Uncle Beer, what’s your take on driving around looking for game to shoot? Is this common and accepted practice? My only experience with this comes from my roommates in college in rural Missouri, who were respectable hunters. They were discussing with great disdain another guy in the dorm who would pull off the road (public roadways) to shoot at deer he might happen upon. Now, I recognize that what Cheney and company was doing is far different than pulling off a public roadway to start shootin’, but it nevertheless seems to be less than impressive hunting to this observer. Having to cover five or six miles on foot to find game seems like a much better definition of hunting to me.
Thank you for scratching that itch.
How do you figure that? I spoke to Cheyney holding the greater part of the blame–and I think he should, as evidenced by my examples. Legally, the driver is indeed liable and at fault for hitting a kid in the streer–whether that driver is prosecuted is another story.
The attitude that I spoke of is endemic and not just for Presidents and VP’s–Hollywood celebrities get it as well. Hell, Prince Charles and Co get it–their role is to show up, look presentable and be civil. For this, they are called gracious, attractive and intelligent.What is wanted from them is the cachet of their referent power. The problem comes when lack of attention to safety etc is excused BECAUSE of the VIP’s position–the regular rules don’t apply to them. I call BS on that (and it sounds like you do too- so where is the disagreement?). I wonder if this “in charge of the hunt person” ever went over the safety stuff with all the participants. Or was it “we get to go hunt with the Vice President of the United States of America!”?
I am not saying that Cheyney thought the rules didn’t apply to him (although I would argue that apparently he thinks the consequences are none of his concern)–I am saying that those around him (Armstrong et al) are placing the blame on Whittington BECAUSE of Cheyney’s position. And they shouldn’t. This would be a salient time for the NRA etc to come out and actually promote some gun safety–even chastise the VP for his actions. This would be a good time for Dick to come out and mea culpa and promote safe hunting. I won’t hold my breath.
Can’t speak for Uncle Beer, obviously, but here’s my take.
Quail hide in clumps of grass. You cannot, under just about any circumstances, see them from the road. You have to get out in the field, usually with dogs, and flush them out of their hiding spots.
I would imagine that due to the age of the some of the hunters and due to the VP’s heart condition, the shooters were being driven to areas of the ranch with quail. They then got out of the vehicles to look for coveys. Poor-man’s upland game hunting usually requires LOTS of walking over rough terrain. On game ranches it’s usually ride and shoot, with limited walking.
As such, this type of hunting isn’t a great ethical faux pas, nor is it against game rules. However, stopping a vehicle to shoot a deer, shooting roosting birds on power lines, shooting from a vehicle are all against the moral code and are usually against the game laws, too.
I have a slightly different question.
A couple of different people, in this thread and the other, have commented that this type of hunting is fairly dangerous. I’m not a hunter, so I wouldn’t know. But apparently the highly compressed nature of the activity — lots of people in a small area, quick turnarounds in a series of locations, whatever — makes it one of the riskier forms of hunting in which one can engage.
Okay, so if that’s the case, is it really a good idea for the second most important person in the government (or the first, depending on your inclinations) to be doing it?
Presumably there would be objections if Dubya took up base jumping or lion taming, so did nobody speak up when a bunch of old men decided to go out spraying birdshot around one another?
Or is it really not that dangerous?
I ask only because it’s come up more than once in the discussion.
I’m inclined to agree with you - and your college roomies in rural Missouri. As I noted previously, I have participated on several canned hunts similar in nature, but not in scope, to what the VP seems to enjoy. We never took a vehicle from field to field during the hunt, and had we, I’m pretty sure we’d not have piled outta the truck just because we happened to see a bird or two on the wing. If the guide had permitted such, I’d have asked to be taken back to the clubhouse. Simple fact is, particularly on a canned hunt such as this, there are gonna be plenty more shots to be had later and elsewhere. The default position to take should always be hold your shot. Plus, that type of thing seems more than a little inherently unsafe to me. A lotta guys with a lotta guns jamming home a lotta shells (because if these guys were traveling with loaded guns then they’re more than just negligent) itching to get a shot off just sounds like a bad practice to me. Too much activity and too little time to let common sense run its course. Now, I can’t say for sure that the VP’s hunt in Corpus Christi actually played out that way, but it sure sounds like it wasn’t too dissimilar.
How do I figure what? That the driver can’t be faulted in your scenario? I figure it based on the motor vehicles laws of my (Ohio) state - and many other states. Pedestrians have the right of way only when crossing legally - i.e. in the crosswalk or at other designated places. Now that, of course, doesn’t mean the motorist has the right to plow 'em over—the motorist is always obligated to make every reasonable effort to avoid collisions of any type—but you said “The pedestrian always has the right of way. Period.” That is patently false.
I agree. And as an NRA member, I’ve already written an e-mail to my NRA reps asking for such. As of this moment, all I can find is this little blurb linking to a news story about the relative rarity of hunting accidents.
