# This is why I don't agree with centerfire @ night



## crittergetter (Feb 14, 2005)

Granted, this is only one incident, but it's one too many..... what if it was you or a member of your family...Is being able to use centerfire at night worth a mans life??? 



Van Wert man in jail for shooting hunter he thought was coyote 

Dave Golowenski 
FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH 

Troy R. Clark of Van Wert is 37 years old. He is a hunter. He is in jail because he killed a man while thinking the man was something else. 

"The whole thing was wholly unfortunate," said Paul Kurfis, the Ohio Division of Wildlife?s enforcement supervisor in northwest Ohio. "In Van Wert County, what are the chances that two guys would be hunting coyotes in the same field on the same night? " 

The dead man, shot in the back at around 9:30 p.m. on Jan. 15, 2006, is Trevor J. Ellerbrock, 27. His still-heartbroken family includes a widow, Victoria, and a fatherless toddler. 

"Because of your actions," Victoria Ellerbrock told Clark during sentencing in Van Wert County Common Pleas Court on April 25, "I am left with a 3-year-old boy that cries every night ? and wants me to take him to heaven to see his daddy." 

Kurfis helped in the early part of the shooting investigation. He gathered evidence. He took pictures of the .35-caliber bullet wound from which Ellerbrock was declared dead at Van Wert County Hospital a few hours after the shooting. 

The experience, Kurfis said, was "sobering." 

From what investigators could surmise, the shooting was made more likely when the two hunters entered the field from different directions. As a consequence, neither saw a parked vehicle on the roadside. Neither had much reason to believe another human stood but 100 yards distant in the winter blackness. 

Ellerbrock caught Clark?s attention by using an electronic rabbit distress call as he attempted to bring a coyote within firing range. Clark, who was accompanied by a young nephew, shot in the direction of the sound. What Clark heard, if anything, after he fired isn?t clear, but he followed his shot and found Ellerbrock, picked up the dying man?s cell phone and called 911. 

"I didn?t intentionally mean to cause him bodily harm," Clark told the judge and the Ellerbrock family during sentencing. "I?m deeply sorry." 

Ellerbrock?s mother, Marlene Ducheney, told Clark in court that his shot in the dark "ruined ? my family and my life." 

Though he watched most of the legal wrangling from a distance, Kurfis said it appears that both the Ellerbrock and Clark families won?t ever be made quite whole. 

"They say you can always draw something good when the worst happens, but at this point," he said, "it?s hard to see any good come out of this." 

In common pleas court, Clark pleaded guilty to negligent homicide, and Judge Charles D. Steele proffered the maximum sentence: six months in lockup and a $1,000 fine. 

Clark also made an appearance on wildlife-related charges in Van Wert Municipal Court, where he was found guilty of hunting without a license. There, it also was revealed he never attended a mandatory hunter education course, where he might have learned that among hunting?s cardinal safety rules are two: identify your target and never shoot at sound or movement. 

For any wildlife violations, Judge Phillip W. Campbell fined Clark $250 and sentenced him to 30 days in jail. The jail time was suspended. In addition, the judge put Clark on probation for three years, ruled that he may not own or possess a firearm for three years and revoked his hunting privileges for three years. 

Thus, in three years, when Ellerbrock would have been 31, Clark could be out hunting again. 

"We don?t have a law that says hunting rights can be revoked for life," Kurfis said. 

Judges, though, have been known to impose a lifetime ban on repeat offenders or serious violators of the wildlife laws. Apparently, an egregious breech of the hunting ethic that results in a human death doesn?t necessarily disqualify a man from hunting again. 

Whether it should or not is for legal minds and politicians to decide, but the idea of stepping into woods or onto fields with an armed someone who ignores both written statutes and unwritten rules will never sit well with many hunters, including Kurfis. 

"I don?t want to be hunting in the same county" Clark is in, he said. 

Clark, by the way, wants his gun back. Typically, a firearm used illegally for hunting or in the commission of a crime is forfeited. However, Clark is asking that the pump-action rifle with which he fatally shot Ellerbrock be returned to him as a family heirloom. 

