Texas Lawmaker Wants To Let the Blind Hunt 647
IHC Navistar writes with a story from Reuters Oddly Enough. A Texas lawmaker has introduced a measure that would allow blind people to hunt any game that sighted people can currently pursue. The article notes that the bill may have clear sailing in the hunting-besotted state of Texas. An education outreach person from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department explained it this way: "A blind person can shoot a rifle by mounting an offset pistol scope on the side of the rifle instead of on top. This allows their companion behind them to peer over their shoulder and help them sight it, but the blind person can pull the trigger."
It's Funny - Laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's not the funniest. A week before that I saw this lady out on the sidewalk waving this big white stick all over the place. Talk about from the "don't hit me dept.", she was wacking all kinds of stuff with that stick. Hide the kids! Oh man, I still laugh until I get tears in my eyes over this one.
Last year my brother took a friend of ours with ALS on the last deer hunt of his life. My brother did everything for this guy but pull the trigger. Took a lot of time to rig things up to make that possible. And someone who is unfortunate enough to be blind should be able to go hunting with some assistance. The only reason anyone would find this funny is if they are willing to completely ignore what the hunting entails and just laugh at another's misfortune. Maybe I'm wrong to be bothered by this - but I think it is sad that I'm seeing it in so many places being presented as a humorous story.
Legally Blind (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, he's legally blind, just invested a very nice new car's worth of money into a Guide Dog, and has better groupings than most of the first-time shooters I've yet met.
This might be a problem for the totally blind, but there are a lot of folks considered blind by the state who are perfectly capable at IDing a target, and moving lead down-range in a manner at least as safe as a sighted person. Probably more-so when you consider the extra carefulness that the average legally blind person puts into doubting their visual input.
Of course, there could be problems, but one thing I've found is most people aren't total dumb-asses. If you're unable to hunt safely, you probably won't actually want to hunt.
(This isn't to discount the hijinks that ensue when you show up to an open range with a nice rifle, nice optics, and a guide dog in tow. That's a `priceless` moment that I hope to see again often in my life)
Lots of FUD here (Score:3, Insightful)
dick cheney is his own joke. (Score:2, Insightful)
Old Gallagher line (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i can imagine... (Score:2, Insightful)
(Shrug) I don't see the harm in it. (Score:2, Insightful)
But I think that hunters have the right to hunt as long as they aren't harming other human beings. I don't care for it but there are lots of things people do that I don't like that fall under the heading of "none of my business."
Now, letting the blind hunt sounds like a joke. But, given the same degree of responsibility and care, I don't see a blind-plus-sighted hunting team would be any more dangerous to human bystanders than a sighted hunter.
I think the main danger is from hunters whose judgement is impaired e.g. because of alcohol, and frankly I think this is less likely to happen in the situation as described, which requires a good deal of cooperation and trust between the parties concerned. I don't think a blind person would want to entrust an intoxicated person to lead him around for long distances on uneven ground. I don't think a sighted person would want to share a loaded firearm with an intoxicated person.
So, I don't see the harm in it. It seems weird to me, but it's none of my business. More power to 'em.
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't allow blind people to drive cars, either, but no one thinks this is prejudiced or an erosion of human rights.
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Why hunt? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ultimate kill with a rifle is only the very end of the process. It's kinder than the older methods, such as a bow and arrow, which often wound an animal without killing it, and you have to track it to put it out of its misery. A rifle can drop an animal immediately.
If you eat meat, you can hardly claim that having somebody else kill your dinner puts you on a higher moral plane, especially if you've seen the way animals are treated in our factory-farms. Hunting puts you directly in touch with what you're eating, guts and blood and all.
So it sounds silly at first blush, but the blind can be active participants in a hunt. They still have ears and even noses; they can still be outside; they still eat what they kill; they still have the camaraderie of a hunting party. If the technology lets them participate even more fully in the process, why not?
There are, by the way, an awful lot of hunters who hunt for other reasons. Some will use a lot of high-tech to make it practically shooting fish in a barrel; they seem to care more about the kill than the hunt. I know they exist, but that does not describe most hunters in my experience.
I myself do not hunt, but I limit my animal products when I can to ones I believed were raised and slaughtered humanely.
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
I know for a fact that my friend who is wheelchair bound would laugh his ass off if he heard, for example, that the Olympics would allow people like him to compete by, say, strapping a wheelchair to a legged individual. For him and for me, part of the way we deal with the challenges he faces is by the ability to see the humor that presents itself.
