Do you wear Orange? If so why? If not Why not? :)

[Windsorhunter]

Doc, not sure where you hunt, but I certainly don't agree that 90% of hunters are wearing orange.  Not sure I agree with your attitude either.  I have read thru alot of posts here and it seams like people agree with you or they are stupid and don't care about themselves.  Rember we live in a free country.  Also remember that wearing blaze orange will NOT prevent you from being shot at.

[Doc]

Doc, not sure where you hunt, but I certainly don't agree that 90% of hunters are wearing orange.  Not sure I agree with your attitude either.  I have read thru alot of posts here and it seams like people agree with you or they are stupid and don't care about themselves.  Rember we live in a free country.  Also remember that wearing blaze orange will NOT prevent you from being shot at.

You might be right. When I look at the actual stats of 73% of all hunting injuries involve hunters not wearing blaze orange, It's very difficult to believe that a very high percentage of people actually do wear blaze orange. However I will say that in all my years of hunting (which are considerable), I have only seen three people that did not have at least some blaze orange. Maybe there were a bunch that I never saw .... lol. So, in our area at least the common sense approach to hunting safety is being adhered to by an overwhelming majority of hunters. And yet that 73% figure still exists.

As to why I come down so hard on those that scoff at the value of B/O, I will admit that the three people that I ran across that didn't wear blaze orange were actually people who were wearing full camo including face paint. These guys actually startled me a bit when I realized that I was well within shotgun range before they actually got my attention by waving or in one case I finally saw him. I saw guys doing their best to be shot. I look at that kind of behavior, and simply cannot help but call it exactly the way I saw it those three times and still view it today. It is just plain stupid. I don't know any other way of describing it. The only reason these guys have survived (as far as I know) is simply that a deer hasn't happened to pass between them and another hunter. How smart is that to put your life on the line like that, for a deer? Especially when it isn't even necessary. I will admit that I am a pretty straight talker, and  don't always curb my language when I see someone doing something that isn't exactly what I would call smart. Maybe that's something I should work on, but I really don't want to be dishonest about my feelings when it comes to matters of safety. To me, it is not an issue of freedom. We're not exactly pulling off a tea party here. We're talking arms and legs being blown off, and lives being destroyed as well as the family collateral damage that I have spoken of. I take that stuff seriously and sometimes I may be a bit blunt at times.

I am on the verge of letting this subject go because I think I have said just about all I have to say, and I think I have supplied enough data to back up my position for anyone who had enough interest to read it. But I thought is was necessary to address why I come on so strong on this issue because I am aware that some of my comments are a bit strong and blunt. But every message like the ones you and Bubba have posted just make me see even more clearly why a B/O law is so important and why it is a law that definitely should be enacted.

Doc

[arrowflinger]

I wear Blaze Orange.....because 25 years ago I got shot at in camoflage. >

[Pygmy]

I always wear blaze orange during deer gun season, or when hunting upland birds or rabbits...It makes sense..

I  know some people who hunt deer during gun season in full camo, and nearly to a man, they are morons..

HOWEVER, it is SUPPOSED TO BE a free country, and I resent being told that I MUST wear blaze orange FOR MY OWN GOOD, just as I resent being told that I MUST WEAR A SEATBELT FOR MY OWN GOOD....

I DO wear blaze orange by choice...I would also wear a seatbelt in my vehicle by my own choice ( even if it were not legally mandated), but as an adult citizen of a free country it is just plain WRONG for the government to force me to do that...

[Doc]

I DO wear blaze orange by choice...I would also wear a seatbelt in my vehicle by my own choice ( even if it were not legally mandated), but as an adult citizen of a free country it is just plain WRONG for the government to force me to do that...

