I don't agree with it but hey it is Texas.

Bill would allow legally blind Texans to hunt

I think that would be great. Imagine losing your sight. You could still hunt and use all you shooting knowledge.
What is not to agree with?

Perry

I have to agree with Perry. What's not to like about it.

I'm with Perry and M16. If you were to lose your sight, wouldn't you like to be able to get out in the woods again?

Why would you have a problem with it?

I'm sure i'll get ripped here, just like I did when I voiced my opinion on this on another forum, but I'll say it anyway.

I think it is a stunt, and should NOT be allowed.

Every hunter on this board espouses the ethic of a one-shot, quick, clean kill, and passing up the shot if it is "iffy". With a BLIND person behind the gun, EVERY shot is MUCH worse than just iffy, it is a disaster looking for a place to happen.

Sure, the sighted assistant can say, "A little to the right.", or, "Down three inches." But a blind person CAN NOT KNOW how much to move the gun or sight to affect point of impact by whatever amount needed at the target.

The sighted person can say "There, shoot." And the animal could move before the blind shooter breaks the trigger. A normally sighted person can usually react quickly enough to this IN HIS OWN MIND to simply stop the trigger pull. But translating that thought, to speech, then to the blind shooter's ears, the having the speech processed, and acting upon the info, would take TOO LONG!!

I have no problem whatsoever with blind people employing a sighted assistant to shoot inanimate targets, but game animals should NOT be exposed to unneccessary risk of wounding or crippling.

As Inspector Harry Callahan said, "A man's got to know his limitations."

I saw this bill as another way to generate money in the TX hunting industry. TX for as large of a State as it is has a very small amount of public land. You either have to own private property or lease or pay to hunt a ranch and I see this as a way for the game ranches just to make more money. But like I said hey it's Texas.

If I couldn't see the wildlife I was hunting I don't think I would enjoy hunting anymore. I think I would have to find a new hobby to occupy my time. To me the memories of the hunt are better than any pictures or trophies on the wall. But hey thats just me.

FWIW I whole heartedly agree with you wingnut.

A person is considered LEGALLY blind when the best corrected visual acuity is 20/200, or the person's visual field is 20 degrees or less. It is not true that all blind persons have absolutely no sight; in fact, most blind persons have some remaining vision. A person may be considered blind when he/she can no longer drive safely, has difficulty reading a newspaper, or cannot see objects to the side.

Wingnut and Tay...
Most deer look like a blind person shot them anyway so why not let the blind have a crack at it.
I really dont think this is a $ issue. The game ranches are doing just fine with out blind peoples money. In fact I would think most outfitters would not have the patient to assist a visually impaired person.
I think it is a cool idea and if done with proper caliber and distances would be no less ethical than letting a mediocre shot go afield. And for the record I am all about humane, one shot kills on ALL animals hunted.

Perry

I saw one setup where the sighted helper aims the rifle and the blind person 'pulls' the trigger via a pneumatic system. IIRC the helper was the system designer and claimed something like a dozen one shot kills without a single wounding. AS the inventer, he was VERY familiar with the ins and outs of using it though.

I'm all for it.

ALL YOU NAYSAYERS PLEASE READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've volunteered as a firearms/hunter education instructor for many years. Several years ago My partner got a request that challenged us. A local girl - blind since age two - wanted to go hunting with her dad and needed a class to get her license. They weren't sure yet just HOW she was going to hunt but not one to back down my buddy (who's a master gunsmith) stepped up to that one as well.

We set up a special class just for this girl, her brother, mom & dad. It was a challenge since most classroom instruction is geared toward visual aids. We managed to adapt though and she passed the test - which was translated into braile - with a perfect score (without ANY help or coaching I might add).