Re:Legally Blind (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitcha: Lawsuit. Thats what I imagine would be yet another outcome of this.
Re:i can imagine... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:1, Insightful)
Good riddance to bambi-killer.
You'd think someone about to die would understand how incredibly precious and valuable life is and how killing for sport is just plain cruel.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say they accidentally shot someone somehow...who is liable? The person who told the blind person to fire or the blind person for pulling the trigger?
I'm sorry if I sound like a dick, but life isn't fair. Being blind means that hunting (as well as driving and a whole host of other things) is just one of those things that you are not going to be able to do.
I'd be really curious as to what their motivation is as well...I mean, not trying to judge...but isn't the point of hunting the skill involved in tracking and bagging your kill? If someone else is doing all of that for you, really the only thing you're doing is pulling a trigger that kills an animal. I'd go so far as to say that the blind person would really just be doing the easy wrap-up of someone elses kill.
But this brings up another point...if all they're doing is pulling the trigger since they can't sight targets...why not just let them loose in a room with some ambient forest noises, some animal noise sound board (complete with death sounds) and a fan or 2 to simulate wind and let them loose with a gun loaded with blanks?
Re:i can imagine... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody dies from walking around the store w/ a guide dog, or using a cane. When you pick up a firearm you're making life and death decisions for other people, and you have an ethical responsibility to personally know what that gun is pointed at.
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:2, Insightful)
Why all the guns, then? If it all about experiencing a timy part of our heritage, why not attacking deer with a knife, or a home made bow and arrows?
And no, we are not designed at the most basic level to kill large mammals. For the most basic level, go and read a book about apes feeding habits.
Wonder why we don't see many hunters out in the woods, eating worms, ants or beetles and such? That is after all what they are designed to do at the most basic level.
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
Why all the guns, then? If it all about experiencing a timy part of our heritage, why not attacking deer with a knife, or a home made bow and arrows?
All three are hunting tools, just different kinds. We're humans -- we design and use tools. The exact tool doesn't matter.
And no, we are not designed at the most basic level to kill large mammals. For the most basic level, go and read a book about apes feeding habits.
We're not apes. We're not even chimpanzees. We are humans, who happen to share a common ancestor a long, long time ago with the latter animals.
Wonder why we don't see many hunters out in the woods, eating worms, ants or beetles and such? That is after all what they are designed to do at the most basic level.
If we were designed to do that, we'd still be doing it. But you'll note that worms, ants and beetles aren't very appetizing. Yet delicious meat is EXTREMELY appetizing to the vast majority of people. Of course, certain people have been culturually conditioned to not like it. But hey, when you combine animal instincts with an intelligent brain, you're going to get some variance. Just because certain people don't like sex doesn't mean that sex isn't natural.
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, in many areas, certain animals are overpopulated, mostly because their natural predators were hunted out long ago. For example, while whitetail deer were once very low in population about 75 years ago, conservation efforts have brought their numbers way up. In Wisconsin there are estimated to be 1.4-1.5 million deer. While wolves have been reintroduced to Wisconsin in recent years, they are still considered threatened, and their numbers aren't quite high enough to manage the deer herd on their own. We have also had problems with CWD (Chronic Wasting Disease - similar to Mad Cow disease) appearing in the local deer population, so the hunt allows the DNR to see where it is, where it is spreading too, and if necessary, order additional hunts to cull the herd in areas where it is rampant to prevent further spread.
Without the hunt, the deer population could eventually get large enough where they are starving themselves or damaging crops or causing more auto accidents.
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Hunting is not a small part of wildlife management on 2 fronts. The first is population control. If hunting did not have an impact on population, there would be no need for limits. The second is money. Outdoor sports generate millions of dollars for wildlife management.
As far as it being pleasurable. As a favorite author of mine once pointed out - some surgeons like the cutting and the blood. I don't care as long as they are good at what they do. Hunting provides a strong connection with nature. The hunters I know are much more concerned about the environment than the people who never leave the confines of civilization. My family will not starve if I don't go out and shoot game, at the same time, I've always eaten whatever I've killed. So it may not be necessary, but that doesn't mean it isn't beneficial activity on many levels. And this does not instill in me any desire to harm humans.
Re:Chuck Norris (Score:1, Insightful)
nope.
is this it?
nope.
is this it?
nope.
