-
The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
-
We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules
"A Slow, Deliberate, Emotionless, Open Conversation" About Hunting Accidents
- Thread starter Nutterbuster
- Start date
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.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Messages
- 5,968
Hunter Orange was not required in NY until last year.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Messages
- 5,968
How many self inflicted victims were wearing hunter orange?
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.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Messages
- 5,968
Christ.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2018
- Messages
- 8,056
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.
Fuse Dude
Well-Known Member
Fair point!
I didn't eloquently elaborate, but total stats for comparison would help, conversely trying to associate some these numbers with stories provides no bridges between reality and make believe in this discussion. I do enjoy the meandering thoughts though.
The numbers, you pointed out, seems superficially to correlate, therefore further back-ground is necessary on these stats. I haven't read this article at the time of post, therefore my take is poorly informed at best.
Admittedly, I'm on the sidelines just trying to gleen some wisdom, and walk out of the woods with memories and meat.
Hunting Accident Statistics: Injury & Fatalities by US State & Country
Just How Dangerous Is Hunting? We Compile The Most Recent Hunting Accident Statistics And Summarize The Data To Answer This Question.
www.targettamers.com
Your timing on asking this question is not optimal.
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. If I've said more than this, I apologize and retract it. But I stand by it. That's what the data I have says.
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 oversimplifying. I'd love to make it more complicated though.
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. If I've said more than this, I apologize and retract it. But I stand by it. That's what the data I have says.
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 oversimplifying. I'd love to make it more complicated though.
Rjschatts
Member
So far in 2022 in Minnesota
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rjschatts
Member
Incidents in 2020 for Minnesota, they don’t have anything of 2021 though
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Messages
- 5,968
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.
Also, I'm not trying to say, "Hunt from the ground, saddles are dumb." At least, I'm not saying that here. (I increasingly believe it though.)
The forum has been talking about falls. Lots of talk about why people fall and how not to fall. The simple, obvious solution to that 2nd question is to not climb in the first place. The two rebuttals are A. - climbing provides a tactical advantage and B. - but then somebody will shoot me!
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the first statement, but my gut feeling was that the second was wrong and a little digging has so far indicated that it's even more wrong than I thought. I'm not picking on elevated hunting so much as the idea that other hunters are more dangerous to yourself than you are.
"They" aren't illiterate, inconsiderate, booger-picking, inebriated cretins. They're us, by and large. They wear orange, take hunter's ed classes, love their kids, and wear their harnesses (most of the time, amirite?).
The dumb stuff they do is most likely going to be the dumb stuff you do. Fall. Forget to unload the gun. Sweep your buddy. Get excited and not think what's beyond the buck running through the woods.
Anywho, I think it'd be cool to see if we could find numbers proving or disproving @redsquirrel and others' theory that it's the climb that gets ya, and not the stand itself. I think Alabama has data on whether the hunter was stationary/moving.
The forum has been talking about falls. Lots of talk about why people fall and how not to fall. The simple, obvious solution to that 2nd question is to not climb in the first place. The two rebuttals are A. - climbing provides a tactical advantage and B. - but then somebody will shoot me!
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the first statement, but my gut feeling was that the second was wrong and a little digging has so far indicated that it's even more wrong than I thought. I'm not picking on elevated hunting so much as the idea that other hunters are more dangerous to yourself than you are.
"They" aren't illiterate, inconsiderate, booger-picking, inebriated cretins. They're us, by and large. They wear orange, take hunter's ed classes, love their kids, and wear their harnesses (most of the time, amirite?).
The dumb stuff they do is most likely going to be the dumb stuff you do. Fall. Forget to unload the gun. Sweep your buddy. Get excited and not think what's beyond the buck running through the woods.
Anywho, I think it'd be cool to see if we could find numbers proving or disproving @redsquirrel and others' theory that it's the climb that gets ya, and not the stand itself. I think Alabama has data on whether the hunter was stationary/moving.
MNFarmHunter
Well-Known Member
I'll shamelessly steal (with citation) whenever someone says it better:
Mike Rowe-Safety 3rd
If safety was the only consideration, no one would hunt. Why on earth would someone "safe" go into the woods, with a weapon, with other people with weapons, making prey noises, in hopes of killing their prey? Furthermore, they're going out, often without proper mental or physical training, in austere weather, risking physical injury or cardiac death, for food that may not be handled correctly and cause food poisoning.
Point is simply this: Life is hazardous, even dangerous and eventually deadly. Safe and safety are highly subjective terms that are in essence nonsense. Instead, think of it as risk mitigation. I know "X" is dangerous so what do I do to mitigate those risks? We do this every day. Driving is dangerous, even deadly, so we wear seatbelts and drive sober.
