Thread: camo in the bush

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Would you have seen him if he was wearing blaze??

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Or what about "normal" outdoor clothing eg?

It's an interesting subject

I had an unexpected hunter stroll through a clearing I was looking over one morning and his blue blaze top stood out like the proverbial dogs bollocks

If he was in camo & "not visible" how could it be the shooters fault ????

If you can't see him, he can be "in your firing zone" & near your target without your knowledge

Originally Posted by Pengy

Attachment 53787Attachment 53788

The blaze Hat certainly makes a difference in those condations. Still, in the camo theres no mistaking im a deer, you have to be a idiot to shoot at movement if you saw me at all. With the blaze i prob dont look like a deer either, but if i was sitting down and you only saw my blaze hat, covered in a little snow and behind some scrub so it wasnt visable that great hasnt there been cases recently where people have been shot because the hunter thought the little bit of blaze they saw looked colour likely of a deer......

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

Would you have seen him if he was wearing blaze??

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

most likely. hes was just in from the bushline so probly 2 metres in

Originally Posted by Pengy

Attachment 53787Attachment 53788

was kinda like the 2nd pic but more scrubby type shit, we never saw him move or even saw him at all, was just after 2 shots he popped out

I don't know about normal clothes, he was only a couple of metres in but as you know, when its a bit shady/dark in the scrubby shit. I think blaze would have been seen but not full cammo

he had a rifle with him, and that was also cammo taped lol

So if you sit or lie on the road in the half light wearing an asphalt camo suit, deliberately trying to be invisible and get run over by a passing car, who's fault is it?

Originally Posted by JoshC

To answer your question, in my opinion I'd say if you'd hit him you'd be at fault unfortunately. The responsibility to properly ID your target (which you did on the goats), but also check your firing zone is yours as the hunter/firearms license holder.

I do understand that. if we had shot and killed him though-we wouldn't have even known he was shot or even there. the firing zone is a hard one in the bush too. its not like you can quickly run 1000m past the target to check for people. we had already checked the area for boats/huts for gear and the hutbooks and there was no mention of other hunters/people at all in the area

Originally Posted by 257weatherby

So if you sit or lie on the road in the half light wearing an asphalt camo suit, deliberately trying to be invisible and get run over by a passing car, who's fault is it?

haha good example haha

Originally Posted by Feral

Was the camo hunter rifle or bow hunting? I can understand bowhunters being camo d up more than one with a rifle. A shooter still needs to take into account and study the possible impact area though.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

na he had a rifle. also probly 50m into the bush was a steep hill so weren't really shooting into nowhere. had a backstop as such, was just weird haha

Originally Posted by Rushy

My two cents:
1. He would have been safer wearing a pink Tutu
2. You would have been in the shit up to your eyeballs if you had shot him (rules 4 & 5)

but that's the thing, if wed shot and killed him-we would have never known he was even there

Originally Posted by Grutsyboy

but that's the thing, if wed shot and killed him-we would have never known he was even there

If you had shot and winged him I'm sure you would have heard him!