New Zealand lamping tragedy (lampers beware)

zulu_dawn

New Zealand lamping tragedy
http://www.bds.org.uk/deer_journal.html
[Winter 2010/11 Deer journal – Page 7]


A New Zealand deer stalker who shot and killed a young schoolteacher after mistaking her for a deer faces a term of imprisonment for manslaughter when he is sentenced in February. Andrew Neville David Mears, 25, admitted the manslaughter of 25-year-old Rosemary Ives in Taupo District Court.
Mears and two companions were lamping for deer near the campsite where Ives was holidaying on October 22. She was cleaning her teeth before going to bed when Mears mistook a light on her head for the eyes of a deer.
He had breached a Department of Conservation permit condition forbidding him to shoot during the hours of darkness, he had taken no heed of basic firearms safety rules and had illegally shot from a moving vehicle.
Applauding the decision to upgrade the charge from the less serious offence of recklessly using a firearm, New Zealand Deerstalkers’ Association national president Alec McIver said he believed manslaughter was the only plausible charge: “Hunters of all ages need
to observe high standards of ethics and safety while hunting and above all, the terms of their permits which authorise them to hunt,” he commented.

landkeeper

deserves what he gets!!!feckin idoit but that is little consolation to the family of the dead woman
there was a young lad shot in the head a few years ago in yorkshire in similar circumstances
too many idiots with guns out at night time something was done about it there are roads round here where sometimes it's like something from a ufo film and there are no deer :eek:

dermot218

god what a stupid mistake .which cost a young lady her life .u ddnt have to look as far as newzealand for idots fireing frm vans and jeeps .just beacuse u see a set of eyes glowing doesnt mean its ok to shoot

dermot218

if thats the sliabh na calliigh i know there hasnt been deer there in around 15years there was roumors saying a few were let out hence all the activity

garv123

thats just crazy. surely there was a light on in the house. and the vehicle was moving when he fired?

he deserved manslaughter imo.

Arcto

She was camping so that little head torch must have been the only light for miles.

I nearly shot a calf one day with a shotgun, I thought it was a fox. By nearly I mean that I decided not to take the shot (it was through a ditch) because I couldn't ID what I was shooting at. When I got closer it was a calf lying down.

Since then I make 110% sure of wtf I am shooting at and If I am not 110% sure I don't fire.

That probably would have cost me my licence.

Spunk84

One mistake cost him a life and his freedom. Same here I've lamped calves and lambs before and you would swear they where a fox but if I don't see the fox in the scope I won't chance it. Never take the chance if unsure.

FISMA

God bless this woman, her family, and may she rest in peace.

It appears this was an accident. I do feel sorry for the shooter as well. That is some weight to have on your conscience.

To the young shooters, when you are out, if you are over anxious to shoot, it is best to go back to the range and fire off a few thousand more rounds. Lampers should be out to cull and not shoot.

Take your time. Watch out for buck fever. After you rush a shot or two, you'll realize that you often have more time than you think.

With all this said, I find it very difficult to believe I could mistake a human. When we have been out foxing, I have seen everything: donkeys, deer, dogs, sheep, badgers, but never mistook anything for a fox.

I cannot see how this could happen. Don't animals have an extra membrane or something in their eyes that captures light reflected internally - hence the better night vision? Isn't this what we take advantage of when lamping? Any biologists out there?

Again lads, pass up a thousand shots if you do not know your target and what's beyond. This is especially true for us big bores. Any of ye lads with the 30 calibers: 303, 30-06, ... remember your firearm has a six mile kill radius.

Slan

garv123

we have let so many foxes go been 90% sure its a fox. not worth it.

i often have gave a lamp around and think i see a eye, flick off the lamp and the eye is still there. some room light left on miles away. if he turned off the lamp the light would still be there and he'd have realised it wasnt an eye

Tackleberrywho

Lamping should only be done

1. In close partnership with the farmer
2. For use on Nocternal Vermin only
3. should have verified earlier in the day that no animals (or Humas) are on the land when lamping occurs
4. At night 150% attention to detail is required (eyes, can be lights or reflectors. If you can't see quarry clearly in scope DO NOT FIRE

Victor

FISMA wrote: »

It appears this was an accident.

"Accident" implies it is something that couldn't be prevented and that nobody is culpable.