"Clark said it came from his grandfather," Kurfis said. "The gun is like those used in Pennsylvania for deer hunting back in the 1950s. I wouldn?t call it a collectible, but I?m sure it?s got a history behind it." 

If it didn?t when Clark got hold of it, it does now. 


This story copied from Predator Masters.


----------



## HunterHawk (Dec 8, 2005)

wow what a sad story... drives me crazy when people dont know what they were shooting at and still shoot.... sounds like with this hunter it wasnt going to matter if it was centerfire or not though... but i see the point you are trying to get across they definently have more range to them.... to bad :nono:


----------



## wyldkat49766 (Apr 21, 2007)

I agree he should NOT have hunting privileges back. 
Years ago my husband saw a buck walking thru the woods. By the time he got me looking at it, all I could see was the body. He said shoot it. I said I can't because I do not know if its a buck or not. He said he knew it was. And I said sure but "I" don't know and Ive been taught and will always not shoot at anything until "I" know what it is and have seen it with my own eyes.
My husband said he was a nice 6pt at least buck, but as far as I was concerned, it was just a doe. My father had a little chat with him that night about doing stuff like that.


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

"shot at a sound"!!! If that is correct he should do time and it certainly is NOT the fault of the CENTERfire..


----------



## Huntsman27 (Sep 29, 2004)

Not what one would typically hunt at night with. Sounds like a 141 or old 760. Sounds like the guy hasnt a clue about hunting.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

I'm truly sorry Trevor lost his life in a hunting accident. We all take chances wether its crossing the street or driving a car. Since the person who took his life broke laws and used no common sense he can't be called a hunter.

To use this example to justify no night hunting has no merit. Perhaps we shouldn't use centerfires during the day either because irresponsible people have shot at sounds and hunters have been killed. THE TOOL IS NOT AT FAULT THE MAN USING IT IS!

Griffondog


----------



## peaker power (Oct 30, 2004)

shooting at sound+no licecense+no hunter safty=POACHER


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

I agree, no license, no hunter safety certificate, no sense.
They were but 100 yards apart. What does the fact that this jackass was using a centerfire have to do with it? A .22 mag would have most likely produced the same terrible result.


----------



## Ferris_StateHunter (Apr 24, 2006)

I dont believe people should not be able to use something if one can use it safely... We should not jump to a conclusion the use is bad because of one bad apple, 

Shoot if we did that hunting would have been banned years ago. Take for example the cardinals player who was killed because he got behind the wheel drunk, an the outroar to ban liquor in the clubhouse... I do not think one instance should put a damper on those who use these weapons responsibly


----------



## USMCSniper (Dec 21, 2006)

This is nothing but a anti hunters dream article. check out the way it is written. I feel for the victims family, but saying its because of centerfire is like a Drunk blaming the car for his DUI. This whole article is written by someone who opposes hunting IMO.


----------



## crittergetter (Feb 14, 2005)

Yes, life is a risk, and stepping into the woods during a hunting season is an increased risk. There is no guarntee that a law is going to protect us against stupid people. Over the years though, it's been proven, that we are becoming safer BECAUSE of certain laws. Hunter Orange requirement, and Hunter Safety requirement. I would even go as far as to say, I don't think one member of this forum would have taken that shot. 
I agree with the comments made that it's the "USER" not the tool that creates the problem. 
I just don't understand the need for so much firepower at night. Isn't it supposed to be about the hunt? The challenge? Is it truely about quick, clean, humane kills? or is it our hope that this will increase our range, therefore increasing our chances of a harvest each time we go out?
Esox, you are correct, a .22mag could just as well have killed, if shot placement was correct. Without an autopsy report, we'll never know if it would have made a difference or not, But what's your best guess on which rifle is going to due more damage EVERY time, no matter where hit?

The truth of the matter is Poachers are going to poach, and stupid people are going to do stupid things. 

I don't think either side of this argument can really be won? Morally no hunting accidents should ever happen if we all follow the laws of common sense, But they do happen. I also believe that this issue is all about personal view. My views is.....I just wouldn't feel as safe walking my dog near the woods at dusk (or dark sometimes by the time we get back) when a night time hunting season with big bore rifles is open.

