BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[moderator]

June 2007 Poll:

Should hunter orange be required?

[Don Fischer]

I don't think it should be required. To say it's recomended is fine but required, no. By requiring it, it just makes an excuse for anyone that shoot's someone for no other than they didn't clearly and positively ID the target. I think that what should be mandatory is a murder sentence if it can be shown you may not have clearly identified the target and kill a human. The overwhelming number of shots that hit a target are not an accident. How can hitting a deer at 500 yds be a great shot but hitting a human at 500yds an accident? Write in any range you'd like.

[Makwa]

Here we go again. Another round table topic.....round and round. Don I agree with you totally on this topic as I did the last time it was on here.

[moderator]

Makwa wrote: Here we go again. Another round table topic.....round and round.

It may have been discussed previously on this forum, however this is the first poll to gauge how the visitors to BGH feel about this topic.

As it stands right now, hunters against hunter orange are in the minority.

[Makwa]

There is nothing surprising about that.

[Don Fischer]

I think they are in the minority because to many hunter's have bought into the idea that it's a safty thing. The safty thing should not be the requirement to wear some specific color but rather the necessity to identify a target. I think people that shoot without positively identifing a target and shoot someone or even just come close should go to prison for a long long time. If that were to happen and people actually started going to prison, then things would change. It seem's that the only way our government's can deal with individual safty is to put restriction's on the victim's.

If some moron is running down the road at 120mph in rush hour traffic and wreck's and kills someone, that would be bad. But government in all it's wisdom, rather than get these people off the roads and into jail and taking away driving priviledges BEFOR it happens feels the answer is to make everybody wear a seat belt. That's a feel good law that doesn't make you any safer! Same with hunter orange, feel good law that doesn't make you any safer.

I recall years ago in Idaho a kid got shot and killed stepping off a school bus by a guy that claimed he thought it was a deer. Now if you can't tell the difference between a yellow school bus and a deer, what good is 400 sq in of hunter orange? If on the other hand someone desides they want to wear it, I have no problem with it. Government is supposed to protect us from the bad guy's, not ourselves!

[Makwa]

Don. :thumbsup1:

[redrider]

I agree completely with positively identifying your target first, but what about the guy that is sitting 800 - 1200 yds beyond the target, and he is blended in with his surroundings and you can't see him. That orange can be seen along ways.

[Don Fischer]

redrider wrote: I agree completely with positively identifying your target first, but what about the guy that is sitting 800 - 1200 yds beyond the target, and he is blended in with his surroundings and you can't see him. That orange can be seen along ways.

If he's sitting 800 to 1200 yds beyond the target, you are really gonna have to shoot high to hit him. You'll most likely miss the target.

[redrider]

How about 100 - 200yds past, also would be very hard to see someone in camo at that distance?

[CVC]

Don, lets see if I can summarize what you're saying = personal responsibilty and accountablity along with consequences for our actions.

Did I get it right?

Personally, I prefer less government intervention in most things. But I am not sure on this issue.

In one sense, hunter orange protects the shooter too. Redrider made some good points and got me thinking about hunting on public land in WY. I may take a shot at an antelope that is perfectly appropriate, but not realize that just beyond it is a hunter in camo blending into the landscape. My shot could go through the animal and it them. Had I known they were there then I wouldn't have taken the shot.

Should I be branded a murderer in that situation?

[Makwa]

OK..............and what if the person out there at 200 yards or 1200 yards is a lady out looking at birds, or a couple picking morel mushrooms, or a kid out catching frogs, or a trapper checking his hardware, or a landowner on the next quarter section spraying weeds? They all have a right to be out in field and dale and none of them have blaze orange on, nor are they required to by law.

So if the hunter is not exercising caution......making sure of his target, etc.......what protects these non-hunters? If blaze orange is such a a magic fix to preventing unintended shootings, then why isn't everyone required to where it during hunting seasons? Don't they deserve the same magic protection as other hunters, or do hunters restrict their accidental bullet placement to only non blaze orange wearing hunters? If the governments were truely legislating for safety and blaze orange does reduce accidental shootings, then why are they not making it mandatory for everyone out in the great green forest during hunting season?

