Mr VJP

His state has seems to have very few laws restricting whats legal on the street. As it should be! ;D

Welcome aboard and congratulations of your bow killed deer! ;D

Welcome aboard. Fox, Bobcat and Coyote mostly around my area.

"he walked in the kitchen and said "Best day ever, Mom!" and Dad said, "So Far!" ;D

Heads up guys. The next target for a state mandated hunting requirement is the full body harness when hunting from an elevated stand. Not just in NY but a lot of other states as well. Anyone think the states will stop there when that becomes a law too? There's also interest in forcing lead free ammo on us. These things are not far up on the mandate agenda, but they are in the hopper. Without a lot of negative feedback from hunters these things will just keep coming. How the heck did our parents and grandparents ever survive a single hunting season?

Welcome to the forum.

Welcome to the forums.

Welcome to NY and the Forums. Where are you located? What brought you here from Oregon. I have a daughter living in Portland, OR.

Do you know in states that have mandatory B/O laws, a person not wearing B/O that gets shot by a hunter is held partially responsible for the incident in the eyes of the law? That person can be anyone in the woods, another hunter, a dog walker, a runner or even a child! Does that seem right?

Doc, once again you seem to be missing the point. It's not this one law that is the problem, it's the preponderance of laws that are being forced upon society in general under the guise of knowing what's best for us. This has got to stop! There shouldn't be any more laws passed that are simply designed to tell us how to live our lives under penalty of fine. Laws are supposed to be passed to penalize people who hurt others, not penalize people who don't act to prevent others from hurting them. Laws are supposed to restrain the dangerous, not restrain everyone else. Why are you so adamant about telling camo clad hunters to conform to your thinking? Why do you feel you have the right to demand others be controlled? Being so zealous about saving lives at the expense of personal liberties is wrong. Freedom demands people be allowed to take risks of their own choosing. Anything else is moving towards tyranny. I've pointed out many examples of laws being enacted, only to have them become more expansive and onerous later on. The end result is fear and mistrust of the government, which becomes an oppressive regime, best avoided at all cost. That same government tends to become less respectful of it's citizens when it can get away with more oppressive laws any time it wants to. There is quite a bit of government contempt of the people already, and it manifests itself in more laws, designed to control us more each day. IMHO, that is not what American freedom is all about. This control phenomenon has got to be exposed and stopped, and any law that is part of that problem must be opposed, including the B/O mandates. Think about this: Booze is unhealthy and can kill you. Alcoholism is bad and a drunk driver is dangerous. Should booze be illegal or should people be educated about it's dangers? Should drunk driving laws be expanded to tell sober drivers they must do something to avoid being killed by a drunk or pay a fine? Should the sober drivers be mandated to do anything to prevent injury from a drunk?

Doc, the article points out how the stats are flawed. Youth under 17 can't vote so they're screwed. The law is now on the books and can be ever expanded at the whim of the legislature. There was a lot of resistance to the law and I suspect a lot of elected officials will be voted out in Nov because of it. Oregon is safer then it's neighbor Washington State that requires BO. 40 States now require BO. Interesting new wrinkle in NJ's game laws book this year no one seems to have noticed. In a little read area of the regs it now says if your Drivers License says you need glasses to drive, you can now be fined if you are not wearing your glasses when hunting. Funny thing is, nowhere in the laws book does it say you need to have you drivers license in possession while hunting. As of yet, they haven't addressed the issue of being color blind while hunting. Guess they will ban color blind people from hunting once they get to it. Stop with all of the laws already. Do you really want this country to become a total Police State?

Welcome to the forum. Where are you located?

OREGON: Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Mandates Hunter Orange for Youth, Ignoring Statistical Science and Public Opposition: The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission made wearing hunter orange mandatory for youth 17 years of age or younger, beginning August 1, 2011. "The rule will require the wearing of a hunter orange upper garment OR hat for youth hunters while hunting game mammals and upland birds (except turkey) with any firearm." The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife issued a Hunter Orange Report to the Commission (HORC) back on June 4 that contained creative statistics supporting some sort of mandate. The link to the report: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/hunter_orange.asp The HORC highlights the fact that only 19 percent of vision-related shooting incidents reported over a twenty-year period in Oregon involved victims who were wearing hunter orange, suggesting that there would be fewer incidents if more hunters wore orange. The authors ignore the fact that in the same HORC document, there are estimates that only 15 to 25 percent of hunters voluntarily wear hunter orange. This makes as little sense as a report claiming that blue cars are safer than cars painted other colors because they are involved in only 19 percent of all accidents despite the fact that blue cars represent 19 percent of all vehicles on the public roads. The truth in both cases is that the results are more likely a function of random selection. Oregon is already a safe state for hunters, especially when compared with its neighbor Washington, which has imposed a hunter orange mandate. Washington has a rate of 4.65 incidents per 100,000 license sales compared with Oregon's rate of 1.56. The record shows that Oregon's hunters can be trusted to make decisions about hunter orange that best fit their personal circumstances. Even in this era of ever-expanding government mandates, the decision to wear hunter orange should be voluntary and left up to the individual. Unfortunately, the Commission chose a mandate although the evidence presented is faulty and shows no increase in safety.