I guess all I'm really saying is, why make it easier for more accidents to happen? Ones that shouldn't in the first place. Call them in closer!

Just my view.

CG


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

IMO, I found more things to disagree with than the use of a centerfire at night.


----------



## crittergetter (Feb 14, 2005)

Such As? You can't just leave it at that!


----------



## chinamigarden (Oct 21, 2005)

peaker power said:


> shooting at sound+no licecense+no hunter safty=POACHER


took the words out of my mouth.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

crittergetter said:


> Such As? You can't just leave it at that!


You asked:

#1 what person in their right mind shoots at sound? I rate this as a number one sin, as clearly indentifying your target should be absolute.

Hunter's Safety, the no license and on top of that he had a young nephew with him to show all the things you shouldn't do.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

shooting at sound means there's no target identification. doesn't matter if you're shooting at a bush in broad daylight or by the cover of darkness.

THAT is why this poor guy is dead, not because it was a centerfire rifle.. 

the idea that a rimfire would have increased his odds of survival only serves to justify further that, for ethical hunters who care about killing and not wounding their prey, more powerful weapons are required.

this guy was the unfortunate victim of a preventable accident. i wouldn't like my odds if ANY gun were pointed at me, regardless of caliber.


----------



## Ferris_StateHunter (Apr 24, 2006)

rzdrmh said:


> i wouldn't like my odds if ANY gun were pointed at me, regardless of caliber.


I could not agree more...


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Here we are blaming the gun for the crime!  
You can't legislate stupidity.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

QuakrTrakr said:


> Here we are blaming the gun for the crime!
> You can't legislate stupidity.


Correct, like pencils are responsible for the mispelled words.


----------



## crittergetter (Feb 14, 2005)

Why was the hunter orange and hunter safety law passed then??


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

Critter- Thanks for seeing the light.  The higher power isn't for longer ranges, it's for quickly dispatching the game. But, of course, you know that. You do have a valid point, but law abiding, reasonably smart, law abiding citizens should be lumped into that group of lawbreakers.


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

crittergetter said:


> .
> 
> I am in no way trying to take away from hunters rights! We don't have the option to use centerfire now, so what am I taking away?
> 
> ...


It wasn't that many years ago that we finally got the shall issue laws enacted so those of us that would like to be able to defend ourselves and our families at all times could. The same arguement was used by the anti gun people to say we don't need what we don't have already....


----------



## crittergetter (Feb 14, 2005)

What the hell does protecting one's home and family have to do with taking a firearm to an open to the public area where others maybe present? Especially when your field of view is hindered?

We weren't able to defend ourselves????....Mag, you and I both know that, that is a Bulls*** law....I know you, as well as myself, didn't need a law that tells me I can blow someone away that comes into my house uninvited with bad intent toward me or my family. They are leaving in a body bag,( I did know enough to never let them make it out of the house alive.) law or no law. I'll deal with the court later. Thankfully, the people of the State got tired of the damn criminals having more rights than the victims and stopped the victims from having to deal with the Bulls*** of being sued by a perp, that made it alive out of the house. ( get it?? BS law, saves us the BS of having to go to court.)

one more thing, Laws are passed when it becomes evident that they may save lives,....Hunter orange, hunter safety....It's not like you're not allowed to hunt at night, just have to be a little more patient to let them get in closer.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

:yikes:  Whoa!
The main reason this is an issue, is sportsmen are trying to get this introduced as a bill. I think not everybody here are reading ALL the posts.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

> What the hell does protecting one's home and family have to do with taking a firearm to an open to the public area where others maybe present?


WOW. Think about that one for a while before you post again.


----------



## crittergetter (Feb 14, 2005)

Esox, Either I edited my post before you replied or you deleted my last line? I'm talking night hunting here. If you read my post about Virginia Tech, I'm all about legal people being able to carry anywhere except School Grounds, even then I'm for the teachers being able. Colleges ok


----------



## crittergetter (Feb 14, 2005)

Look people, here's the low down on me.

I have 12 guns, and a compound bow. 