No it's not. As far as seat belts are concerned, I don't believe that the whole idea would have been practiced by even a majority of drivers without the force of law behind it. As far as blaze orange is concerned, we also know from the stats that there is a significant number of people ignoring that practice. What people get wrong about these kinds of laws is that they think that these kinds of stupidity effect only themselves. They don't understand the aspect of collateral damage that occurs to their families and often even the taxpayer when they decide to be idiots. I'm not for cradle to grave legislated protection, but there are some things that impact people other than yourselves, whether it be affects on insurance premiums or just depriving your family of a breadwinner and throwing them on the rolls of public assistance. We no longer live in a world where our actions don't interact with others around us. So occasionally there comes situations where laws of safety are a good idea. I think B/O is one of those situations.

Doc

[Cabin Fever]

I DO wear blaze orange by choice...I would also wear a seatbelt in my vehicle by my own choice ( even if it were not legally mandated), but as an adult citizen of a free country it is just plain WRONG for the government to force me to do that...

I never wore a seatbelt until it became a law. Hated the thought of it and hated that I was being told I HAD to do it. I started wearing it 100% of the time and it became second nature.

That seatbelt saved my life on July 11th, 2005, during a head on collision. Neither myself or the other driver would have survived if we had not been wearing the seatbelt.

My son just had to write a paper for school describing something that has influenced his life. I didn't know about it until he was done, but he wrote about my accident and health ordeal afterwards. He wrote that this opened his eyes as to how important it is to wear seatbelts and that his Dad would not be here if I hadn't been wearing my seatbelt. Pretty powerful considering the kid is 15 and will be driving himself next year. He also buckles up when riding in the backseat. I guess that's one positive thing that came about from the accident...

[Doc]

My wife's life was saved by a seat belt too. She was on her way out the window if she hadn't been brought up short with the harness. Thank Heavens for that law. Not too many people wore restraints until the law was passed.

A funny thing has happened over the years. Now, It really feels weird if I'm not belted in.

Doc

[apertureguy]

Yes, I always wear Orange.

[outdoorstom]

I hunt on private property, but still wear orange during any gun season. Bow season I don't worry about it.

Funny seatbelt story. When I was growing up, most cars didn't even have seatbelts.  All 11 of us kids would be in the station wagon, and my Mom would hold drills. She's yell crash, and we'd all have to dive to the floor. We thought it was a hoot!

[jimbodwb]

A seat belt saved my life on October 7th 1994.  Lost control of my car and went sideways into a ditch and rolled over 4 times. Police officer told me that if I wasn't wearing my seat belt I would have been thrown from the car and my parents would be making funeral arrangements. I still broke my neck though so I can only imagine what it would have been like without the seat belt. It is just plain silly to say that a law that protects you and everyone around you is wrong. If you don't like being told to wear a seat belt then don't get in a car. And lets be serious here, how bad would it be if you had to wear BO. The deer can't see it. It is no different than full camo to them. These types of laws are made to protect people. Having a law that says you need to wear a seat belt or put on some BO is no different than speed limits. Do you think speed limits are wrong? Do you think you should be able to pass a school bus when it is stopped and picking up children? All these are the same as wearing a seat belt or BO. Safety.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I think the issue is....where do you draw the line. How far are they willing to take it. Treestans are far more dangerous to hunt from than from the ground. injuries from falls associated with a treestand effect others in the same way as those shot in full camo during gun season. I don't want to sound morbid but maybe the treestand effect general society more. the injusries that occur from falls probably have a higher social impact because they are often injuries not deaths. Insurance costs from those are probably more....as well as disability and rehab costs.

I wear it during gun...my choice. I just am asking where do we draw the line?

[Pygmy]

Good point, Culvercreek...

Perhaps soon we can all live in nice, hermetically sealed, cushioned , indestructable bubbles where we can't POSSIBLY get hurt....

Certainly THAT can be legislated by  the liberals that are in charge of the country now...

I'm glad  that I'm getting old.....

[steve863]

I reckon we won't be getting any hunting equipment for Christmas this year.  Looks like Santa wasn't wearing his seatbelt either.

[steve863]

Hmmm, I guess the picture I posted isn't showing properly.

[steve863]

Lets try this.

[Doc]

Good point, Culvercreek...

Perhaps soon we can all live in nice, hermetically sealed, cushioned , indestructable bubbles where we can't POSSIBLY get hurt....