1. He had breached a Department of Conservation permit condition forbidding him to shoot during the hours of darkness,
2. He had taken no heed of basic firearms safety rules and
3. Had illegally shot from a moving vehicle.

The more rules you break, the more likely something will go wrong. Its stops being possible and becomes probable.

johngalway

garv123 wrote: »

we have let so many foxes go been 90% sure its a fox. not worth it.

i often have gave a lamp around and think i see a eye, flick off the lamp and the eye is still there. some room light left on miles away. if he turned off the lamp the light would still be there and he'd have realised it wasnt an eye

Same as with letting foxes go. Another trick is that foxes tend to blink/look away the odd time.

Victor wrote: »

"Accident" implies it is something that couldn't be prevented and that nobody is culpable.

1. He had breached a Department of Conservation permit condition forbidding him to shoot during the hours of darkness,
2. He had taken no heed of basic firearms safety rules and
3. Had illegally shot from a moving vehicle.

The more rules you break, the more likely something will go wrong. Its stops being possible and becomes probable.

I agree. It's negligence, not accidental.

Grizzly 45

Four words would help prevent this happening.
Mandatory Night Vision Usage!!

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Four words would help prevent this happening.
Mandatory Night Vision Usage!!

Not that I think it's a bad idea (because I think it's a good one), but can you imagine what would have been said here if the PTB in Ireland had decreed last week that it would now be mandatory to have night vision scopes before a section 42 was issued? There would have been cries over prices of equipment, the difficulty of obtaining that equipment, criticisms of the available Gen1 equipment, and so on...

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Not that I think it's a bad idea (because I think it's a good one), but can you imagine what would have been said here if the PTB in Ireland had decreed last week that it would now be mandatory to have night vision scopes before a section 42 was issued? There would have been cries over prices of equipment, the difficulty of obtaining that equipment, criticisms of the available Gen1 equipment, and so on...

If you were serious about your stalking, and could have NV legally, you would buy it. After all, most stalkers spend over a grand on a scope, some over 2 on Zeiss.

Another few pound on a Safer alternative should IMHO be allowed

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Another few pound on a Safer alternative should IMHO be allowed

Tack, NV scopes are allowed, they're just not treated as commodities. Same as with sound moderators.

johngalway

Sparks wrote: »

Tack, NV scopes are allowed, they're just not treated as commodities. Same as with sound moderators.

I wouldn't say they're the same as mods, people can get mods

I don't know, and have never heard of, anyone legally having and legally using a NV scope on a rifle in ROI?

Outside of Govt employees.

Sparks

I don't know of any myself either John (I mean, they're a bit redundant for target shooting), but they're definitely not banned - there's a tickbox right there on the application form for them, right longside the sound moderator tickbox.

BELOWaverageIQ

Sparks wrote: »

I don't know of any myself either John (I mean, they're a bit redundant for target shooting), but they're definitely not banned - there's a tickbox right there on the application form for them, right longside the sound moderator tickbox.

That's news to me, I understood that NV rifle scopes were illegal in Eire.
Are you 100% sure sparks?

Sparks

BELOWaverageIQ wrote: »

That's news to me, I understood that NV rifle scopes were illegal in Eire.
Are you 100% sure sparks?

Yes. They're covered in the Firearms Act, section one, under the definition of a firearm:

“firearm” means—
...
(g) ... any component part ... without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following articles shall be deemed to be such component parts:
(i) telescope sights with a light beam, or telescope sights with an electronic light amplification device or an infra-red device, designed to be fitted to a firearm

That's the same place they list sound moderators. Basicly, you can have one, but you need it on your licence, same as with a mod.

Tackleberrywho

I know of one man who ticked the box for NV and never was told he did or did not get it
(he ws applying for scope out of ignorance)

I'd be very interested to know what de-markings if any would be on a licence to say NV could be used.

I have used NV with the DF and I know it would be good enough for deer, not sure about foxes as even expensive NV is fuzzy.

However with a IR Filter for a lamp NV would be more than effective.
It is what conservationists use after all!

This would be what would be suitable for the job. And for a serious fox shooter with Mod and NV it would not disturb any other game.

Yet be the most appropriate method of shooting in complete darkness


http://www.atncorp.com/nightvision-riflescope-atnmars6x-3p

johngalway

Sparks wrote: »

I don't know of any myself either John (I mean, they're a bit redundant for target shooting), but they're definitely not banned - there's a tickbox right there on the application form for them, right longside the sound moderator tickbox.

