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

[Doc]

Doc, you're asking the victims to bear the burden of the unsafe and stupid.

No, I'm asking hunters to simply use the common sense that God gave them to stay alive in an activity that uses lethal weapons. And that request is with the knowledge that there are those who don't seem to possess that God-given common sense. I really don't mean to put some horrible burden on anybody ..... lol. But everytime some idiot pops out of the bushes with full camo, I have to wonder if they don't have some sort of death-wish. I don't appreciate them trying to make me a part of their suicide. That sort of thing may be ok with some people, but to me that is something that should not be allowed or legally sanctioned.

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.

Lol... Actually I wasn't mis-quoting anything, in fact I wasn't quoting anything at all. I was simply pointing out that you can imagine whatever you want as far as crazy wacked out potential laws that have no relevance to anything real, but that doesn't change the fact that a B/O law makes sense. And if you are so concerned about laws that deal with personal safety, I should remind you that there are an awful lot of people that are still walking around because of some of them.

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.

We certainly know that all applies to a larger percent than we would like.     I'm telling you that I have seen them ...... several times. I also have seen the NYS numbers (and posted the links for anyone who is interested), that indicate that 73% of the hunting injuries involve people who are not wearing B/O. That's not just a simple majority, but a clear-cut indicator of the significance of the problem.

[SteveB]

I also have seen the NYS numbers (and posted the links for anyone who is interested), that indicate that 73% of the hunting injuries involve people who are not wearing B/O.

Percentages alone do not tell the whole story. NYS also has one of the lowest rates in the country of overall accidents. Actually have seen studies suggesting a higher rate of hunters wear BO here then in many states where it is required. No one I have seen post here disputes the fact that wearing BO makes you more visible. What is disputed, and with sound reasoning is, will enacting another law have any significant impact on the number wearing BO. Or will it simply be another feel good law like the hand's free sell phone one?

[Doc]

Percentages alone do not tell the whole story. NYS also has one of the lowest rates in the country of overall accidents. Actually have seen studies suggesting a higher rate of hunters wear BO here then in many states where it is required. No one I have seen post here disputes the fact that wearing BO makes you more visible. What is disputed, and with sound reasoning is, will enacting another law have any significant impact on the number wearing BO. Or will it simply be another feel good law like the hand's free sell phone one?

Actually, when the percentages have that big a disparity, I think they tell a huge story. I believe you are correct that we (NYS) have a huge level of compliance already which makes those numbers even more spectacular. This small minority of hunters accounts for an over-sized number of shootings. There is a clear cause and effect relationship when viewed in that light.

As far as the actual effectiveness of a B/O law, I would have to be coming off as some sort of prophet to pretend to know the answer to that for sure. I also don't know anybody who can credibly say that it would not be effective. When I look at the numbers, I would say that logically it should cut the quantity of shootings because clearly many of them are due to lack of definitive visibility. I'm not sure what else you can go by other than the actual records.

[Mr VJP]

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.

[wztirem]

"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."

Mr. VJP,

I would have to disagree with you regarding the above statement. In regards to shooting incidents, the degree of accountability lies primarily upon the shooter.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I am not for laws that impose on any choice as most of you have read in my posts. I do see Doc's point here though. their decission does have a direct impact on others. medical costs. legal costs and even if we passed a law saying no one is liable if the one shot is not in orange and no disability of insurance coverage for them.......what about the mental impact of shooting some yahoo how hunkered down in a bush in full camo. I don't think I could put that aside so easily and move on with my life like nothing happened. It's a tough call.

[Doc]

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.

Ha..... I guess we just look at things differently and will have to declare an impasse. I recognize how the state worms it's way into all facets of our lives. My view is that some of it is necessary and some of it simply is a true pain and bordering on governmental abuse. I have a hard time looking at a blaze orange law and seeing it as some sort of individual freedom issue. We have far too many things that are truly impingements on our freedoms to cheapen that thought by applying that argument when discussing the supposed inconveniences of blaze orange.

So at any rate, It's obvious that neither one of us are likely to change positions, and I guess I have exhausted all my arguments for B/O. So I guess, as they say, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Doc

[Mr VJP]

"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."

Mr. VJP,

I would have to disagree with you regarding the above statement. In regards to shooting incidents, the degree of accountability lies primarily upon the shooter.

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.

[steve863]

I feel no sympathy for anyone who's misery is self imposed.

That's easy enough to agree with, but the guy who gets shot will probably be dead or seriously injured and he or his heirs will be suing the pants off the shooter who is now in a mess up to his ears!  If someone wants to climb a rock face without any safety equipment and falls 1000 feet no one else will be involved or implicated.  Easy enough to understand. The guy went looking for trouble and found it the hard way.  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.  Same reason smoking laws in public places were implemented.  It's not so much to stop the smoker from smoking.  Why would the state want people to quit with the tax dollars they get on cigarettes?  It was put in effect to stop the smoker from harming others who had NO legal legs to stand on to prevent others from smoking in enclosed quarters.