Certainly THAT can be legislated by  the liberals that are in charge of the country now...

I'm glad  that I'm getting old.....

I guess I can see getting all excited about someone passing a law that is actually some sort of an inconvenience, or something that doesn't actually make sense or something that cannot be justified with data, but let's face it, we're not talking about ending civil rights here .... lol. Save your indignation for something that really matters. I am as conservative minded person as you will find. In fact I am registered as a Conservative. However that sort of thing does not mean that I have to give up all forms of common sense. I am as mindful of citizen rights as anyone, but that does not mean that I believe in anarchy for crying out loud. Laws based on common sense are not really the evil of this world. Honest, this isn't even a slight encline on any kind of imagined "slippery slope", .....  :

Meanwhile, there are a significant number of people out there wandering around the woods doing their damndest to commit "suicide by hunter" simply because they don't have the mental where-with-all to know any better. I don't think that is a decent position to put the rest of us in.

Doc

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I understand 100% your position on this Doc. But...and there always is one...lol. Have you ever seen any numbers on shooting accidents vs the number hurt in treestand falls? I am just wondering because I have to imagine the incident rate for treestand accidents has to be higher than accidental shootings. And like I said in my previous post the $$$ associated with that would be up there pretty good, based on my experience in construction accidents

[Pygmy]

Geeze, Doc... A conservative...??.. I never would have guessed it..

The point does not involve inconveniencing anybody....

The point involves denying a citizen of his right to decide whether or not to wear a certain color clothing... PERIOD...

AND one other downside of mandating blaze orange BESIDES denying a citizen of his right of choice concerning his personal welfare IS....

If B/O is mandated, many of those inferior beings that you obviously feel so superior to are going to ASSUME that everybody in the deer woods will be dressed like a pumpkin... So what happens when Joe Shmuck and his wife Shirley decide to take thier golden retrievers for a walk during deer season...??..

Perhaps ol "doesn't have the mental where with all to know the difference".... ( your words)  might assume that since there is no blaze orange , it may be a legit target...

[bubba]

careful pygmy next you will be stupid.  And as Ron White says you cant fix stupid.  If people choose not to wear orange, it is their life they are putting is theoretic peril.  As I have stated before, if the only place I could hunt, I had to be all dressed up and afraid of being shot , or had been shot at, I would quit hunting.  It is not my job to make other hunters safe by wearing clothes they will theoritically not shoot at me.  Yes, I admit 77 percent of people shot were not wearing orange.  However, that means that 23 pecent were. So ask those people how wearng orange worked for them. I know doc data etc.  But you keep avoiding the data that shows states with mandatory hunter orange have higher hunters shot rates than NY. I realize this data goes against your argument, but it is fact.  Again the key is training and education and mentoring.  The young hunters who are fresh out of courses are the safety statistically. It is older guys like myself who cut corners and think we know it all that are much more likely to shoot someone.  We will legislate ourselves right out of hunting at the rate we are going. What next?  Wanna be real safe stop hunting entirely or take guns away so no one can be shot.  Scoff if you wish and again call me names or dismiss me, but it is next down the road.  Want to cut down incidents, make hunter education mandatory every 5 years. A refresher never hurt anyone. 

[Doc]

I understand 100% your position on this Doc. But...and there always is one...lol. Have you ever seen any numbers on shooting accidents vs the number hurt in treestand falls? I am just wondering because I have to imagine the incident rate for treestand accidents has to be higher than accidental shootings. And like I said in my previous post the $$$ associated with that would be up there pretty good, based on my experience in construction accidents

No, I haven't seen the numbers, but I have no doubt that treestand accidents are quite numerous and significant. I'm not so sure that the preventative measures are quite as clear-cut or basically convenient as the blaze orange measure as regards safety. This B/O law requirement has been kicking around for quite a few years now and a lot of states have gone to some version of it. Some day there may be the same kinds of efforts to do something about treestand safety, and perhaps there may be the same level of study and data gathered relative to some specific piece of equipment that may all point to some reasonable preventative law. But right now, we have all that criteria met with a blaze orange proposal. There is data that is hard to ignore as regards the causes of hunting deaths and injuries that point to the fact that blaze orange would have prevented a significant number of them. Links to those studies were provide a bunch of pages back on this thread.