NAME THAT MOVIE
This underscores the problem with /.'s tagging (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:i can imagine... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know there are blind people who have gone so far as to pass a marksmanship test but that still doesnt give me much of a sense of security (with enough practice, anyone can hit a stationary target with thier eyes closed). I would like to see more of a real world shooting test...two targets, one friendly one enemy, moving back and forth with random motion. It doesnt have to be difficult or high speed, just moving and random with both good and bad targets. Firearms should only be allowed to those who can distinguish between foes and friends and can hit something that has the ability to move. I'm sorry but blind people just cant do this reliably enough that they should be trusted with using deadly force. There are plenty of activities that they can participate in that dont involve deadly weapons and really, how much fun is hunting going to be if someone else is essentially aiming for you and telling you when to pull the trigger. You might as well let them pull the trigger and just come along for the ride.
Re:Why hunt? (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is something that someone without sight can do?
So it sounds silly at first blush, but the blind can be active participants in a hunt.
If someone is aiming for them, telling them when to fire, how are they really an active participant? That sounds pretty passive to me.
Re:Legally Blind (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely disagree. Unless you can see the target, the range, and downrange yourself, you cannot be sure of your target. The way I was taught, that means you don't take the shot. Having someone else tell you "range is clear, fire away" is NOT a substitute.
Choosing to pull that trigger means you are personally responsible for whatever happens after. If your assistant screws up and misses some kid screwing around in the woods downrange and you plug the kid, you're still going to have to deal with the guilt of that the rest of your life.
Yes, I grew up around firearms and hunting. Still like to shoot, not much of a hunter anymore but 100% support those who choose to hunt. When I was a kid, a friend of our family ( a hunter himself) was mistaken for a deer and died one season in the woods. The person who shot him was an experienced hunter, and a perfectly nice person, who made a one second lapse in judgment about his target and had to live the rest of his life knowing he killed my friend's father. If you're blind, are you really going to let someone else judge your target for you? If so, you better be prepared for the consequences.
Re:I see (literally) (Score:3, Insightful)
I grew up around firearms & hunting, still enjoy shooting when I can. But if, God forbid, I ever became blind, I would never pull a trigger again in my life. If I'm blind, I can't possibly be sure of my target & range, and so I cannot ethically take a shot. But if somebody wants to give that power to another person, they'd better be prepared to deal with the consequences.
Re:i can imagine... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the blind aren't allowed to drive, why is there Braille on drive-through ATM's?
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell me once you come up with a way to live a healthy life that doesn't involve killing anything at all, then I'll be interested in following your way of life and I'll put up with your holier-than-thou attitudes. Until then, I applaud people that go hunting because the vast majority of them have a true appreciation of what is necessary for them to live (and why it's important not to waste their food) rather than having the detached viewpoint that is so prevalent in our modern society. The more I get involved in the world of food, the more saddened I am by how disgracefully pretentious most people in America have become towards food - that goes for both omnivores and vegetarians. Living life as an animal means you survive on the death of others; we need to come to grips with that and stop pretending what you get on your plate can somehow be clean, pure and moral.
Re:Great idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Next step (Score:2, Insightful)
However, with blind people, a lot of that respect and a lot of that work is lost. Being led into the woods, told to shoot at a target you can't even see, and then letting someone else do the rest of the work for you...that's just not the same. It becomes too focused on the kill. For that matter, a blind person can't even appreciate a trophy. Something about it just turns me off.
That said, while I may have appeared to state the opposite, I think that blind people should have every right to hunt, as I think that they should have every right to do anything (safely) that sighted people can. As long as the hunter they are with is experienced enough to keep it safe, there shouldn't be any cause for concern. Well, at least insofar as safety is concerned.
Re:Why hunt? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Except He's Not Blind (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legally Blind (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's Funny - Laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
This law is stupid. Mindless political correctness at its best.
Re:Why hunt? (Score:5, Insightful)
why can't you think about that without blowing some beautiful wild animals brains out?"
You can think about it all you want, but until you actually do it and take responsibility for it, it's just an abstraction with no reality. You are alienated from it. Like raising a child or traveling overseas -- you can theorize all you want, but there's no reality to it until you jump into it. You're just engaging in fantasy. It's like saying you feel sorry for poor people but you don't actually give to charity or try to help people out. It's all in your mind, no reality.