Not particularly. The key is “relatively,” just as it is in all other things. Along with the rash of news stories out there today, is one with some stats on accidental shootings in hunting situations. Here’s the link if you want to read it and judge for yourself:
I’m sure in general you are correct, but the description given in the Fox article in the OP definitely gives me more of a flavor of a “Look there’s one! Pull over!” kind of hunt:
One can imagine how a bunch of guys pouring out of a car and heading in different directions could end up with a problem.
That wasn’t my post. And yes, I did say the pedestrian always has the right of way. That is not patently false, that is patently true. At least, it is in California. And Massachusetts as well, I believe, although I’m not sure. It may not be true in your state, as bup was kind enough to point out.
Oops. My apologies. That belonged to eleanorigby.
Here’s a page from the driver’s handbook from the California DMV. It says nothing like what you claim.
Exactly as I noted. Obligatory link to the source:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21954.htm
Massachusetts also specifies that pedestrians must be within a crosswalk to hold right of way:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/89-11.htm
Not a problem. We’re both dialysis nurses, we’re both Dems, we’re probably both redheads, too.
Well, what you state speaks only to the law as it applies to pedestrians. Specifically, that they must use crosswalks. This goes a bit more into right-of-way; although it doesn’t specifically say “pedestrians have the right of way no matter what,” it does state:
So even if the cross walk isn’t marked, the pedestrian still has the right of way. The statement I made is a direct quote from a California Highway Patrol officer, and I’ll keep looking for a cite.
Well, not quite. I’m not a dialysis nurse–I’m a stepdown and critical care nurse. And I have alot of red in my dark blonde hair. Does that help? Also, her name is Maureen and mine is Eleanor. 
How about giving me credit, Uncle Beer for the bit about the NRA? That wasn’t Maureen, either. Nice to see we can agree on that-it would go a long way to improving his character in my eyes. Again, I won’t hold my breath.
to my mind, the “right of way is never taken, always given.” and “bigger waits for smaller”–2 credos I was taught in driver’s ed and have kept me in good stead ever since.
Same principle applies to a deadly weapon, which I would think a gun qualifies. IOW, the one with the weapon (unless bent on nefarious purpose) should watch out for those who are un-armed. What about that bit of wisdom–neve point a loaded gun at someone? IMO, Cheyney effed up and deserves every bit of snarky humor, “ribbing” and outright chastising he gets. YMMV.
Look – all Chaney has to do is publicly admit his negligence on national TV - during an interview with Dan Rather – then publicly take 20 hours of hunter safety courses (all in plain view, so the media can cover day-by-day as ‘news’) – then, as suggested, make a NRA sponsored commercial about the dangers of guns (again, to be reported as ‘news’) — and I’ll be happy. That should be shame enough. Can’t speak for the others through – they may want to get to the bottom of Birdshotgate and the White House delays.
Ooops again. That California source I linked isn’t from the driver’s handbook as I stated. Your link is, however. My link is from the California Motor Vehicle Code. You wanna try and find something that contradicts the actual text of the motor vehicle code, be my guest. But a source doesn’t get any more definitive.
Or maybe it does. Here’s the California Motor Vehicle Code as it applies directly to pedestrians: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm
Note particularly paragraph (b).
Here’s the table of contents for the motor vehicle code. Mebbe you can find something there. Or pass it along to the highway patrol in case they wanna, ya know, brush up.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c5.htm
Except in the case of boats. Smaller boats are required to yield to larger boats - almost always - since they are more agile. Gets a little more complicated if one of them is under sailpower. And I hope there aren’t too many railroad tracks without crossing gates in your area. Those suckers can really hurt if they clobber you.
When it comes to guns though, my mileage is identical to yours. There are, however, other persons who share culpability in this incident.
Eeeexcelent. Whittington will feed at least a dozen!
Nope, you were right. Although the California Drivers’ handbook comes directly from the MVC, that particular cop was probably just trying to instill the fear of God in his just-got-her-license-menace-to-society daughter. :smack:
I’m going to need a cite here. He was very much in Cheney’s group, according to the news reports.
To the tune of “Whatever Lola Wants”
Whatever Cheney sees
Cheney shoots
And Whittinton
Cheney sees you
IIRC, there is no jurisdiction in the U.S. that allows car hunting for deer (I believe there are special considerations in some states for the handicapped) but car hunting is perfectly acceptable for other quarry. The ruffed grouse of Northern Minnesota come to mind. But there are some restrictions; blaze orange, rifle must be cased and unloaded while driving, and you can’t shoot within some (twenty? I think, I’ll have to check the literature) feet of the vehicle. Thankfully, the ruffed grouse is such a stupid fella that he’ll stand there and wait for you to uncase your gun, load it, don your blaze orange, and walk away from your car.
I’m guilty of not reading the linked article. My bad.
If they were just crusing around the ranch and saw some birds on the wing and decided to stop and shoot, then shame on them. Not so much for the ethical/moral grounds fair hunting, but for the stupid and unorganized approach to the hunt.
Two keys to safe upland bird hunting is clear communication and awareness of your surroundings. It sounds to me that there was no communication and no awareness of the surroundings. Shame on the VP and the other hunters for doing this; shame on Armstrong for allowing it to occur on her land.