Duck ricochet claim defended

A Fish and Game wildlife manager says the only explanation for a hunter losing an eye is that shot ricocheted off of a duck, and critics need to think about the evidence.

John Dyer is defending the decision he came to in a report, which became a key piece of evidence in a case where a man lost an eye in a shooting incident.

A charge of reckless use of a firearm causing injury was withdrawn against a man recently in the Palmerston North District Court.

The man, who has name suppression, did not deny firing the shot in May 2016 which hit Jim Morton in the eye.

But he denied he was being reckless, and Dyer’s report was a key piece of the puzzle that led to the charge being withdrawn.

Morton was critical of the report, saying it had not been peer reviewed and relied on information from at least 30 years ago.

He also said the physics had not been tested.

Dyer said he had been contacted by multiple people since the report went public, including a person who said he had been hit by shot that ricocheted off of a duck.

That shot had ricocheted at a 45-degree angle, Dyer said.

‘‘People say it can’t happen. Well, it has happened at least twice.’’ JONO GALUSZKA