I

Distinguished
May 23, 2004
533
2
18,995
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

I thought this article may be of interest its from today's Mail.
Regards
I

A badger spotter was left fighting for his life after a hunter mistook his
night vision goggles for a fox's eyes and shot him in the chest, a court
heard today.
Conservationist Trevor Lawson spent two days in intensive care and had to
have a lung removed after being shot while out watching wildlife on farmland
in April last year.

Anthony Burns, 52, fired a high-powered hunting rifle after a friend's red
filter lamp picked up what appeared to be a "massive set of eyes".

Burns, of Blacksmith Lane, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, and two friends were
out "lamping" for foxes - a form of night-time hunting - and had already
shot one fox when the near-fatal accident happened, Aylesbury Crown Court
heard today.

Mr Lawson had been out walking his dog in fields near the village of Hyde
Heath, Buckinghamshire, when he heard shots and thought that there may be
poachers in the area.

He returned to the scene shortly afterwards without his dog but equipped
with a pair of night vision binoculars which he normally used for watching
badgers.

Night binoculars and camouflage

But seeing a red glow sweeping across the field, he realised that the shots
had come from legitimate night hunters and decided to stay out looking for
wildlife.

He had brought a cloth cap covered in camouflage material, which he wore
when watching badgers, in his pocket just in case.

Nearby was Burns and two friends - one friend at the controls of a jeep
while the other operated a red filter light ideal for spotting foxes as the
creatures' eyes do not pick up the colour.

When Mr Lawson saw the red light sweeping across the field he raised his
binoculars for a closer look and was spotted by the hunters.

'Massive set of eyes'

The court heard that, while Burns had seen a fox about 50 yards away shortly
beforehand, when he spotted the eyes he did not see the profile of an
animal.

And in fact the target turned out to be human. Prosecutor Neil Moore told
the jury that Burns had fired a special hunting bullet designed to expand
and disintegrate inside the animal's body in order to kill it more quickly.

As he fell to the ground, Mr Lawson reached for his mobile phone and pressed
the redial button to speak to his wife as he was gasping with pain.

Mr Moore said: "She heard him say 'I'm going to die, I've been shot, I'm
going to die, I love you'."

The hunters also heard Mr Lawson's cries and immediately rushed to the
scene, realising what had happened.

Mr Moore told the jury that Burns spoke to an emergency services operator on
the telephone and explained what had happened.

He said: "We were out lamping for foxes and we saw what looked like a
massive set of eyes at the end of the road and the guys got out their
binoculars and that's what we picked up and so I pulled the trigger."

But Mr Moore said Burns had gone on to accept that something had been amiss,
telling the operator: "F***** stupid thing to do."

With his wife by his side, an ambulance arrived to help Mr Lawson and took
him to Stoke Mandeville Hospital near Aylesbury and later to the John
Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, where he had emergency surgery to save his
life, which left him with only one lung.

Burns was later arrested and charged with causing grievous bodily harm. He
denies the charge. Mr Moore told the jury that guidelines for night shooting
specifically stated that hunters should make sure that they could see the
profile of an animal before they shot at it.

He said that, although the Crown did not claim that Burns had deliberately
intended to harm Mr Lawson, he had acted "recklessly".

He said: "All he saw was what appeared to be the eyes of an animal. He did
not take the basic and fundamental precaution of looking for the animal's
profile, he simply assumed that it was the fox that he had seen some time
earlier."

The trial has now been stopped for legal reasons
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

Did the 'conservationist' have permission to be on the land?? does anyone know?
Or was he an anti spying on the shooters??
 

Ricky

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2003
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"FLINTWOODUK" <flintwooduk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040817040749.26512.00003578@mb-m03.aol.com...
> Did the 'conservationist' have permission to be on the land?? does anyone
know?
> Or was he an anti spying on the shooters??

Just what i was thinking. My guess is he was trespassing and shouldn't have
been there. True, the shooter should not have shot at just a pair of eyes
but that idiot creeping around the woods while knowing shooting was going on
and not telling the shooters he was there was just damn stupid.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

Here here that man.
Although totally irresponsible of the rifleman - damn right bloody wrong
actually, but the guy simply shouldnt have been there when he knew people were
shooting - now thats just daft.

All said and done though I think its the rifleman in the wrong - but how many
of us have shot at just a pair of eyes? I know most people will have, wether it
be foxes, bunnies or whatever.

Matt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

The message <j_mUc.90$A_6.4@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
from "Ricky" <pffft@(remove)ntlworld.com> contains these words:

> Just what i was thinking. My guess is he was trespassing and shouldn't have
> been there. True, the shooter should not have shot at just a pair of eyes
> but that idiot creeping around the woods while knowing shooting was going on
> and not telling the shooters he was there was just damn stupid.