I know the box is there, just don't know anyone who's successfully used it. If I had the money I'd apply just for the larf, could give them reason too.

Spunk84

Would be class to have one of those Thermal imaging scopes, would be the end of lamping as we know it!

Grizzly 45

A good thermal scope would cost nowadays as much as a good GEN3 NV.Be proably the better piece of equipment too.True ,you are looking at about 3.5k for anything decent ,by that I mean made in the Western World.Yes alot of the Russian stuff is totally POS, like ten years ago but it is getting better..Getting the equipment isnt that hard anymore either the UK sells it without restriction,as will the US..IF it is non milspec or surplus to US military requirements.So there are a few and will be more Vietnam era starlight scopes coming on the market soon.Not bad ,if you dont mind a half meter of 8in Wavin pipe size scope on your rifle!:pac:
I was thinking more even of just using a good hand held unit[not a Lidil POS] to have a look at those "bright eyes" you caught in the beam.Or use the NV to scout the area first then beam it.

However getting gun mounted units..If we get this rubbish about "silencers" and that H&S isnt good enough reason.What do you think Supers excuses not to issue would be for NV???

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

What do you think Supers excuses not to issue would be for NV?

Wouldn't apply if it was legally mandatory for a section 42 though. And as to the rest, Grizz, that's exactly what I was saying we would have seen being said had such a measure been proposed before this latest tragedy.

Tackleberrywho

Sparks wrote: »

Wouldn't apply if it was legally mandatory for a section 42 though. And as to the rest, Grizz, that's exactly what I was saying we would have seen being said had such a measure been proposed before this latest tragedy.

I have a section 42.
I have deer in barley but I have been monitoring the land during daylight hours and they are not in it.

NV would be ideal for me. No disturbance of game, no dusturbance of peace as land has a few houses relatively near (people these days never close curtains:rolleyes: )

NV would be ideal for what I want to do, but As fas as I was aware the general public were not allowed to own "even though there is a tick box"

Like all things I would like to be given a definitive answer on acceptable reason to own NV scopes.

To my mind it is safer for general public for shooters to have the best equipment available for the task.

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

NV would be ideal for me. No disturbance of game, no dusturbance of peace as land has a few houses relatively near (people these days never close curtains:rolleyes: )

Then apply for it.

As fas as I was aware the general public were not allowed to own "even though there is a tick box"

We've mentioned it a few times in the past y'know. In fact...

Like all things I would like to be given a definitive answer on acceptable reason to own NV scopes.

You asked...
...and were answered in detail.
...and you took part in this thread where the legal status was discussed...

johngalway

Sparks wrote: »

Then apply for it.

+1

Tackleberrywho

johngalway wrote: »

+1

I just might. Need to talk to my Local Ranger to see if he will he sign me off for NV use.

I never thought to put NV use on the application at the time.

As the farmer applies for the section 42 I did not send off the form.

It would be a good test case as 150 acres of barley is a very valid reason as the deer seem to be nocturnal

(droppings everywhere, footprints everywhere, and tracks everywhere; but no deer @ 6am 9am 1pm and 3pm today and same yesterday + 6pm 8pm and 10pm)

I'd have to bite the bullet and get NV, now where is my credit union book??

.243

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

A good thermal scope would cost nowadays as much as a good GEN3 NV.Be proably the better piece of equipment too.True ,you are looking at about 3.5k for anything decent ,by that I mean made in the Western World.Yes alot of the Russian stuff is totally POS, like ten years ago but it is getting better..Getting the equipment isnt that hard anymore either the UK sells it without restriction,as will the US..IF it is non milspec or surplus to US military requirements.So there are a few and will be more Vietnam era starlight scopes coming on the market soon.Not bad ,if you dont mind a half meter of 8in Wavin pipe size scope on your rifle!:pac:
I was thinking more even of just using a good hand held unit[not a Lidil POS] to have a look at those "bright eyes" you caught in the beam.Or use the NV to scout the area first then beam it.