So, this is the issue that is annually before us. That is why I am focused on this one. It is the one preventative safety measure that I believe in so completely that I believe it should be a requirement. We have people who find no problem with demanding laws that limit choices in harvesting deer that don't seem to have the same regard for for the humans who hunt them. I'm still trying to figure out the opposition, because most people agree that b/o is a life saver, usually to the extent that they wouldn't go into the woods without it. And yet they don't have a concern that extends beyond themselves. That's mighty cold ..... lol. Seriously though, how can a person convince themselves that b/o is an absolute life-saving requirement for themselves, but the heck with everyone else? You either believe in it or you don't. It's not some kind of fashion statement ..... it does save lives.

Doc

[Doc]

Geeze, Doc... A conservative...??.. I never would have guessed it..

The point does not involve inconveniencing anybody....

The point involves denying a citizen of his right to decide whether or not to wear a certain color clothing... PERIOD...

So it is some kind of fashion statement? Even though it may be something that saves your life, there is something so insulting about being made to wear that ugly color that you simply can't handle the thought ...... lol. Honestly, I don't get it. Gosh of all the things to argue "personal freedom violations" about, that is pretty much the silliest one that I have heard in a long time. You know, somebody is making all those guys that work in construction zones along the highway wear that nasty color, and even some hideous flourescent green/yellow stripes on their vests but I'll just bet that none of them are out there ranting about the ugly colors that they are being made to wear and how their personal freedoms are being violated. I was forced to wear safety glasses when I went out in the shop, but I can't remember one time when I felt that I shouldn't have to wear them or that somebody was being unreasonable in demanding that I wear them. I'm really trying to understand this line of reasoning, but I've got to say that it really makes no sense to me.

AND one other downside of mandating blaze orange BESIDES denying a citizen of his right of choice concerning his personal welfare IS....

If B/O is mandated, many of those inferior beings that you obviously feel so superior to are going to ASSUME that everybody in the deer woods will be dressed like a pumpkin... So what happens when Joe Shmuck and his wife Shirley decide to take thier golden retrievers for a walk during deer season...??..

Perhaps ol "doesn't have the mental where with all to know the difference".... ( your words)  might assume that since there is no blaze orange , it may be a legit target...

Is that the way you decide what to shoot at? If the color is brown it is a legitimate target? That is an argument that I have heard before, in fact from one of our ex-governors, and it is as goofey today as it was back then. There is no evidence that hunters become conditioned to shoot at brown things just because there is a blaze orange law in place. If you can find such a study, I would appreciate you sending me a link. Frankly, it doesn't even make any sense.

Look, nobody is claiming that B/O is some kind of cure all that will eliminate all hunting mishaps. You still have crazies out there, but I can't tell you the number of times that a flash of orange has instantly told me that there was a hunter over there and that that suddenly became a "no shoot" zone. I couldn't see the hunter, but I sure could see that orange. Conversely, when I see a flicker of brown, that doesn't mean that I should unload my gun at it. And yet you would have us believe that all hunters would be conditioned to do that. I'm not buying that argument for a minute.

[Doc]

But you keep avoiding the data that shows states with mandatory hunter orange have higher hunters shot rates than NY. 

I ignore it because I can't find it. If you have such data, I would appreciate a link to it because as far as I know, may not even be a true statement. 

[Mr VJP]

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.

[Doc]

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.

And you are comparing all those silly things to a blaze orange law? Wearing blaze orange is "jumping through hoops"? Lol.... I'm really trying to have a serious discussion here. :

If we really want to get the government out of our lives, lets eliminate all those pesky game laws (and stop all that talk about those repressive AR laws). In fact why have any laws at all. Let's all do our own thing. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense either does it?

Doc

Doc

[Mr VJP]

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!