Perhaps, but Anthony Burns committed the cardinal lamping sin - that of
firing at an unidentified target. He clearly knew it wasn't a fox from
his description of the eyes. So what on earth did he think he was firing
at when he pulled the trigger? Sorry, but he sounds like a bit of a
yo-yo to me.

--
Kim Sawyer
Sutherland
Scotland
 

john

Splendid
Aug 25, 2003
3,819
0
22,780
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

Kim Sawyer <ksawyer@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in
news:2004081714152879091@zetnet.co.uk:

>
> Perhaps, but Anthony Burns committed the cardinal lamping sin - that
> of firing at an unidentified target. He clearly knew it wasn't a fox
> from his description of the eyes. So what on earth did he think he
> was firing at when he pulled the trigger? Sorry, but he sounds like
> a bit of a yo-yo to me.

100% agree with you Kim. The guy was a fool. I know everyone can make a
mistake but shooting at a chap with NV bino’s is just a bit more than a
mistake and not an easy mistake to make at that.

John
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

Agreed. But how come he hit the guy in the chest? Seems strange that he would
shoot so low considering he said he could see a huge pair of eyes - surely at
night this would make them seem closer and you'd expect allot of people to go
for a head shot??

I guess at the end of the day the guy needs to face the consequences of his
actions, which were irresponsible and dangerous.

Matt
 

john

Splendid
Aug 25, 2003
3,819
0
22,780
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Michael Roberts" <mail@dogcountrysports.co.uk> wrote in news:41222b3e$0
$29086$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net:

My guess is that the reflection must have been two bright red dot’s.
It amazes me that the “injured party” stood still, especially knowing what
was going on.

John
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

The message <20040817113719.22404.00001310@mb-m11.aol.com>
from flintwooduk@aol.com (FLINTWOODUK) contains these words:

> Agreed. But how come he hit the guy in the chest? Seems strange that
> he would
> shoot so low considering he said he could see a huge pair of eyes -
> surely at
> night this would make them seem closer and you'd expect allot of
> people to go
> for a head shot??

Perhaps he was just a rotten shot, Matt. For myself, I think he probably
had an inkling of doubt and pulled off slightly just as he pulled the
trigger.

Nobody lamping foxes should ever ever target the eyes. I skinned
hundreds of foxes back in the 70's when Rob Cobbledick was paying
premium prices for top quality northern skins. Having skinned my first
fox, the thing that became immediately apparent was how near the eyes
are to the top of the skull. Since then I have only taken chest and rib
shots, after first identifying exactly what I'm seeing. I live in collie
country and a collie out for a prowl at night can look surprisingly like
a fox in the lamp.

> I guess at the end of the day the guy needs to face the consequences of his
> actions, which were irresponsible and dangerous.

There is generally a good reason why accidents happen; mostly it's
because someone stops playing by the rules.