However getting gun mounted units..If we get this rubbish about "silencers" and that H&S isnt good enough reason.What do you think Supers excuses not to issue would be for NV???

these seen to be getting good reviews in the uk
http://www.pulsar-nv.com/product.aspx?prid=13

Victor

Is it useful to use separate night vision equipment, possibly on a spotter + shooter basis. there was stuff avaialble for €100 in Lidl - not sure of the quality.

Tackleberrywho

Victor wrote: »

Is it useful to use separate night vision equipment, possibly on a spotter + shooter basis. there was stuff avaialble for €100 in Lidl - not sure of the quality.

The Lidl stuff is crud
you need to be able to clearly see the target at a min of 100 yards and have some magnification to aid accuracy

Tackleberrywho

The painting of the target really works, and as you can see very clear.

Half-cocked

Just to return to the OT, I remember heading out before dawn once to try and bag a fox that had been sniffing around one of our pheasant drives. As the sun rose, no sign of the fox, but it did reveal 2 pigeon shooters, camo'd up to the eyebrows, sitting on the bank I use as a backstop! OK, so if I'd been lamping they would probably have seen the light and made their presence known, but it shows how easily an accident could have happened. You just can't be careful enough. I'm glad this cowboy is having the book thrown at him. Apart from the tragedy of the womans death, this sort of thing also results in a knee jerk reaction from the authorities that impacts on all responsible shooters. This may have happened on the other side of the world, but don't be surprized if it is thrown at us here in Ireland by the anti's as a reason for banning hunting.

Victor

I'm surprised the animals weren't more startled by the lights.

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

The painting of the target really works, and as you can see very clear.

for the first two minutes of that video, all I wanted to do is shout "Boo". :pac:

Spunk84

i think the lad only got 2 1/2 years for the shooting:eek:

Mellor

Yeah 2 1/2 years.
The average sentance for manslaughter in NZ is just under 6 years. There was no intent to hurt a person here, he co-oporated with police and also pleded guilty obviously helped in securing a below average sentence.

jhcossie

terrible for her and him its a wonder why lamping foxes and rabbits in ireland isnt eligal,how easy this can happen like with people eager to get a shot off

Cass

jhcossie wrote: »

.......... its a wonder why lamping foxes and rabbits in ireland isnt illegal,.........

Thats ridiculous.

You cannot regulate for the stupid, or possible future events. Most legislation comes after an event. Until it happens people, ie PTB, do not usually consider it or unless its a high profile event in the public eye.

The people in this story were foolish and they will be punished for their actions. The people affected should be given the upmost of consioderation and condolences by everyone. However a knee jerk re-action like banning lamping because of the lack of care/attention to their back drop, etc would be overly reactive and silly. Not to mention it did not happen here.

It wasn't me!

jhcossie wrote: »

terrible for her and him its a wonder why lamping foxes and rabbits in ireland isnt eligal,how easy this can happen like with people eager to get a shot off

The exact same is true during the day. It's why we have to hold ourselves to the highest standards.

jhcossie

Ezridax wrote: »

Thats ridiculous.

You cannot regulate for the stupid, or possible future events. Most legislation comes after an event. Until it happens people, ie PTB, do not usually consider it or unless its a high profile event in the public eye.

The people in this story were foolish and they will be punished for their actions. The people affected should be given the upmost of consioderation and condolences by everyone. However a knee jerk re-action like banning lamping because of the lack of care/attention to their back drop, etc would be overly reactive and silly. Not to mention it did not happen here.

did i say it should be done?????????it ment i wouldnt be suprised if it was banned with all the regulations here.look at the post again before you post,never said it should be banned,accident happens cause the shooter was over anxious and careless

Cass

jhcossie wrote: »

did i say it should be done?????????

No.

it ment i wouldnt be suprised if it was banned with all the regulations here

I know what you meant, and i still think its ridiculous.

look at the post again before you post,

Why?

never said it should be banned,accident happens cause the shooter was over anxious and careless

I was responding to the idea of banning lamping because of an incident in New Zealand. Not your comment. So calm down. Remember context can be lost in the written word.

The thought of banning lamping because some idiot cannot shoot safely is ridiculous, but is also the kind of reactive legislation we have seen here too often. All the legislation about pistols and the restrictions placed on owners, and the banning of them for new applicants is my case in point. This was a knee jerk reaction by the PTB to their own inability to control gun crime by thugs and criminals.