Steve wrote: A guy getting shot because he didn't wear B/O HAS implicated someone else BIG time. That is the difference here. One guys stupidity most definitely does have a serious and direct effect on someone else here. If he was shot by a hunter who shoots at anything not wearing orange that moves, it is still entirely the shooter's fault. Identify your target. No excuse. If he was shot by a hunter that was shooting at game and never saw him, it may not have helped him to wear orange. The facts of the shooting would have to determine that. If the shooter did not break any laws and just happened to shoot the other hunter without any orange on, that should be deemed an accident and the shooter should not be held liable. I'm sure this type of shooting is quite rare. Besides all hunters should have insurance if such a thing happens to them anyway. It can happen to any hunter under multiple circumstances. Join the NRA and you're automatically covered. Heck, cops have been known to shoot each other in street firefights. Maybe they should be wearing orange too!

WZ, I agree. The shooter is the one who is responsible. But the person who chooses not to wear B/O takes the risk and no one else should have the right to tell him he must wear B/O or pay a fine. Heck, I don't even see people getting fined for jay walking anymore. And in many of those cases the driver had no chance of avoiding the pedestrian. In that case, the pedestrian took the risk and lost. I feel no sympathy for anyone who's misery is self imposed.

I'm worse off than you are sir. I think about hunting and what I need to do for hunting season ALL YEAR LONG! ;D

Doc, my point is you are not just "asking" people to wear B/O, you are advocating a law mandating they wear it! That is where you cross the line of tolerance. That becomes compliance through force and coercion, which has monetary fines and penalties associated with it. It is well documented throughout history, laws start out as minor inconveniences and morph into serious restrictions on individual liberty over time. Allowing a legislature to control any issue with a law is giving them full control over that issue forever. Look at the anti-smoking laws for example. What's to prevent a B/O law from being changed eventually to require 100% B/O while hunting? Hat, coveralls and gloves required? We've seen expanding encroachment with all laws in the past and I see it happening with B/O laws in other states now. Be careful what you decide to let the state force you to do with new laws. The more power you give the state, the more freedom you surrender. Be smart and wear B/O while hunting, but don't worry about the other hunter that doesn't. His welfare is not your concern if his risk is self imposed. The state is always looking for more power over the people. It's the duty of the electorate to prevent the state from having that power, unless it is absolutely essential to the existence of the state, it's property, or it's business.

Had an anti hunter coming onto our leased land years ago. The fool was doing damage to our stands and throwing beer cans around trying to make it look like we were drinking beer while hunting. The woman we leased from caught the guy. IT WAS HER OWN SON! ???

Doc, you're asking the victims to bear the burden of the unsafe and stupid. "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." --American writer Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988) You also are mis-quoting me and taking my post statements out of context. I'm comparing all of those things as examples of what the law can make you do to keep you from getting hurt. Maybe you think we are all mentally handicapped and not able to manage our own affairs, so you are asking the law to decide for us. No Thanks!

Sent you a reply via e-mail. It's easier than going back and forth with PM's.

If it saves lives, lets do it??? So would requiring every driver in NY to wear a helmet in their car. Then we could go further and require every passenger to wear one too. Then we could lower the speed limit on the highway to 45 MPH and maybe even require all drivers to take their drivers test over every year. Then all tobacco products can be banned. Then ban beer and booze. Then ban motorcycles. Then mandate new safety features in cars that will add $10,000 to the cost of the car. Then require all cars to be painted BLAZE ORANGE!! All of that would save lives. All of that can be government mandated. All of that would be part of the NANNY STATE mentality that wants to control everything you do to "protect" you from harm, at your expense. I'm not interested in any more laws from the government that force me to do anything. I believe everyone should have the choice to decide what they want to do to protect themselves. It's fine for the government to run ad campaigns to educate the public on the benefit of blaze orange, just like they did when they wanted to get seat belt usage up. But the minute they decide to mandate it by law, they are stepping over the line. In the future that line will continue to move further in your direction. Any voting citizen who allows it to happen deserves to know what it's like to lose their freedom, since they are willing to give it up a little bit at a time. I posted in the other thread how NJ is now coming around and measuring the intensity of your blaze orange. If it is too faded, according to their meter machine, you are fined as if you don't have it on at all. They also have laws saying camo blaze is not good enough if it is only a hat. You must wear a lot more of it. Allow the state to tell you anything that you must do and they will make money on you with fines and continue to erode your freedom to decide anything. Better to prosecute the hell out of unsafe hunters, than to make the rest of us jump through hoops to keep them from hurting us. We take dangerous drivers off the road, right? Lets do the same with hunters in the field. And keep the state out of anything that basically allows it to take money out of your wallet under the pretense of safety.

So I'm guessing he never applies for a doe permit then? Not all NY state deer hunters are lucky enough to even see a buck of any age during the whole season. That's not because they aren't good hunters, they may be in an area that has few bucks and they may not have more than a few days to hunt. Our NY hunters shouldn't be looking down their noses at other hunters with a judgmental attitude. If the buck was legally taken, I have no problem with the hunter that took it.

Occasionally, I hire a guy with a compact tractor and a blower on the front. Until I hired him to do my drive with the blower instead of the plow, he had never used it before. He found out how much better it works and how little strain it puts on the tractor. It also doesn't leave big piles of snow off to the sides. Now he uses it all the time and his plow is in storage.

Thanks for the info. I'm old, but I'm still learning! ;D

I had posted a few comments in the thread about wearing blaze orange. After going through the entire 14 pages of the thread, I don't find a single one of them. Either a second thread is running somewhere else, or my posts were deleted. Which is it? Never mind. I found the other thread. Boy there sure are a lot of replies to the question of blaze or no blaze.