[bubba]

so again I ask if 73 percent of incidents involved not wearing BO, then 27 percent or more than one in four did involve BO. Simple math. I have to say that is a pretty high percentage for such a safety measure.  I will post a link but there is somethng else to think about. 1 in 10 males and 1 in 100 females are colorblind. They do not see orange.  My link will show what they do see.  So, I would enter into evidence, there is a large number of hunters who do not see the great life saving color, so I would say it reduces its effect dramatically.  Just something to think about.  I am sure it will be decided it will be useless data, but the fact remains, there are lots of ppl who do not see orange, but can see through camo and see green much more intense. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

[Culvercreek hunt club]

were the 10% that couldn't see the orange the ones that shot the 27%...lol

[Culvercreek hunt club]

interesting slides showing how folks see.

I had a good friend of mine that could not tell the difference between green and red. I helped him track all his bow shot deer until he gave up the sport.

as a side note...made driving with him a hoot at night coming up on red lights

[Mr VJP]

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!

[wztirem]

Mr VJP,

Your analogies are precious!

[Doc]

so again I ask if 73 percent of incidents involved not wearing BO, then 27 percent or more than one in four did involve BO. Simple math. I have to say that is a pretty high percentage for such a safety measure.  I will post a link but there is somethng else to think about. 1 in 10 males and 1 in 100 females are colorblind. They do not see orange.  My link will show what they do see.  So, I would enter into evidence, there is a large number of hunters who do not see the great life saving color, so I would say it reduces its effect dramatically.  Just something to think about.  I am sure it will be decided it will be useless data, but the fact remains, there are lots of ppl who do not see orange, but can see through camo and see green much more intense. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness

73% involving those not in blaze orange is a pretty high representation from that minority of hunters. That's simple math too. Also, I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say that all shooting accidents would be prevented by blaze orange. But when I see a 27% to 73% difference involving just one simple variable, you really don't have to be a math whiz to figure out the correct conclusion.

As far as the color blind aspect, if you had read more deeply into the article, you would have discovered that not all color blindness is created equal or has the same effects and magnitude. In fact those numbers of the totally color blind are nearly insignificant. I know in the past we have had comments from some members who have one of the forms of color blindness, and as I recall, each one had a different description of what they really see. But anyway, the fact that some small percent of the population has this affliction certainly does not invalidate the whole concept of blaze orange as a safety measure. If that were the case, then we should scrap the stop light method of regulating traffic .... lol.

Look there is no point in trying to pretend that the blaze orange concept of safety in hunting doesn't work. There are too many piles of data from this state and others that prove that it does. Is it flawless? ...... certainly not. Just like the safety on a gun is not flawless. But whether you like it or not, color is a very effective and universally known and used safety indicator. The bosses of the road crews understand that. And what is that funny color that I see on all construction zone signs these days? That's right ..... blaze orange. Manufacturers of products that have safety hazards on them understand the effectiveness for drawing attention. Examples can be found just about anywhere you want to look of warnings and safety items that rely on color to draw attention, and to argue that it doesn't work 100% of the time and should therefore be abandoned is just plain silly.

I would hate to see what the carnage in our woods would be like if we didn't already have the high voluntary compliance when it comes to B/O. Just imagine that! There are some that would try to convince us that there would be no difference. Don't you believe it for a minute. 

Doc

[Doc]

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!

Here's the breakdown of categories of hunting injuries in NY between 1989 and 1995:

Mistaken for game -        35%

out of sight -                22%

in line of fire -                17%

Unintentional discharge -  11%

Struck by ricochet -        10%

Other/unknown -            5%

I don't think I am the only one who has noticed that most of the time, I only have to see a small flicker of that color to know that there is a hunter over there. I very seldom see the whole person first. It's usually that flash of orange through the trees that I see long before the guy is anywhere near me. Someone in camo?? ....... well I have already had it happen a few times where I never saw the guy until I was nearly in handshaking range. That's the kind of difference. Some of those categories above are situations where you can really picture that difference making a real impact. Particularly the first. I have yet to see an orange deer.

Just imagine what it must be like live with the fact that you have just shot somebody, whether you are being held criminally liable or not, whether you have insurance or not, even if it really was not your fault. I don't know about anyone else, but I would have a hard time living with that no matter what court (criminal or civil) declared that it was not my fault. Why would somebody put me in that potential position? Yes, it may very well be that it was his stupidity that made all that happen, but is he truly the only victim? Is he the only one to pay for his stupidity? I think not.

Doc

[Pygmy]

" I would hate to see what the carnage would be like if we didn't already have the voluntary compliance when it comes to B/O. JUST IMAGINE THAT !  There are some that would try to convince us that there would be no difference, but don't you believe it for a minute..."

What a bunch of alarmist BS THAT statement is..!!...

Evidently your memory is not too good... Remember the 50's and 60s when B/O had not even been invented yet....??.. Some fellows wore bright red, but the black/red checked Woolrich was kind of STANDARD hunting garb....Most hunting land was owned by local farmers rather than out of the area flatlanders or yuppies ( as it is today) and nearly all of it was accessible to hunting.. People drove deer... The woods were full of hunters and pumpkin balls were flying every which way.. However, as today..  A responsible hunter was a responsible hunter, and an idiot was an idiot..