I gave up bowhunting when my son was born and took up coyote hunting because I could do it after he went to bed....GEE, Night HUNTING!!!

I've hunted small game and deer ever since legal age. Was taught all the things that you are saying by a responsable brother-in-law. ( My father never hunted with me. Quit at age 16 when someone shot the stump he was stitting on in his red wool suit (before hunter orange) in front of a bon-fire. He and his father chase the person for a mile before he jumped into his car and started to drive away. My father was going to shoot his car, when my grandfather grabbed his gun and said, if you kill him, you're the one going to jail, it's not worth it. He never hunted again.

I'm all about the outdoors, I just think certain laws are there for the good of all, and believe that centerfire rifle after dark is a bad idea.

Quakr, You used to be able to hunt with centerfire after dark! Yes, I know it's trying to be introduced........Someone said Hey, this probably isn't a good idea, and closed the loophole...It was before I got into coyote and fox hunting, But, Like the hunter orange, and hunter saftey, I believe it was a good law. At the proper range a coyote and fox can be taken with the weapons allowed, so I don't go for the quick humane kill, they can be quickly and humane-ly dispatched with what's allowed, if you let them get close enough. so again I state, is it about the hunt or the fact that you want a harvest every time??

Lwingwatcher, Tried to blow me out of the water when I said it would increase poaching, and said a poacher will poach...But I read the Michigan Out Door news cuff and collars. I've read where people will call if they hear a centerfire shot after dark, (yes, some of us can tell) and alert their CO that there may be poaching going on.

I'm not out to take anything away from the same things that I enjoy as much as the rest of you.

well, thats it for me for the night!


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

crittergetter said:


> Esox, Either I edited my post before you replied or you deleted my last line?


Look at the bottom of your post, the only person who edited it was you, one minute after I made mine.


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

crittergetter said:


> What the hell does protecting one's home and family have to do with taking a firearm to an open to the public area where others maybe present? Especially when your field of view is hindered?
> 
> We weren't able to defend ourselves????....Mag, you and I both know that, that is a Bulls*** law....I know you, as well as myself, didn't need a law that tells me I can blow someone away that comes into my house uninvited with bad intent toward me or my family. They are leaving in a body bag,( I did know enough to never let them make it out of the house alive.) law or no law. I'll deal with the court later. Thankfully, the people of the State got tired of the damn criminals having more rights than the victims and stopped the victims from having to deal with the Bulls*** of being sued by a perp, that made it alive out of the house. ( get it?? BS law, saves us the BS of having to go to court.)
> 
> one more thing, Laws are passed when it becomes evident that they may save lives,....Hunter orange, hunter safety....It's not like you're not allowed to hunt at night, just have to be a little more patient to let them get in closer.



It really doesn't have anything to do with each other, except for the part where you asked what the big deal was seeing as we can't use them at night as the law states now. The point I was trying to get across was that just because the law doesn't grant us permission to use the centerfires at night, doesn't make it a bad idea.

For the record, I, personally, don't like the idea of people using centerfires' at night. But, I also feel that if they were to allow them, the odds of there being an accidental shooting would be VERY slim. Why, do you ask. Because 99.99% of the people that would use them at night would follow common sense, know their target and what lies beyond, etc, etc. It's the morons like the person this whole post was about, that break the law, common sense, etc that would shoot a fatal round. That's the reality of it all. Hunting is the safest of all sports. There are more people killed by drunk drivers every day than people accidentally shot in a year of hunting. Thats reality. The fear of a stray bullet killing someone at night isn't justified, at least in practicality.....


----------



## crittergetter (Feb 14, 2005)

Was in the midst of editing when you posted. Certain that someone was going to take it out of context......Just like it was!


----------



## Rumajz (Dec 29, 2005)

I don't know, I think we all have valid points here. 
To me personaly, some laws that seems to limit us are actually protecting us. (that almost sounds like a liberal talking :yikes: ). 

For instance, if there is a heavily populated area and the law prohibits the use of centerfire rifles for deer hunting, it is a good thing. To me it seems like a very logical law even if the chance of a stray bullet hitting someone is 1 in 10 000. (That number would sound a lot different if that 1 who gets hit is my kid or someone else really close to me). 