">> Certainly there are some people who are bloodthirsty, but that doesn't mean that everyone who hunts is.
Of course it does. Anyone with half a brain and who isn't bloodthirsty would prefer the continuation of natural beauty from the animal continuing to live. Or do you find a field full of corpses attractive?"
You do realize that prey animals need to be hunted in order to be healthy, right? Prey animals produce more offspring than the environment can support. It's natural selection.
Here in Ohio, there are so many deer, feeding off corn in the summer, and then there are too many and they slowly starve to death in the winter. We have taken away their natural predators such as wolves and mountain lions, so now it is more important than ever that we hunt them. In the case where there are not enough deer taken by hunters, the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources has to go out and kill enough so that they don't totally strip bark off of trees in their desperate search for food. In fact, about five years ago, we had a deer overpopulation in Sharon woods park here in Columbus. The department of parks had to shoot female deer with birth control so they wouldn't destroy the park. Most rural counties can't afford the expensive deer birth control and can't tag every female deer in the county, so hunting has to happen.
Your field full of corpses is strawman is disgusting. I'm taking about hunting and eating. In many parts of the country, hunting makes up a large part of a family's food throughout the year. They take a few deer, put them in the freezer, and eat from it all year long. If they had to give up hunting and buy their meat from a store, they wouldn't be able to afford it. The fact that you can't separate a horror-movie psychopath from a responsible hunter shows how closed-minded you are. Your sick fantasies of rotting corpses shows how little you know and how disconnected you are from the reality of hunting.
"I am taking more responsibility, by ensuring the animal get killed by professionals in a regulated humane way."
What exactly do you do to take more responsibility other than just buy meat? You are aware of the outright torture that goes on in factory farming, I would assume? Do you buy free range meat?
No you can't (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking of asinine, Hi, Pot. Ever RTFA? Try it, you might become more educated than us kettles in Texas.
Just for fun, let's look at a couple of possible results of this proposal, not that you would learn anything or see the point.
In one case, the blind has an offset sight for someone else to sight the weapon. So, there would be TWO people trying to sneak through the environment to find game, making it more difficult to actually find the game. Once found, the sighted person would ensure the target is game and not another hunter.
In another case, laser sighting is allowed. This enables those who can barely see, (but are still legally blind,) to sight and shoot. The legally blind person would still need to be able to see good enough out of at least a portion of his field of vision to discern that the laser is hitting the target.
To put legally blind in perspective, I had a roomate who was legally blind. Most of his retina was detached in one eye, and he couldn't really focus the other. Consequently, he had a spot of clear vision, and a large area of really blurry vision. He could play video games if he looked at the TV just right from a close distance. Reading was a chore. Driving wasn't going to happen in a safe manner. On one night out, he made a pass at a cross dresser, not noticing the five-o'clock shadow. Would I trust him to hunt alone? No. Would I trust him to hunt with someone else sighting? Yes. Do I think he would get any game? Not really. Would he enjoy it? Probably. Would he take an unsafe shot? No, he knew his limitations, and I would expect the blind hunters in this case to know their limitations as well.
Re:Hunting is unethical (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as the animal being shot (even recreationally) is eaten, then it represnts one less animal that lives its life in an unnatural and often vigorously inhumane environment, only to meet a very, very stressful and quite occasionally painful end.
On the balance, the deer that lived free and was shot had a *far* better quality of life -- and, yes, quality of death -- than 99% of the animals that you find laid out nice and neat in your grocery store. Eating a hunted wild deer is going to reduce demand for the drugged-up, tortured cattle you can buy at the store, which is a clear net win for animal suffering overall.
Now, killing a healthy non-nuisance creature and failing to eat it is, yes, morally repugnant -- and illegal in many parts of the US. But your comments elsewhere made it clear that you were referring to all sport hunting, even when the game is eaten.
Re:i can imagine... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i can imagine... (Score:2, Insightful)
We're members of a species that has comparably lousy hearing and pretty solid eyesight. It's no surprise that losing sight is a much more signifcant handicap than losing hearing, and that one loses access to more activities.
Besides, come on, this is hunting we're talking about. Nobody hunts their way to work. Nobody reputable, anyway.
Re:i can imagine... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Chuck Norris (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm glad I don't live anywhere that you're allowed guns at all.
J1M.
Re:Trickery (Score:2, Insightful)
who's fault is it if you tell a blind person to kill someone?