Sure, there were a few hunting accidents, but they were relatively rare as they are today... Blaze orange was rare until the early 70s...I bought my first blaze orange hat around 1973 or 1974 when Pennsylvania mandated it....

To say that CARNAGE would result if less people wore blaze orange is a gross exaggeration... I spent enough time in the woods in both NY and PA before blaze orange was in common use,  with LOTS of hunters in the woods (probably more than today) and I never witnessed any carnage.. The local newpapers didn't report any either, and hunting accidents were big news back then, just as they were today....

[bubba]

go back and look at the data you so love and see how many accidents there were before orange and now.  Then go back and look at how many there were before hunter safety education and now. I think the numbers will surprise you.  How did the hunting population of NY ever survive each season before there was BO, when everyone wore either red or green plaid?  It is one thing to support your beliefs, but entirely another to be so narrow minded and biased, that what anyone else says in dismissed immediately and to make oolish statements like the carnage would be so tremendous without BO.  27 prcent of accidents were with people wearing BO. You say it is llow I say it is high.  That tels me it isnt the wonderful life saver you portray it to be.  Take your blinders off and see the whole picture. Again if I were so afraid of being shot or shooting someone, I would find another hobby, like video hunting.  You say how unsafe it is, but continue to do so.  Seems kind of to use  your word stupid.  It is not my job or any othe rhunters job to make fellow hunters safer. It is their own job.  And as the data shows when someone was shot, there was some illegal activity fgoing on, so the person had little regard for the sport or the rules.  it isnt the safe average hunter shooting other, it is the crimonal presenting themselves as hunters.

[Doc]

All right, let's go back in time without using the cloudy vision of aging and faulty memories and see how it really was:

"From 1965 to 1994, reported hunting injuries in New York decreased steadily from 157 (22.3 injuries per 100,000 licensed hunters) to 52 (7.2) and from 11 deaths to one death. In 1991, DEC reviewed hunting-injury reports and concluded that most hunting injuries were associated with violations of basic firearms safety rules. DEC also found that most hunters who were injured as the result of being "mistaken for game" or "in line of fire" were not wearing hunter orange at the time of injury ."

"In 1992, DEC initiated a campaign in New York to promote basic firearms safety and the use of hunter orange clothing through hunter education courses, meetings with hunter organizations, and advertisements in hunting literature. During 1992-1995, following the initiation of this safety promotion campaign, the average annual injury rate decreased 27% compared with the rate during 1988-1991."

This info only takes you up to 1995 and I think anybody who has been paying even a little attention knows that the most recent years have been setting new safety records. Yes, relatively speaking "carnage" may not really be too strong a term when you actually look at the facts instead of relying on old fond but failing memories.

Doc

[Pygmy]

"Relative speaking, CARNAGE may not be too strong a word".. ;D ... ;D ... ;D ..??...

Hehehehehe... Ok Doc... You are TRULY a piece of work...

Are you a real doctor...?? Are you a PHD...??... Until your last post I was figuring that you were maybe 16 years old...

I'll  give you a little...Believe it or not, I am not a REAL Pygmy...  I'm not a short little black fellow with a spear in my hand and a bone in my nose..

So when are you going to stop making  outlandlish statements so that we can start to take YOU seriously...??...

CARNAGE..!!??..Stop it... You're KILLING me... Hehehehehehe.. ;D .. ;D .. ;D ..

[bubba]

He isnt a doc but he plays one on the internet.  Go back further like the late 50s when hunter ed started.

[wztirem]

Doc,

You know the old saying "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it"

[bubba]

ok what history have I forgotten? All I said was go back further and look at before hunter ed was started. And per the doc's post the state started a campaign for more safety training not a blaze orange campaign.  So if I forget these facts I will get shot?  your post makes no sense.  I am not the one trying to alter the facts to make it look like bo is the saviour

[bubba]

I will bottom line ot for all of you. BO will never be mandatory in NY.  it is not warranted and we have so few incidents due to education that it is not significant to legislators to risk pissing off hunters who are voters.  Our previous vice president shot a colleague wearing orange at 28 yards.  It sure works well.  I would say there was a bigger problem there than orange is safe. 

[Doc]

"Relative speaking, CARNAGE may not be too strong a word".. ;D ... ;D ... ;D ..??...

Hehehehehe... Ok Doc... You are TRULY a piece of work...

Are you a real doctor...?? Are you a PHD...??... Until your last post I was figuring that you were maybe 16 years old...

I'll  give you a little...Believe it or not, I am not a REAL Pygmy...  I'm not a short little black fellow with a spear in my hand and a bone in my nose..

So when are you going to stop making  outlandlish statements so that we can start to take YOU seriously...??...

CARNAGE..!!??..Stop it... You're KILLING me... Hehehehehehe.. ;D .. ;D .. ;D ..

I'm sorry to see how crazy you seem to react in the face of actual facts and numbers. If I had known you would turn into a raving looney, I wouldn't have embarrassed you with actual data.

Doc