Can you imagine what kind of "ammo" would anti's get if a true sportsman, real hunter who follows the law and everything, fire's a gun, misses and the bullet goes somehow pass his intended backstop and kills someone 400 yards back? No one could say then that he was a criminal and a law breaker and poacher. 

If I were to vote on this issue or other gun related laws, I would vote the same as all of us here. All I am trying to say is that some of these laws do make sense and at least to me are logical and limit a chance of a disaster even if the chance is really really small to begin with. And as for this particular issue, even if I vote yes to use of centerfire at night, I personaly would not use one for my own comfort as I stated in my previous post. 
But I could be wrong, would not be the first time.

Anyhow, lets not turn this discussion into a "fight" or a bad argument.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

The only reason you can't hunt with centerfires at night anymore has nothing to do with safety. It's the fear of more poaching of deer as the sport of predator hunting became more popular.

I can't remember safety being mentioned in any meeting I sat in on with the law division of the DNR. All they ever talked about was the threat of more deer being poached and how to make it easier on the Co's. You have a rifle at night no grey areas you get a ticket. The safety issue is being used now to justify making their jobs easier.

Griffondog


----------



## BradU20 (Jan 17, 2005)

crittergetter said:


> Had to go to Beaver Island for a couple of days for work...
> 
> Just wanted to respond to BradU20.....
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply. I understand your view, and it has some valid points. I get a little edgy when people try to bring in emotion to issues like these. 

I guess my main points are these:
- Predators need to be managed, and this is most effectively done by trapping and night hunting
- Shotguns and rimfires limit the hunter's range and effciency 
- As long as the target is properly identified and the hunter knows the terrain, accidents should be easily avoided

But then....it is dark, and there are idiots out in the woods.

And the comments about deer poaching....I'd venture a guess the .22LR may have taken more deer in this state (or any other) then any other firearm :evil:


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

griffondog said:


> The only reason you can't hunt with centerfires at night anymore has nothing to do with safety. It's the fear of more poaching of deer as the sport of predator hunting became more popular.
> 
> I can't remember safety being mentioned in any meeting I sat in on with the law division of the DNR. All they ever talked about was the threat of more deer being poached and how to make it easier on the Co's. You have a rifle at night no grey areas you get a ticket. The safety issue is being used now to justify making their jobs easier.
> 
> Griffondog


You're right. That's the reason it's on the way to becoming a bill. The DNR wouldn't move on it. Same as night time elevated stands for predators. IF the DNR won't move, the people will.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

I think we had better ban driving cars at night. Its dark, they go fast, and there could be someone who is irresponsible enough after a bar closes to drive it after drinking. Another thing we ought to do to is order helmets for everyone and bubble wrap suits and keep everyone from ever leaving there house again. Cops won't have to chase drunks, noone gets hurt. Sounds completely absurd I know, and that is precisely the point. WE cannot idiot proof the world, nor should we even try. Accidents shall happen, that is why they are called accidents. Do we take measures to prevent accidents, well of course. The bottom line is to deprive those who are responsible based on the very very small minority who are not responsible or are violaters is complete and utter nonsense. Chicken little, the sky is indeed not falling.


----------



## walleyeman2006 (Sep 12, 2006)

personally i do beleive the odds on a stray bullet hitting some one are better during day light when people are out doors...

thats why many schools close during firearm deer season in the rifle zone...


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

"thats why many schools close during firearm deer season in the rifle zone..."

Schools close up here cause the teachers want to hunt also. Just as many hunters on the 16th as on the 15th. The above is some news medias BS.


----------



## bhugo (Jan 12, 2007)

If too many students are being taken out of school to hunt...it makes sense to close. That happens mostly in northern Mi and the up. In southern Michigan..they rarely close for opening day. I dont think they worry about stray bullets though.


----------



## QuakrTrakr (Apr 4, 2001)

bhugo said:


> I dont think they worry about stray bullets though.


