shooters not identifying targets.

I've just read Brian Rudman's column again and I don't totally agree with him. Firstly his statement about there being a similar exercise on Mana Island seven years ago is just wrong. That wasn't an amateur group on Mana Island. It was a professional DOC-employed shooter who made the mistake. Also Brian Rudman's claim is that this is all about under-funding. He's probably right where greater conservation goals are concerned, but on this specific incident and as long as we're quoting Judge Noble, he also wrote in the same inquiry: "A lack of money was not the cause of the Cave Creek collapse. None of the department’s witnesses suggested it was. Neither do I. But in my view, the inadequacy or otherwise of funding is highly relevant to this inquiry in providing a background against which the evidence and submissions can be judged." Judge Noble's point, as I read it, was that DOC pre-1995 was severely underfunded and money that existed was in unclear places which wasn't always where it was most needed. But at the same time, absurdly unrealistic expectations were being placed on staff who weren't adequately trained or managed for what was expected of them. Pre-1995 DOC didn't even know where its money was going, what needed doing, how much it needed, where its staff were or what they could do or whether they were talking to each other. It couldn't reasonably ask the Treasury for appropriate cash for the jobs that needed doing, because it didn't know what they were. DOC could have had all the money in the world before 1995, but it wouldn't have solved the fundamental problems which eventually led to the Cave Creek collapse because it was being so horribly and inefficiently run from the top down. There could be similar components of this with the Takahe mess, but I don't see DOC as being in the same completely flustered state as it was 20 years ago. I'd expect that amateurs could do the job perfectly well, but there still needs to be an expert level of responsibility in place, whether it comes directly from DOC or from someone who's been closely vetted by DOC as being adequate for the task. One way or another, DOC's still the organisation that's accountable for getting it done, and not just passing the buck to someone who wasn't right to be involved in the first place. Based on the loose bits I've heard of how disorganised the shoot seems to have been, I reckon someone at DOC simply failed to properly assess and make sure it was coordinated to an adequately high standard from the start. But the inquiries will hopefully make clearer what's actually happened.

There's a new development. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11560884 DOC has identified two particular people, and referred them to Police. DOC's also reviewed how it plans this type of stuff, with a new requirement that operations around threatened species have to be approved at a national level. Hopefully the extra paperwork is adequately proportional to the risk.

unfortunately we all know how much extra paperwork at the national level actually improves things on the ground

Genuine question: why do you think there are so many hunting accidents? The 7 rules are sound. The process to obtain a firearms licence seems adequate (although perhaps too many are simply shunted through the evening course??), and yet, people are still ending up with bullets in them. What gives? Does NZ need to become more like Australia, where you have to be an active member of a gun club for at least 6 months before even being looked at for a licence? I don't think it does, but there's failure somewhere along the line. I'm just not sure what the problem is.....

there was some article about how the brain gets easily fooled in the process of identifying objects. the reasons will vary from buck fever, to people not realising how badly they are identifying their target, if you're shooting in the bush you're often shooting in bad light, and things are less what they seem, their minds sees a patch of something that looks like the game they are after, usually deer and their imagination fills in the blanks to tell them it is their game target. qualifying for a gun licence may be way too easy, the election process not elaborate enough to educate people properly how to identify their target. often people arent thinking their situation through at all. recently some guys were shooting at night, one of theem shot an animal and left their vehicle, then his mate ended up mistaking him for an animal, knowing full well that one of them had walked off in the dark, and he pulled the trigger, when all hunting should have ceased immediately the gent left the vehicle and they should have opened their bolts.. doesnt matter how experienced people are, even senior deer stalking instructors arent immune from shooting people.

Thanks for your thoughts Wayno. You're right. That fill-in-the-blanks mechanism is dangerous. Is it just me, or do others here think that hunters who are also actual trampers are safer hunters? My thoughts are that hunter/trampers are able to gain pleasure and satisfaction from more than successfully downing their prey, and therefore less fill-in-the-blanks occur, making them intrinsically safer hunters. I've not seen any evidence/figures to suggest this; it's just a gut feeling.....

Theres different types of unintentional shootings (theyre not accidents). The takahe one sounds like a combination of poor management - resorting to use voluteers for that is asking for trouble IMO. The incidents that happen during spotlighting are really reckless behaviour - night shooting is inherently unsafe, that's why its banned on conservation lands Unintentional shooting when handling firearms - say cleaning, unloading, crossing fences are also reckless and is simply incorrect handling procedure You would expect all of these to be preventable. its the misidentification of target that is perplexing. I don't really subscribe to the "my mind played tricks on me". If it was valid, it would be a legit excuse to get off a prosecution. IMO it comes down not just failure to identify a target, but failure to use correct shot placement. ie be certain that you are aiming at a part of the animal that will deliver an lethal hit. You don't hear of bow hunters having these problems. They HAVE to have a very clear shot to be successful. Also identifying what it is you are actually shooting at. If its a stag, are the antlers worth taking. - that means seeing and counting the points etc. If its intended to just taken venison, what is it, stag, hind, yearling There is a tendency in NZ to "just shoot it", whatever it is. stag, hind etc. Also, just hit a brown bit. Don't worry about wounding. Decent shot placement means the hunters cant help but have correctly identified it is a wild animal being aimed at. Shooting at long distances out in the open, requires fairly carefull aiming, and not just aiming at a brown bit. Theres hasn't been any of these incidents under those circumstances that I am aware of. neither do trophy hunters who are looking for something better than what they have already, seem to be guilty of unintentional shootings. The readiness to just kill a deer, regardless of what it is, is a kiwi thing, where we have no real game management. Deer are pests, and "kill them all", prevails. As far as I know, all of the misindentifiction of target incidents have involved relatively close shooting in bush, where there isn't usually time to look too long before a deer runs off, so "snap shooting" is common place, that's a risky practice, if time isn't taken to take a clean shot that will be lethal. (the deer ends up wounded, and worst case, it isn't a deer, its a person) Despite all this, I am not sure we have a relatively "high" shooting death rate. I think based on population, its a lot higher in the USA, Canada is similar to NZ and Aus is a bit lower. That so called experienced hunters are also involved, doesn't mean much. Hunters can have practices they adopt, that no one ever see's. Usually, 100 percent of the time, just aiming at a bit of brown doesn't turn out to be another hunters. But what often happens, is poor shot placement leaves deer wounded, often got with 2nd or 3rd shot, or even getting away and dying. And can go thru life doing it. And they get away with it, except sometimes it goes all wrong. How these incidents are prevented in NZ, I have no idea. Perhaps harsher penalties will make hunters realize the risk they are taking, and be more carefull. Theyre no different to drunk drivers, really

It is always hunters shooting other hunters. Has the ever been an instance of a hunter shooting a tramper? The only instance of a hunter shooting a non hunter I can think of was the one where the hunters were spotlighting from a vehicle at night and shot a woman cleaning her teeth by a stream with headlamp on.

It would be interesting to know the correlation between active gun users and mishaps but that info has probably never been collected mainly because no one knows in most countrys how many active gun owners there are. Can you imagine running a survey in USA asking if they have a gun and actively carry it? Both the gun and the anti gun lobys would have a field day. It wouldnt surprise me that the statistics of mishaps v hours spent hunting isnt much different in any country but we may never know that answer for sure

"It is always hunters shooting other hunters. Has the ever been an instance of a hunter shooting a tramper? " @Ian_H its probably unlikely to happen. Unless a tramper was off track and in the bush. just walking river beds, etc, are safe from hunters, IMO. This its hunters stalking other hunters, who are also stalking, is the problem