Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Update on CO Bowhunter fatality

Yep, Colorado has a thing about "camo" blaze orange. Don't quite get that one but rules are rules. I have a cabela's pack vest in the same pattern I hunt everywhere in because it is a great piece of gear. I have to throw / sew a cheap silk blaze orange over it when in CO.

I use a thin fleece blaze camo vest and hat when out for rifle or muzzle. To many idiots everywhere it seems these days.

if the other hunter who bugled was he right next to the muzzle loader hunter, and did the guy bugling tell him to shoot ? did the caller feel it was a bull too ? did the bowhunter bugle back ? what side of the muzzle loader hunter was the caller standing ? was the caller a friend or a guide working for cash with no guide license ? was the bowhunter rattling a tree while he was bugling ? lot of of unanswered questions and probably more. but yes the muzzleloader shooter is guilty but his partner might be guilty too of some think ? someone needs to post the court case just thinking its a open and shut case is not always the compete answer.

pete, no one can post the court case because there hasn't been one yet. But I did post this a few pages back, it will answer some of your questions:

https://www.durangoherald.com/artic...r-trial-in-fatal-shooting-of-bow-hunter/

Nothing in there about the hunting partner acting as a guide or telling the guy with the rifle to shoot. And nothing about the hunting partner being charged with anything, including guiding without a license. If he'd been doing that, it no doubt would have been reported on.

But you didn't answer my question so I'll re-state it a little differently: What could the hunting partner possibly be guilty of?

And why would it matter if the bowhunter was bugling and raking trees? Why would it matter where the hunting partner was, or what he said? Is it his responsibility to be sure of the target someone else takes a shot at?

As far as being an open and shut case, the shooter told a deputy exactly what happened and how it happened. It involved him shooting his rifle at what he thought was an elk, and killing the bowhunter Greg Gabrisch. His hunting partner confirmed what happened. Everyone deserves their day in court but there's not much doubt about what happened. At least the relevant facts, that is.

well then glad for the information ,thank you , rather its right or wrong good attorneys can change verdicts it just takes money. O.J. Simpson got off on the murder charges ???? the part of bowhunter wearing
legal camo instead of orange and the muzzle loader season over lapping seasons and muzzle loader are required to wear orange . its a terrible mistake and a man was shot and died but it is not a open and shut case ,Colorado will need to make some kind of change in this rule / law for safety . one of the 1st question of 1st day is going to be by defensive attorney : did you know bowhunters could legally wear camo during the beginning of the muzzle loader season when you are required to wear orange on legally ? next question did you have orange on ?

Why would Colorado change a law from one incident.

People need to be smarter for sure. Plenty stupid ignorant folks out there. And most of them rely on rules to keep the world going. Rather than common sense.

And yes, the case is a done deal. When you tell the C. O. what you did and how you did it, its pretty clear.

I can't fathom anyone wanting to even think about blaming another person involved. Lord knows as a guide I can't see everything my hunter can and vice versa. its the hunters responsibility in the end regardless. Yes I've had hunters shoot without me saying ok. We knew what it was etc... that it was legal, ,range and such and it was not a human but still he never said he was going to shoot and I"d have appreciated that.

But again the person that pulls the trigger, orange or not, told to shoot or not, is the person responsible

Any other way, one could actually put the blame on the gun then instead too......

i was a juror once and sometimes what is right and just and should happen doesn`t . the verdict we will have to wait and see ?

pete, if you read the article I linked you'll see that there's a link for a related story on the Colorado Wildlife Commission's recent meeting where they already considered a change to the regs for bowhunters wearing orange during the overlapping season, and they voted 11-0 against it, because:

"bowhunters were overwhelmingly against the recommended new regulation that would have required them to wear fluorescent orange or pink in the overlapping season on public lands west of Interstate Highway 25. The wildlife commission did not want the change, either, and voted 11-0 to table the issue.

“Our constituents don’t want it, why change it,” said wildlife commission member Marie Haskett. “Every letter and email said, ‘do not do it.’”

As far as the questions you quoted above, they're irrelevant. They don't negate the fact that it's the shooter's responsibility to identify his target before he pulls the trigger. Plenty of guys don't wear orange during the rifle seasons. If you shoot one, "they weren't wearing orange" is not a defense.

And once again I'll ask, what could the hunting partner possibly be guilty of?

Wait till this happens. Colorado bear season is open also the same time as ML & archery season.
You got to wear orange or pink but you can use a rifle.

Yeah, and it's illegal to kill a bear with cubs, just like it was illegal for the muzzleloader in this case to kill a bull that didn't meet the antler point restrictions or a cow.

Kind of hard to make sure of either if you're shooting at movement in the brush or don't get a good look at your target.

let`s just wait and see just because your from Colorado doesn`t mean you know the verdict or rather its fare or not ?

That's right pete, being from Colorado has nothing to do with knowing the verdict. There is no verdict to know. And the guy can still plead guilty so there may not be a verdict.

But let me ask you this:

At my age, 60’s, I’ve been hunting and guiding since a teen and I have never even considered a shot at something I could not see. I have had countless chances at client wounded animals as well and if I cannot put the hairs/sight on the spot I want to hit I don’t shoot.
This “sound shot” nonsense I used to hear about from guys around here in northern MN and it always made me cringe.
I am incredulous at how often I read about hunters doing this.

Osky

Update on this, the trial was postponed until August because the defendant's expert witnesses had schedule conflicts:

https://www.the-journal.com/articles/dove-creek-trial-for-man-accused-in-hunters-death-is-delayed/

One of the experts is in the field of "psychology and trauma response" whatever that means. I still can't believe the guy is pleading not guilty. He told a deputy exactly what happened, and his hunting partner was right there and saw the whole thing.

Oh, almost forgot, he has a public defender. So most likely the expert witnesses as well as his lawyer are being paid for by local taxpayers.

The outcome will be, no longer will they have the seasons with multiple weapons choice. It's the state's fault.

I sure hope you're being facetious.

a real good attorney will get him off ,it just cost plenty money. don`t forget O.J. walked. there is an attorney in Minnesota that would get him off but it would be very expensive because he is one of the best in the country , he deals with Feds alot .

All it takes is one juror....

He's not gonna get off. He told the deputy exactly what happened and his friend was right there and saw the whole thing. There's no doubt about what happened.

And given all that, he didn't make any friends with the DA or local community by trying to weasel out of what he did.

Yeppers!