents in each category, which...I think... is all I've stated so far? If we could somehow chart ALL incidents, and not just reported ones, until I'm given a firm reason that the data would suggest something different I can only assume it wouldn't.
The sample of data I have for my state suggests that the general deer hunter is, on average, much more likely to get hurt from falling, shooting himself, or getting shot by somebody he knows instead of getting shot by another hunter who failed to identify beyond target or mistook him for game
In absence of more comprehensive data suggesting otherwise, I'm saying it's logical to assume that those statements are true. And I'm saying that a sample size of 91 is better than a hodge-podge of anecdotal evidence.
I'm open to being wrong, if you have data that suggests I'm wrong. If all you have is gut-level misgivings about the data available or anecdotal evidence...I don't know what to do with that.
Maybe I am simplifying,
Gunshot wounds are almost certainly reported at a higher rate than elevated falls.
Anecdotally, I know of one hunter shot (reported) and two elevated falls, one I don't know (but assume so) and the other definitely not.
Here's a link to the past 20 years of reports on hunter injuries from MD NRP. I'll try to peruse them and summarize tomorrow.