This page has been moved to http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Outdoorlife Blogs at its new location: www.outdoorlife.com/blogs.
New Law: No Names in Hunting Accident Reports
Both the House and Senate in Mississippi have passed a bill that will affect how hunting accident investigations are handled in the future. The key provision is that the names of parties involved in any accident (even those that involve death) will not be released to the public.
The reasoning for the language is to prevent frivolous lawsuits, according to officials at the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. Apparently, Mississippi has a problem with trial lawyers soliciting clients through the public information available in the reports. Though this procedure is new for hunting, it is standard in Mississippi for boating and auto accidents.
Also included in the bill are restrictions on alcohol consumption while hunting. A hunter involved in an accident may be tested for drunkenness. If he shows a .08 blood alcohol level he will lose his license for two years. If he refuses to take a Breathalyzer then the license suspension is four years. What's surprising, though, is that Mississippi isn't requiring hunters to be Sunday-morning sober. Wildlife officers should remember that it takes some work to get to .08.
This story is absolutely unbelievable. The sportsmen and women in Mississippi would be doing themselves a big favor, ethically as well as public relations wise to demand that there be zero tolerance for alcohol while hunting, and demand that their legislatures change the bill to reflect that. What are they thinking?
Posted by: Greg Russell | March 03, 2006 at 03:12 PM
i understand the secrecy aspect of the reporting issue because of the situation with the legal system in MS but why not just open the season on lawyers and eliminate the problem (just kidding, sort of). the alcohol is another can of worms. while i might not call for "Sunday morning sober", maybe the same results with a test of .04%.
Posted by: tom church | March 03, 2006 at 08:02 PM
Are you serious? You REALLY think the law should allow for .04%? What are you thinking? Good grief, I wouldn`t hunt with you if you had the last 50 acres of white-tail habitat in the world.
This is alot of what`s wrong with hunting today.
Posted by: Greg Russell | March 04, 2006 at 12:56 AM
a twelve oz. beer will register .02% for an adult male weighing 160 lbs or more. the effects of the alcohol are reduced by .01% every hour, after consumption. so if you have hunted all morning, have a beer at lunch, then go out an hour later, to hunt the rest of the day, the effects of the beer are negated very quickly. if a beer is going to be that horrible, then why do most gun clubs sell it, with no restrictions? my reference for the numbers is http://www.happinessonline.org/BeTemperate/p16.htm
Posted by: tom church | March 06, 2006 at 11:54 AM
Does each individual’s body chemistry make their reaction to alcohol different? It it different for folks who drink frequently? And great quantity?
I was ALWAYS taught guns and alcohol don`t mix. And as you`re seeing in this instance, perception IS reality. The perception that alcohol was even partially responsible for the incident has allowed it to be even more sensationalized. Like always, if it`s legal, even if not ethical, everyone can do as they see fit. I would not want to be in the field, or anywhere, with someone who’s been drinking and handling firearms. There’s just to much to lose.
Posted by: Greg Russell | March 06, 2006 at 01:59 PM
I like to have a beer, as much as anybody else, but once I've drank one, the gun stays in camp! no alcohol & guns do not mix!Tose leg. in those states would be wise to consider 0% tollerance!!!!!!
Posted by: Marty Johns | March 07, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Virginia proposed a zero tolerance law last year and it rankled more than a few feathers. Probably the best argument that was made against blowing a 0.00 is the cough syrup effect. If you have taken Nyquil or something similar the night before in camp there's a chance that you could still blow a .02. Under the original language in Virginia that means it's an arrestable offense. .08 is too high, but .00 is too low.
Posted by: Will | March 07, 2006 at 06:04 PM
.02 is the logical and safest limit. In states that have "zero tolerance" laws for drivers under 21, the limit is set at .02 to counter the "cough syrup" effect (and the fact that breathalyzers are not perfectly accurate).
While I pray to God that these limits are never applied to fishing, a .02 limit for hunting should be mandatory in every state for hunting with firearms.
Posted by: Hank | March 14, 2006 at 02:31 PM
hey why is the deer season so short in alabama
Posted by: | October 05, 2007 at 05:04 PM
We need crack down on poching in alabama
Posted by: | October 05, 2007 at 05:06 PM
im doing a report on hunting accident i was wondering if you would cover some causes and effects for hunting accidents
thanks,
Joel
Posted by: joel | October 05, 2007 at 05:12 PM
when is the best time to plant a field for deer season in alabama
Posted by: | October 05, 2007 at 05:16 PM
hi i have never been hunting and i really would like to go this year how do get to
Posted by: joel | October 05, 2007 at 05:20 PM
hi i am wondering if you could give me some cause and effects
Posted by: josh | October 05, 2007 at 05:22 PM