3 Pennsylvania Hunters shot in separate incidents

[ruination]

Other than calling the last 30 completely agree.  If I get him to within 70 and he's headed my direction I'm going mute. Might have a mouth call in to do a heads up cluck while squeezing the trigger. Might not and will no longer worry about it.

Well. More towards the example of sneaking within 70.

I think as the turkey is the one to make the final move you're in the clear, realistically and in enforcement (if there even is any).

[Twowithone]

Goofy hunters take their licenses theres no reason for this. Im from Pa.. and our Turkey Bioligist Guru her name is Mary Jo Casalena she got shot yrs ago turkey hunting I beleive with her son.

[joey46]

That might explain a lot on what many consider a still confusing stalking rule in PA.

[jhoward11]

I honestly cannot conceive how you can mistake a hunter for a bird. Are you just body shooting the bird? I understand your sorry and you helped out, but gun and license taken away for a few years. At the least! Do I hear civil case?? $$$

[eggshell]

Unfortunately I have no sympathy for a hunter shooting a human being mistaken them for a turkey. They should serve jail time, pay tremendous fines for injuries, and never hunt and FISH  in any state in the United States for life. I'm sorry, but these occurrences are not accidents, they are belligerent ignorance of game laws and total disregard for hunter safety and human life. This is my opinion here as an ex-hunter Ed instructor for over 15 years. We made it very clear that hunting is a privilege, and that safety is paramount when going afield. We imprinted "Know your target and beyond" in our students brain, hoping incidents like these would never happen. God bless these victims and their families. Be safe...

Sadly Tom no one wins, it's all bad for everyone. Lives are ruined and people suffer because of one moment of poor judgement. Also, it's sad that the victim never is fairly compensated or provided for. If you want to pursue damages it must be done civilly and that cost a lot and no guarantee that you'll get any recovery. Some insurances will pay some, but it's never enough. The victims are still left with the emotional and physical scars and handicaps. PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE JUST KEEP SAFETY AS A HIGH PRIORITY, a turkey is not worth ruining your or someone else life over. It would not have done me any good or helped me for my shooter to spend years in jail, perhaps it would deter others from taking a chance, but I think stupid is incurable...My incident was 16 years ago and it cost me thousands and thousands of dollars, the shooter paid zero. I will never see a day for the rest of my life that I am not physically handicapped from my injuries. Just the other day my sister asked me why I limp all the time, yeah an 1.5 inch hole through your thigh does that to a man. All I can do is feel sad for those victims, pray for all and move on in life. Bitterness is a sickness too and I prefer to forgive and let go. My advice is when you think you see a turkey imagine it's a grizzly bear that your only going to piss off when you shoot it and it will turn and rip your hindend to shreds....so be sure it's a turkey.

[Tail Feathers]

I swear I called him in, I was purring real softly Mr. Warden. 

[GobbleNut]

Regarding the "no stalking" regulation, I would be curious to know just how many hunters have ever been cited under this law? I would bet there have not been many. My guess is that the entire purpose of the law is to act as a deterrent rather than an actual threat of prosecution...as well as being meant to encourage hunters to use calling as their primary hunting tactic.   

As others have suggested, enforcing this regulation would be impossible. A hunter would basically have to admit that he was stalking (and with no intention of calling) for any such citation to hold up in court. I doubt seriously that there are many hunters who are clueless enough to do that.

On the other hand, in cases of shooting accidents such as the ones described, I think a judge would be more inclined to use the stalking regulation as a factor in his decision-making process...regardless of whether the perp was actually "stalking" under the letter of the law.  Again, I think it is meant to act as a deterrent more than anything else.

[paboxcall]

Regarding the "no stalking" regulation, I would be curious to know just how many hunters have ever been cited under this law? I would bet there have not been many. My guess is that the entire purpose of the law is to act as a deterrent rather than an actual threat of prosecution...as well as being meant to encourage hunters to use calling as their primary hunting tactic.   

As others have suggested, enforcing this regulation would be impossible. A hunter would basically have to admit that he was stalking (and with no intention of calling) for any such citation to hold up in court. I doubt seriously that there are many hunters who are clueless enough to do that.

On the other hand, in cases of shooting accidents such as the ones described, I think a judge would be more inclined to use the stalking regulation as a factor in his decision-making process...regardless of whether the perp was actually "stalking" under the letter of the law.  Again, I think it is meant to act as a deterrent more than anything else.

I believe the regulation is often cited in the investigation of any actual shooting incident, as in the cause was the shooter was stalking the victim's location, which is a violation.

[Yoder409]

I believe the regulation is often cited in the investigation of any actual shooting incident, as in the cause was the shooter was stalking the victim's location, which is a violation.

Exactly THIS