Why have some jurisdictions that had blaze orange restrictions rescinded them? That's right I know of at least two places that required blaze orange and now no longer do so because they could not find anything that idicated that the blaze orange rule lowered the number of 'accidents'.

Hunter training courses teaching shooters to be sure of their target, do not use your scope to glass with-that is what binos are for, don't crawl through fences with loaded guns, etc. That is what has lowered the accident rates, not blaze orange. Unfortunately the same courses foster the sheep like following that blaze orange does protect you and most just blindly believe it as fact just because it is bright and easy to see.

Lots of hunters have been shot fully resplendent in their holly bright orange costumes. What happened there? People get shot for only one of two reasons..................the shooter intended to shoot the other person or the shooter screwed up and did one or more things wrong.

Typically we see tons of stories about how "I saw a guy move and he had blaze orange on......wow, that sure saved him." Why, does the guy using that as an example shoot at movements if they do not see blaze orange? The proponents always want to use the fact that because someone was wearing blaze orange and did not get shot, it is proof that it works.

Horse puckey!!! People as a whole are like sheep and to a great degree becoming incapable of deep, independent thought. If the government tells us it makes us safer when hunting we are suppose to buy into it like good drones. We are told it makes us safer and we do not question it, we follow it blindly, then years down the pike if someone questions its validity we rear back in righteous indignation.........It has always been that way, how could anyone believe it does not make us safer?

If it makes you 'feel' safer then wear it, but it should not be mandatory. If it is mandatory it should be mandatory for every person that is out in the forest during hunting season........................otherwise the 'safety' aspect of the requirement should come into question in anyones mind.

[Don Fischer]

Well said Makwa! :thumbsup1: :thumbsup1: :thumbsup1:

[cowgal]

In our neck of the woods its not required for non-hunters to wear orange during hunting season, but its definitely encouraged.

None of us like too many regs, but wearing orange during firearm seasons is a good idea and I don't think states/provinces should change those laws. Regardless of whether people think it helps with accidents or not, it does make people more visible at a much greater distance.

I hear you Don about everyone needing to make 100% sure of their target, unfortunately hunting (like everything else in life!) attracts all types of folks, from the very conscientious to the wreckless. And when I'm out in the woods or fields during hunting season, I sure as heck don't want to be shot at. Sending the shooter to prison for that type of shooting is not going to bring me back or my loved ones.

[Don Fischer]

I wonder if hunting were treated like a privledge rather than a right if hunter oranger still be needed? When I was in Europe, if you wanted to hunt there you had to be schooled and you had to pass shooting test's. What if the same happened here? I can already hear the screaming but the fact is hunting is a privledge. But less education and testing is required for it than to get a driver license, a barber license, a commerical driver license and how many other things? Americans take the privledge of hunting to much for granted. And even many of those that don't won't say squat for fear of losing that privledge thru the back door. We got to all stick together, right?

I think the best way for us to stick together is to encourage education and testing. CVC's senario of shooting thru an animal and getting someone on the other side while a good argument I doubt would ever happen. If you make two columns, one people mistaken for game and one people truely shot by accident, as in CVC's senario, which do you believe would be longer? I think the second column truely an accident would be damn near MTY. Far to many people after failing to accurately identify the target use the excuse they thought it was an animal. When is the last time that a guy sitting in brush in his camo was mistaken for an animal? Well requireing hunter orange makes that a possibility. That means that no orange is safe to shoot at and if you screw up, don't worry, that bird watcher should have been wearing orange even tho he's not required to. When is the last time a bullet has passed thru an animal and hit a person on the other side? Again, I doubt that has ever happened.

While requireing hunter orange might make things safer, it will certainly give the guy that shoots the non hunter not in orange an excuse wouldn't it? I don't think we should supply irresponsible people with excuses.

Education is the answer, not regulation!