No, they worry more about relocation a "lost" coyote in downtown Detroit.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

in 2004, casey burns was struck by a stray bullet fired from a rifle. (search for casey burns in pennsylvania to get a wealth of articles.) lawsuit ensued, and contention arose that the area should be a shotgun only zone. pa game commission paid for a study to determine whether shotguns or rifles were safer. the results were eye-opening - here's a quote from an article on the study:

"The study examined ballistics data on three popular deer-hunting guns: a .30-06 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and a .50-caliber muzzleloader. The rifle had the greatest maximum range at 2.64 miles, followed by the shotgun at 1.97 miles and the muzzleloader, which generally uses heavier and slower bullets, at 1.74 miles. 

However, Bacastow noted that to achieve maximum range, shots must be fired at a 35-degree angle, which is highly unlikely in a hunting situation. He noted that a bullet fired at a 35-degree angle toward a deer 100 yards away would fly 210 feet above the animal's back. 

Most shots fired by hunters are relatively flat, and even a slight aiming error usually results in a shot less than 5 degrees above the horizon. When shots are fired at an elevation of 5 degrees, the total distances traveled, including ricochets, are 1.66 miles for a rifle bullet and 1.3 miles for a shotgun slug. 

When shots are fired holding the guns level 3 feet off the ground, the shotgun slug will travel 0.99 of a mile, 16 percent farther than the rifle bullet will travel under the same circumstances. 

The reason, Bacastow said, is that slugs tend to hold together better and lose less energy during ricochets than rifle bullets. Therefore, slugs often can travel farther than rifle bullets in common hunting scenarios. 

The 67-page report notes the muzzleloader bullet traveled the shortest distance in all test scenarios and therefore is less risky than rifle bullets and slugs. The report recommends investigating the possibility of developing specialized bullets and slugs that would break apart on impact and reduce the number of ricochets. "

and here's the original report (big pdf file - nearly 28 megs, but interesting read.)

http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/factsheets/2007/rifle_shotgun_webpost.pdf

moral of the story? guns kill things - know where and what you're shooting at. caliber restrictions are red herrings that only offer an appearance of safety.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

In physics class, we were told that the maximum range was achieved at a 45 degree angle. Pennsylvania is much dfferent than Michigan, the hills are quite steep there in many areas and shots could be fired up hill at a target of some magnitude. But again this is in poor judgement.

Bottom line, you set out to go hunting illegally, untrained and something bad happens.......karma?? To bad a young man with a family is the one to suffer the consequences :sad:


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

FREEPOP said:


> In physics class, we were told that the maximum range was achieved at a 45 degree angle. Pennsylvania is much dfferent than Michigan, the hills are quite steep there in many areas and shots could be fired up hill at a target of some magnitude. But again this is in poor judgement.


yes, you are 100% correct, 45 degrees would provide maximum range, were we in a vacuum. wind deflection, atmospheric conditions, etc, all contribute to maximum ranges, and that's accounts for the difference.

actually, in the exterior ballistics section of my 5th edition Sierra manual, they reiterate the same thing - 35 degrees provides maximum range in the real world.


----------



## bhugo (Jan 12, 2007)

QuakrTrakr said:


> No, they worry more about relocation a "lost" coyote in downtown Detroit.


good one :lol:


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Yes I know all the factors that influence projectile motion, wind, temperature, elevation, etc.

Many of the hills out there would require more than 35 degrees elevation to clear, is another point I was trying to make.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

well I beleive the odds od accidents are way higher during thw firearm deer seaon then they are during the typical coyote hunting seasons so hav eat it with centerfire IMHO

Ganzer


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

CL-Lewiston said:


> "shot at a sound"!!! If that is correct he should do time and it certainly is NOT the fault of the CENTERfire..


Centerfire has been used for many years at night in Michigan. It was just a couple years ago they found the loop-hole and decided to close it while redoing the CPL stuff. Centerfire at night was a tool, when used correctly and has been for all those years. There, to my knowledge has not been an incident where someone was hurt while hunting at night with a cf. Maybe a drunk shot himself in the foot from time to time but that would happen with any type of gun. I wish they would bring it back. It was wrong for them to stop it in the first place. But too many people bugged the DNR about "can we shoot at night with centerfire rifles, huh, huh? Can we,can we?"


----------