--
Kim Sawyer
Sutherland
Scotland
 

Ricky

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2003
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"I" <stillbrewingmapson@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:itiUc.180577$a8.69150@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I thought this article may be of interest its from today's Mail.
> Regards
> I
>
> A badger spotter was left fighting for his life after a hunter mistook his
> night vision goggles for a fox's eyes and shot him in the chest, a court
> heard today.
> Conservationist Trevor Lawson spent two days in intensive care and had to
> have a lung removed after being shot while out watching wildlife on
farmland
> in April last year.
>
> Anthony Burns, 52, fired a high-powered hunting rifle after a friend's red
> filter lamp picked up what appeared to be a "massive set of eyes".
>
> Burns, of Blacksmith Lane, Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, and two friends
were
> out "lamping" for foxes - a form of night-time hunting - and had already
> shot one fox when the near-fatal accident happened, Aylesbury Crown Court
> heard today.
>
> Mr Lawson had been out walking his dog in fields near the village of Hyde
> Heath, Buckinghamshire, when he heard shots and thought that there may be
> poachers in the area.
>
> He returned to the scene shortly afterwards without his dog but equipped
> with a pair of night vision binoculars which he normally used for watching
> badgers.
>
> Night binoculars and camouflage
>
> But seeing a red glow sweeping across the field, he realised that the
shots
> had come from legitimate night hunters and decided to stay out looking for
> wildlife.
>
> He had brought a cloth cap covered in camouflage material, which he wore
> when watching badgers, in his pocket just in case.
>
> Nearby was Burns and two friends - one friend at the controls of a jeep
> while the other operated a red filter light ideal for spotting foxes as
the
> creatures' eyes do not pick up the colour.
>
> When Mr Lawson saw the red light sweeping across the field he raised his
> binoculars for a closer look and was spotted by the hunters.
>
> 'Massive set of eyes'
>
> The court heard that, while Burns had seen a fox about 50 yards away
shortly
> beforehand, when he spotted the eyes he did not see the profile of an
> animal.
>
> And in fact the target turned out to be human. Prosecutor Neil Moore told
> the jury that Burns had fired a special hunting bullet designed to expand
> and disintegrate inside the animal's body in order to kill it more
quickly.
>
> As he fell to the ground, Mr Lawson reached for his mobile phone and
pressed
> the redial button to speak to his wife as he was gasping with pain.
>
> Mr Moore said: "She heard him say 'I'm going to die, I've been shot, I'm
> going to die, I love you'."
>
> The hunters also heard Mr Lawson's cries and immediately rushed to the
> scene, realising what had happened.
>
> Mr Moore told the jury that Burns spoke to an emergency services operator
on
> the telephone and explained what had happened.
>
> He said: "We were out lamping for foxes and we saw what looked like a
> massive set of eyes at the end of the road and the guys got out their
> binoculars and that's what we picked up and so I pulled the trigger."
>
> But Mr Moore said Burns had gone on to accept that something had been
amiss,
> telling the operator: "F***** stupid thing to do."
>
> With his wife by his side, an ambulance arrived to help Mr Lawson and took
> him to Stoke Mandeville Hospital near Aylesbury and later to the John
> Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, where he had emergency surgery to save his
> life, which left him with only one lung.
>
> Burns was later arrested and charged with causing grievous bodily harm. He
> denies the charge. Mr Moore told the jury that guidelines for night
shooting
> specifically stated that hunters should make sure that they could see the
> profile of an animal before they shot at it.
>
> He said that, although the Crown did not claim that Burns had deliberately
> intended to harm Mr Lawson, he had acted "recklessly".
>
> He said: "All he saw was what appeared to be the eyes of an animal. He did
> not take the basic and fundamental precaution of looking for the animal's
> profile, he simply assumed that it was the fox that he had seen some time
> earlier."
>
> The trial has now been stopped for legal reasons

Anyone know what calibre the "high powered hunting rifle" was?
 

john

Splendid
Aug 25, 2003
3,819
0
22,780
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Ricky" <pffft@(remove)ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:07HUc.250$k57.234@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net:

> Anyone know what calibre the "high powered hunting rifle" was?


It seems that in our politically correct times any object that can be
described as a “gun” will either transpire to be a lethal “gun” or a
high powered rifle.
Multiple guns are always describe of as an arsenal, single “guns”
combined with a few knifes are often described in the same manner.
Pellets, bb’s, shotgun ammo or rifle ammo (either centre fire or rim
fire) are always described as lethal bullets and more often than not an
person unlucky enough to be caught in the lamp light of the national
press will be described as a “gun nut” if they are found to be in
possession of any of the above.

So take your guess, .177 bb gun or a .375 ?

(by the description of the bullet and the use of the rifle, it’s going
to be either .222, .223 or .22-250)

John
 

Ricky

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2003
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"John" <zero_one34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns954987D1ABD23OEcopyremovedheaders@130.133.1.4...
> "Ricky" <pffft@(remove)ntlworld.com> wrote in
> news:07HUc.250$k57.234@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net:
>
> > Anyone know what calibre the "high powered hunting rifle" was?
>
>
> It seems that in our politically correct times any object that can be
> described as a "gun" will either transpire to be a lethal "gun" or a
> high powered rifle.
> Multiple guns are always describe of as an arsenal, single "guns"
> combined with a few knifes are often described in the same manner.
> Pellets, bb's, shotgun ammo or rifle ammo (either centre fire or rim
> fire) are always described as lethal bullets and more often than not an
> person unlucky enough to be caught in the lamp light of the national
> press will be described as a "gun nut" if they are found to be in
> possession of any of the above.
>
> So take your guess, .177 bb gun or a .375 ?
>
> (by the description of the bullet and the use of the rifle, it's going
> to be either .222, .223 or .22-250)
>
> John

Ouch! Being whacked in the chest by a .22-250 firing a 55 grain bullet
zipping along at 3650 fps would make your eyes water.
 

john

Splendid
Aug 25, 2003
3,819
0
22,780
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

"Ricky" <pffft@(remove)ntlworld.com> wrote in news:p3MUc.227$cb5.193
@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net:

>
> "John" <zero_one34@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns954987D1ABD23OEcopyremovedheaders@130.133.1.4...
>> "Ricky" <pffft@(remove)ntlworld.com> wrote in
>> news:07HUc.250$k57.234@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net:
>>
>> > Anyone know what calibre the "high powered hunting rifle" was?
>>
>>
>> It seems that in our politically correct times any object that can be
>> described as a "gun" will either transpire to be a lethal "gun" or a
>> high powered rifle.
>> Multiple guns are always describe of as an arsenal, single "guns"
>> combined with a few knifes are often described in the same manner.
>> Pellets, bb's, shotgun ammo or rifle ammo (either centre fire or rim
>> fire) are always described as lethal bullets and more often than not
an
>> person unlucky enough to be caught in the lamp light of the national
>> press will be described as a "gun nut" if they are found to be in
>> possession of any of the above.
>>
>> So take your guess, .177 bb gun or a .375 ?
>>
>> (by the description of the bullet and the use of the rifle, it's
going
>> to be either .222, .223 or .22-250)
>>
>> John
>
> Ouch! Being whacked in the chest by a .22-250 firing a 55 grain bullet
> zipping along at 3650 fps would make your eyes water.

I’ve not seen many foxes complaining :)

John
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

This is what gets me - how come this 'wildlife watcher' didnt die? I've seen
what .22-250, .223 & .243 bullets do to foxes - and I knwo for a fact that if
you hit em right you can pretty much knock thier head off their shoulders or
put a very large hole clean through thier chests so would this possibly suggest
that the guys out lamping were using somehting like a .17 rimfire or a small
centerfire? or perhaps the chest bone of a human is extremley strong, I dont
know, but having read the article it seems to me like we've not been told the
full story - what was a guy doing walking his dog in a field at night? Must
have been awfully dark if he needed NV binos to see what was going on. Was he
into shooting himself considering he telled of concern about poachers?
Why did he stay out to watch wildlife considering he knew somebody was lamping
and that there would be rifle shots which would scare wildlife away?
Would be interesting to find out the true facts of the incident.

Well guys i'm off for the next couple of days in Patis with the better half -
leaving a friend to do some lamping for me on the new shoot - hope he dosent
shoot any bird watchers!!

Matt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

Why take a dog to watch badgers?
Sounds more like he needed shooting :)

FLINTWOODUK wrote:
> This is what gets me - how come this 'wildlife watcher' didnt die? I've
seen
> what .22-250, .223 & .243 bullets do to foxes - and I knwo for a fact that
if
> you hit em right you can pretty much knock thier head off their shoulders
or
> put a very large hole clean through thier chests so would this possibly
suggest
> that the guys out lamping were using somehting like a .17 rimfire or a
small
> centerfire? or perhaps the chest bone of a human is extremley strong, I
dont
> know, but having read the article it seems to me like we've not been told
the
> full story - what was a guy doing walking his dog in a field at night?
Must
> have been awfully dark if he needed NV binos to see what was going on. Was
he
> into shooting himself considering he telled of concern about poachers?
> Why did he stay out to watch wildlife considering he knew somebody was
lamping
> and that there would be rifle shots which would scare wildlife away?
> Would be interesting to find out the true facts of the incident.
>
> Well guys i'm off for the next couple of days in Patis with the better
half -
> leaving a friend to do some lamping for me on the new shoot - hope he
dosent
> shoot any bird watchers!!
>
> Matt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

>Subject: Re: The Danger of lamping
>From: Kim Sawyer ksawyer@zetnet.co.uk
>Date: 17/08/2004 20:16 GMT

>There is generally a good reason why accidents happen; mostly it's
>because someone stops playing by the rules.

Hear, hear - well said.

Steve. Suffolk.
remove 'knujon' to e-mail
 

Pete

Distinguished
Oct 21, 2001
975
0
18,980
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 20:16:15 +0100, Kim Sawyer <ksawyer@zetnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>snippety snip<

>Nobody lamping foxes should ever ever target the eyes.

I've eye and ear shot foxes under the right conditions and would do so
again but am not suggesting that eveveryone tries this.

Circumstances:
zero cross wind
range sub 100 metres
downhill angle
clearly visible fox in wispy long grass or beet where a body shot is
compromised by standing vegetation
solid backstop within 200 yards


Result: instant death by removal of brain.

>a collie out for a prowl at night can look surprisingly like
>a fox in the lamp.

I say again, a clearly identifiable fox - diamond bright eyes, rusty
brown coat, black muzzle, white shirt front, black ear backs.

This shooter was an idiot who disgraces us all.


From Pete

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Being eaten by a crocodile is just like falling asleep in a blender"
Bart Simpson
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

In message <20040818191417.03961.00002522@mb-m19.aol.com>, FLINTWOODUK
<flintwooduk@aol.com> writes
>This is what gets me - how come this 'wildlife watcher' didnt die?

1. the wound was not immediately fatal
2. he received appropriate medical care in adequate time

--Jonathan

"Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel."
Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: uk.rec.shooting.game (More info?)

>>This is what gets me - how come this 'wildlife watcher' didnt die?

He was "LUCKY"?