The (donated) rifle - an NEF handi-rifle in .243 - was set up with a specially fabricated off-set scope mount that allows her dad to sit behind her and aim over her shoulder while she is otherwise in complete control of the rifle. She took a nice little buck the first year out (bigger than her brother's) and I just heard several days ago she got a nice eight-point this season! Every deer she's taken has been a one-shot kill with that little two-four-three no less! She is very safety conscious and totally capible I'm convinced, of ANYTHING. I would personally feel safer hunting the same area as her than with most sighted hunters I know. Of course a lot depends on her Dad's guidance but the time they spend together in the woods is priceless - something they'd either miss out otherwise. I am proud to have helped make it possible.

This beautiful young lady is someone to be admired by handicapped and non-handicapped alike! Her will and determination is an inspiration, second only to her humility. I ASSURE YOU THIS IS NOT A STUNT THIS IS LOVE OF THE SPORT JUST AS YOU HAVE! To denie someone this oportunity simply because they're "different" is the real crime. Sure it will take special equipment and preparation. Sure it wont be the same as for a sighted hunter, but if we are narrow minded enough to refuse them the chance who'll be next?

Open you minds and your hearts you freaking fools!

quote:

Posted by Thomasjohn,

A person is considered LEGALLY blind when the best corrected visual acuity is 20/200, or the person's visual field is 20 degrees or less.

I'm about 20/100 without contacts or glasses and I can tell you I wouldn't hunt without wearing one or the other. I would be a hazard to anything in front of my muzzle. Everything is blurry and there are never any defined edges. With the way that everything blends together I would never be able to be sure of what I'm shooting.

quote:

Posted by perry,

Most deer look like a blind person shot them anyway so why not let the blind have a crack at it.

I'm sure a legally blind person can shoot as good or better than me. Without eyesight they can concentrate more on the mechanics of shooting. But being a good shot does not make one a good hunter. Ultimately the person pulling the trigger has to be accountable for the results. Is it the spotters fault if he can't stop the blind person from shooting in time to keep from injuring someone?

All I'm really trying to say is that if you are not able to legally have a drivers license because of eyesight then you probably shouldn't have a hunting license. Plus there are enough accidents every year hunting by people who can see, one person injured or killed by a stray bullet (arrow, buckshot) is too many. The only way I can see this type of hunting working is on High Fenced Game Ranches where the environment can be controlled to an extent.

taylorce1,

The flaw to your arguement is that a blind person - or anyone else for that matter - cannot readily have someone else adequately direct them while driving. They are moving and cannot keep up with the rapidly changing environment around them.*

They can under specific hunting situations. That would be hunting deer (or other game) from a stand location. It would require holding back unless everything is "right" but then that is something we all should observe. Would I want to hunt quail with her? I don't think so but then Dick Chaney can see. I can't imagine anyone with the pluck to WANT to do this having the audacity to exceed their limits but imposing unrealistic limits upon them is just plain unfair.

* I did recently read a news item from England though where police charged a blind man for driving w/o a license - aided by a sighted passenger!

Oupa.

Well done. Thanks for your story. You and your buddy are to be commended. She and her Dad are very fortunate to have each other and to have friends like you and your gunsmith buddy.

oupa,

There is a flaw in your argument about the little girl as well. All she actually controls is the trigger on the rifle her father decides which animal she shoots. If her father has to position and aim the rifle for her what is left for her to do but squeeze the trigger. I'm not saying that there are not exceptional people out there with disabilities and that your story isn't without merit. If you allow one type of hunting then how can you limit a blind person from wanting to wing shoot or duck hunt something more fast paced with a firearm?

I just want people who are hunting or trying to hunt to be able to identify the target they are shooting at and what is behind it. I wasn't trying to reference hunting to driving a vehicle I was just trying to say there should be a standard. Blind persons are human too and who says that a blind person can't get "Buck Fever" as easily as a sighted person.

I hunt a lot of public land and animals are moving around, the decision to shoot or not to shoot has to be done in seconds or less. I just don't think that you can verbally communicate this fast enough between two people in that kind of situation. Like I said this kind of hunt can only be accomplished in controlled areas such as stands or blinds over baited areas with High Fences to keep other hunters from accidentally walking into the area.