Same point with lamping. Some idiot does a stupid act and then the rest of us pay for their stupidity by loosing our sport/shooting/hunting. Thankfully i cannot remember the last time or if there even was such an incident in Ireland. We have one of the highest safety records for club/range shooting, and as shooters the majority of us, as IWM said, hold ourselves to a higher standard than even the PTB demand/seek.

rock garden

As i said in a post earlier this year far 2 many clowns with high powered rifles lamping without permission and giving us all a bad name. What is everybodys opinion to these people should they be reported to the police . A few landowners around here a really sick to the back teeth with these people. I personally think these people should be reported .My fox numbers are also suffering.:mad:

Spunk84

rock garden wrote: »

As i said in a post earlier this year far 2 many clowns with high powered rifles lamping without permission and giving us all a bad name. What is everybodys opinion to these people should they be reported to the police . A few landowners around here a really sick to the back teeth with these people. I personally think these people should be reported .My fox numbers are also suffering.:mad:

If the land owners are sick of it why don't they get the Gards involved ? Armed trespass is a serious offence. If there where trespassers on my land I would do the same!

You know the discussion is about what happened in NZ not Ireland I will put a 1000 euro that fox numbers are not suffering and that they are increasing over the years.... I lamped 6 in 2 fields the other night which last season I shot 12 vixens in- if they where decreasing then I shouldn't of seen any.

Sparks

Spunk84 wrote: »

Armed trespass is a serious offence.

Actually, and I know this is an annoying technicality, I don't think it is a specific offence in Ireland. It's just trespass here; the firearm only becomes an issue if it's used or used to intimidate, in which case there's a few dozen other offences the person gets charged with.

Spunk84

Sparks wrote: »

Spunk84 wrote: »

Armed trespass is a serious offence.

Actually, and I know this is an annoying technicality, I don't think it is a specific offence in Ireland. It's just trespass here; the firearm only becomes an issue if it's used or used to intimidate, in which case there's a few dozen other offences the person gets charged with.

Ill cover the qbove for you that has happened before

A little old lady here's a shot in the field goes out to find 2 lads cammo up with rifles, she tells them to get off her land and they tell her to F@CK. Firearm was used and she was scared of what they would do.

Trespassing on someone's land with firearms is intimating to a land owner because you don't know what will happen if you approach them.

rock garden

Spunk84 wrote: »

If the land owners are sick of it why don't they get the Gards involved ? Armed trespass is a serious offence. If there where trespassers on my land I would do the same!

You know the discussion is about what happened in NZ not Ireland I will put a 1000 euro that fox numbers are not suffering and that they are increasing over the years.... I lamped 6 in 2 fields the other night which last season I shot 12 vixens in- if they where decreasing then I shouldn't of seen any.

Yes i know the discussion is about here nz and not ireland the reason i posted was to highlight my concerns about the possible chance it could happen here with lampers who dont care where they lamp or what they lamp. Im in north and fox numbers are down in my part of the country where i would of seen 50 plus i now only see less than half that.

ring 20

rock garden wrote: »

Yes i know the discussion is about here nz and not ireland the reason i posted was to highlight my concerns about the possible chance it could happen here with lampers who dont care where they lamp or what they lamp. Im in north and fox numbers are down in my part of the country where i would of seen 50 plus i now only see less than half that.

dose that not mean the lampers are doing a good job?

rock garden

ring 20 wrote: »

dose that not mean the lampers are doing a good job?

Idont need people with no permission lamping on my area where i have lamped for 13 years . why cant these feckers get permission like everbody else . on top of that they are shooting hares and leaving them lying. Also a local farmer had a hereford calf shot and badly wounded. a good job i would say not?

ring 20

rock garden wrote: »

Idont need people with no permission lamping on my area where i have lamped for 13 years . why cant these feckers get permission like everbody else . on top of that they are shooting hares and leaving them lying. Also a local farmer had a hereford calf shot and badly wounded. a good job i would say not?

thats different then if they are shooting everything in sight. any farmer from round where i live do not care who shoots foxes. we dont seem to get all these shoot em up types here tho, just lads who are genuine fox shooters. lampers seem to get alot of stick, they not all bad

thelurcher

Have to agree with rock garden - way too many cowboys about - know a fella in Macroom Co. Cork that had two horses shot by lads lamping in the last few weeks.
They apparently thought they were deer...............