Climbing trees and hunting is no different.
Mike Rowe-Safety 3rd
If safety was the only consideration, no one would hunt. Why on earth would someone "safe" go into the woods, with a weapon, with other people with weapons, making prey noises, in hopes of killing their prey? Furthermore, they're going out, often without proper mental or physical training, in austere weather, risking physical injury or cardiac death, for food that may not be handled correctly and cause food poisoning.
Point is simply this: Life is hazardous, even dangerous and eventually deadly. Safe and safety are highly subjective terms that are in essence nonsense. Instead, think of it as risk mitigation. I know "X" is dangerous so what do I do to mitigate those risks? We do this every day. Driving is dangerous, even deadly, so we wear seatbelts and drive sober.
Climbing trees and hunting is no different.
I'd agree with your assumption. I'd assume given that falls are reported more often despite being less likely to be reported than gunshots, that the ratio of falls to total accidents is even higher in the real world than in the reports.
Also, in Alabama it's definitely the climb that's the most dangerous part of elevated hunting. 76% of treestand incidents occurred while the hunter was ascending/descending or hanging/repositioning a stand.
Somewhat amusingly to my twisted humor, there were 2 incidents with the cause listed as "fell asleep in stand." Less amusing is the fact that a lot of failures are due to broken gear. I'd say that with that in mind, saddle hunting is definitely safer than other alternatives. Hard to leave that $600 setup hanging all year for the squirrels to chew!
Only 2 hunters were listed as wearing a fall-prevention device. Another point for the saddle.
Also interesting but totally unrelated; a stand height figure is listed. If you take the mean, the average Alabama hunter is hunting 17.5' off the ground.
Bdwilliams
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2018
- Messages
- 261
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.
I would also like to bring up the lack of experience or time spent with guns and climbing devices.
There is plenty of agreement the average hunter grabs his bow a week or two before season and shoots a few arrows and says good to go. Maybe in that same time he purchased a new climber from bass pro. So opening morning he has shot his bow 12 times, climbed a tree with his climber twice. Or maybe he is only a gun hunter. He shoots his rifle 5 times before season and has not fired a weapon since.
Other than the guys I have meet on here, this described me for my first 20-25 years of hunting. I have had some close calls. All with setting or taking down stands. Not to say I have never had a near miss in the saddle either. But rushing or taking a chance on something 99% of the time was a factor.
I just think there is not enough information to narrow down the causes. Truly an accident or gross neglects on the user. In the term of climbing.
There is plenty of agreement the average hunter grabs his bow a week or two before season and shoots a few arrows and says good to go. Maybe in that same time he purchased a new climber from bass pro. So opening morning he has shot his bow 12 times, climbed a tree with his climber twice. Or maybe he is only a gun hunter. He shoots his rifle 5 times before season and has not fired a weapon since.
Other than the guys I have meet on here, this described me for my first 20-25 years of hunting. I have had some close calls. All with setting or taking down stands. Not to say I have never had a near miss in the saddle either. But rushing or taking a chance on something 99% of the time was a factor.
I just think there is not enough information to narrow down the causes. Truly an accident or gross neglects on the user. In the term of climbing.
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.
I glanced at the most recent 5 years. I really like that they lead with 2-Party vs Independent incidents.
Cliff's notes? 88% of incidents were self-inflicted, 12% were a victim shot by a 2nd person, with only a percentage of those being deer hunting incidents. Out of 67 incidents, one was reported as a second person mistaking the victim for game. Mostly poor firearm handling, finger on trigger, accidental discharge, etc. Friends shooting friends, sadly.
63% of reported incidents were treestand falls. Alabama was 59%. So that is comparable, which is nice. Shows what I'd call a fair amount of consistency as you increase the sample size, and you have 2 separate entities measuring the same thing and getting the same general results.
Although, there's a bit of discrepancy between Maryland and Alabama when it comes to shootings. They had 12% 2nd party shootings, and we had 23%. So...we're more likely to shoot you and less likely to shoot ourselves down here...if I have that right?
For folks who prefer stories to numbers, Maryland has them. They list brief overviews of each incident in the report. One of my faves:
"A 49-year-old Cecil County (muzzleloader season) deer hunter fell approximately 12 feet when he fell asleep while on the stand. The hunter admitted to having a shot of Jagermeister and drinking a beer prior to sunrise while in the tree stand (also having been out drinking the evening before). The hunter luckily only sustained minor injuries, but was subsequently charges with six counts of violating natural resources laws and regulations, including hunting with a modern firearm during muzzleloader season."
But most of them are variations of the same old tired riff...took a tumble climbing a tree. May be a good read for folks who go crosseyed looking at spreadsheets. You kinda catch on to the pattern.