Plus there would have to be an issue of who is liable. If something were to go wrong and someone was injured who is at fault the person giving directions or the one squeezing the trigger. Do they both share the blame equally or is it all going to fall on the spotter/coach.

im not sure its illegal for a blind person to buy a license now ,they never ask me if i am sight impaired when i purchase my license. this is just a stunt to make laser sights legal for some,no need for this bill in the first place. these legaly blind guys already hunt with help now its just about the laser sight far as I can tell

Don't want this to get too far off topic but offered my story simply as fodder to consider before jumping to conclusions.

Now as for some points raised;
"All she actually controls is the trigger on the rifle her father decides which animal she shoots..." Quite the contrary, she is in complete control of the rifle. Her dad sits behind her - her between his legs - and all he does is point her in the general direction then direct here - up, down, left, right, etc. - while looking over her shoulder through the scope. Her father does of course select the animal and the oportunity so to answer another question, should an accident happen I'm sure he'd be responsible. To that end he is the judge of every shooting situation. He picks their shots very carefully, never taking snap shots as you suggest is necessary (its not, unless you care more about killing them hunting). Their outings are about spending time together doing something they both love, not killing deer. This particular young woman (I need to stop calling her a "girl" since she's not anymore) is quite remarkable in every way. She's never accepted her handicap as limiting her ability to do things. If one day technology does permit sightless people to drive I'd bet my dog she'll be the first in line.

I see no problem setting realistic criteria such as stand hunting only, etc... but to restrict them to "high fenced ranches" where MONEY is a difinate issue would be like raising your license fee to several thousand dollars. Would THAT be fair?

This certainly isn't for every blind person and a willing compasionate sighter is a tall order to fill, but to flat out refuse to offer the chance is a mistake. We need all the young blood we can get to perpetuate the sports. The more remarkable the better!

Speaking of "fair", to be so I must admit I did not read the bill. I simply jumped in and offered my experiences on the subject. I'd have to agree with the poster that said this probably isn't about sight though. As we discovered when initially inquiring before holding _______'s class, our state (MD) has no law against it.

Taylor, I mean no personal offense and your debating of the issue is fair - healthy debate being necessary to reasonable conclusions. Because of my personal experience in this unusual issue though I feel a very special bond to it. If I've been overly passionate I apologize but I'll never accept that people willing to take on such a seemingly insurmountable challenge should be denied the oportunity.

I am definitely all for this!

taylorce1, why do you think there has to be high fences to "keep other hunters from walking into the area". If I had the opportunity, I would be HONORED to help a legally blind person shoot a deer on our corporate lease, which is LOW FENCED. We have 24 feeders and plenty of places for a shot under 50 yards. Here in Texas, people generally know where property lines are and the chance of someone "accidentally" walking into the area is very slim (unless you're hunting in South Texas and that certain someone is a wetback).

I am really surprised that anyone on here would be against this. How would you feel if you were the blind person? Probably pretty shitty huh? Shame on ya'll!

I offer a sound, reasoned, logical comment, and get this from oupa in reply.

quote:

Open you minds and your hearts you freaking fools!

Obviously, emotions are affecting judgement in regard to this topic.

Don't get too high and mighty, there, boy. I am posting from the viewpoint of someone with a permanent disability. Lost part of the use of my right arm in an accident. Learned to shoot left-handed. AND I am a volunteer Hunter Education Instructor.

If something happens which disables me further, I WILL attempt to overcome it, but will NOT risk crippling or wounding a game animal, forcing it into a slow, painful, horrible death, because I refused to admit my limitations.

quote:

I see no problem setting realistic criteria such as stand hunting only, etc... but to restrict them to "high fenced ranches" where MONEY is a difinate issue would be like raising your license fee to several thousand dollars. Would THAT be fair?

Yes I do think it is fair to restrict this to High Fenced Ranches, Private Property or Leased hunting areas. The situation has to be more controlled than on public lands with other hunters wandering about. I don't think that the spotter is going to give enough attention to the surroundings. I think the spotter will be too focused on where the shooter is aiming and giving directions. There are just a lot more variables to hunting on public lands that you have to deal with as a hunter, you just have a lot less control of the situations. Unfortunately it generally cost quite a bit of money to do this, but you would think some of these ranches would give discounted or free hunts for the publicity that it could bring them.

I never said or implied that taking snap shots was necessary. I simply stated that the decision to shoot or not too happens in a matter of seconds at times. I've had hunters walk into my field of view while I was taking aim at animals, I'm sure that I've probably done the same as well.

I really don't see the sights as a big issue. If the person has a legitimate disability and it is documented with the licensing officials then what is the big deal. All the article really said that some kind of Standard had to be reached by Jan 2008

oupa, I do respect what you have done with the young lady and her father. This is defiantly an issue that needs to be addressed by all States and not just TX.

Well, considering 97% of Texas is privately owned and most of the other 3% isn't worth a damn for hunting anyway, that isn't really an issue. I've never hunted on public land in my entire life.

quote:

I am definitely all for this!

taylorce1, why do you think there has to be high fences to "keep other hunters from walking into the area". If I had the opportunity, I would be HONORED to help a legally blind person shoot a deer on our corporate lease, which is LOW FENCED. We have 24 feeders and plenty of places for a shot under 50 yards. Here in Texas, people generally know where property lines are and the chance of someone "accidentally" walking into the area is very slim (unless you're hunting in South Texas and that certain someone is a wetback).

I am really surprised that anyone on here would be against this. How would you feel if you were the blind person? Probably pretty shitty huh? Shame on ya'll!

First of all I'm saying that the situation has to have more control than normal. Second I'm saying that States need to address this and set a STANDARD for the vision impaired IE legally blind. Third I already stated that if I lost the ability to see my target and surrounding area I would give up my privilege of hunting. Fourth your State of TX has such limited public lands for hunting it probably isn't a big deal. Here in CO we have large amounts of public lands where anything could happen.

There is a legally blind bowhunter that has taken dozens of big game animals with a spotter.

What's the big deal, I'm all for letting ANYONE with a serious disability use any means possible to enjoy hunting.

I think we're pretty much all in agreement that some criteria should exist IF this is to be allowed. In respect to Wingnut, here's someone with a disability, recognizing his limitations and working within them. That's all I'm asking you to consider - providing the means to allow disabled hunters to work around their disabilities and enjoy the sport the same as the rest of us. Yes I do think it is selfish and narrow-minded to not do so.

Now let me get this right. You're saying the spotter might not notice changes in the immediate surrounds while in the company of a blind person right? That insinuates he'd be more alert hunting without a blind person? Exactly how does one come to that conclusion?

Look fellas, I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm far from Texas and I can see (at present at least). Offered my personal experience to maybe broaden the horizons of some who (like most) never even considered this might happen (blind hunters). Whatever Texas decides to do is their business. Like every argument some folks have made up their minds and can't be convinced otherwise. I'm one so I'll just leave it at that.

It seems unfair to forbid legally blind Texans from hunting when politically blind Texans are so clearly allowed to vote.





Best,

eightbore

quote:

Originally posted by eightbore:
It seems unfair to forbid legally blind Texans from hunting when politically blind Texans are so clearly allowed to vote.





Best,

eightbore

Deaf, blind, wheelchair bound or other, if they are hunters I'm pretty sure that they are just as committed to a clean, one-shot kill as any others. The use of a laser "pointing device" in this situation would certainly allow a hunter the CHANCE at that clean shot at an animal.

There is no argument about wounded deer - plenty are shot each year by hunters with every excuse in the book about why they didn't sight in their guns, how the bullet must have hit a branch, how the deer looked much closer, hunters afraid of recoil, etc.

Let's not forget that this is Texas we're talking about, where more than a few deer and other game animals are shot while eating off of a legally placed bait pile. The use of bait would be especially useful in getting the animal to stop for the clean shot we all desire.