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

[Doc]

What amazes me is these people that shoot unidentified targets.  What the hell are they doing?  Who does that? Not anyone I know for sure.  I rarely if ever pickup my rifle or bow before I see it in plain sight or bino's.  Especially since I'm in a AR zone and have our own QDM in place, I need to properly identify what i am shooting  and if it meets my goals, my properties goals and the law.  Its pretty disgusting actually.

It's very difficult and even impossible to get inside the heads of some of these people who get so hyped up that they would think a human looks like a deer. However, it happens. I don't know how but it does. Another type of hunting mishaps is the deal where a deer runs between two hunters. That one is a scenario that I have often heard reported. That is just a case of using raw reaction and not even considering the consequenses. Both of these shooting circumstances would undoubtedly be helped with a blaze orange law. However, we will never be able to eliminate the hunters who seem to just completely lose their minds when they think there is a deer to be shot. Those people will continue to be a deadly problem. The only thing we can do in defense is to throw up a "red flag" or more exactly a "blaze orange flag" at the end of their barrel and hope it works in time to keep them from finishing off the trigger pull. It's about the only defense we've got against those out-of-control people, and it should be a legally mandated defense.

Doc

[bubba]

can anyone tell a scenario where someone was shot that there ws not some type of illegal activity going on?  According to the DEC there has not ben an incident where it was purely an accident in over 10 years in NYS.  In other words when people were shot, there was some type of illegal hunting going on and the morons made a goof in their attempts to break the law.  Over 50 percent of people shot, were wearing blaze orange.  I guess if the others were wearing it, they would not be shot?  Statistically, we have a better safety record than the states who do have mandatory blaze orange laws. Look it up and read the scenarios of the other states.  The majority say, I did not see orange so I thought it was a deer or bear or whatever else.  Anyone in the past three years who has been shot in NYS was shot for misidentifying a target not when they are in the background.  The years before, there was a man shot after a 20 gauge slug went through a deer. And guess what he was wearing BO.  In other words someone shot them for an animal and again over 50 percent were wearing BO.  So your arguments do not wash.  And again I ask if deer do not see BO why is it ever ony run through for regular gun season?  At 150 yards, I could just as easiy shoot you with my muzzleoader as my rifle, but I nor anyone else would have to wear it during ml season.  I have seen deer react to BO a few times.  On very private property, there were three of us hunting together.  Two of us wearing camo, one bo camo coat.  The camo wearers walked into a meadow.  On the other side of the meadow were two deer. We stood upright in the meadow maybe 150 yards away.  The deer did not respond at all.  When our third hunter in BO stepped to the edge of the meadow, the deer instantly popped up heads, flagged and ran off.  Hhe had not even get into the the meadow, and they spooked off. So I do not believe that anyone who is supposed to be in the know believes deer do not detect it either.  If they did it would beproposed to be mandatory for all deer huntng seasons.  I said it once and I will again. People become insane during deer season.  If you feel more secure in orange, so be it. If I feel secure in camo, so be it.  But in my opinion. it is a false sense of security.  It is like locking your guns if a glass faced gun cabinet.  It is locked but anyone can get in with anything that will break glass, or a screw driver to remove the hinges. Feel free to cu tme down or whatever else.

[Doc]

Anyone in the past three years who has been shot in NYS was shot for misidentifying a target not when they are in the background. 

Nope, that's not true. I know of at least one case where there was no mis-identifying the target and there are probably more. In 2008, in Swan Lake there was a 16 month old baby girl shot to death in her grandparents living room. That same year, there was a near miss with a rifle bullet passing through a crib mattress that an infant had just been taken out of. That one was in the Town of Marshall. So it appears that the stats are a bit flawed.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that blaze orange is like a suit if armor and will guarantee that slugs and bullets can't touch you. It is just a case of putting odds in your favor. Which to me sounds like a pretty good idea when we're talking about my life.

Doc

[bubba]

and the girl who as shot was shot while the hunter was hunting illegally and firing a gun too close to the home. For those who like to nitpick, I will clarify. Anyone who was shot in the woods not in their homes was shot as due to a misidentification for a game animal.  I hope this clarifies it.  And anyone else who was shot was shot during an illegal move on the part of the shooter, unless you know more than the dec who investigate the incidents. 

[wztirem]

Anyone in the past three years who has been shot in NYS was shot for misidentifying a target not when they are in the background. 

Nope, that's not true. I know of at least one case where there was no mis-identifying the target and there are probably more. In 2008, in Swan Lake there was a 16 month old baby girl shot to death in her grandparents living room. That same year, there was a near miss with a rifle bullet passing through a crib mattress that an infant had just been taken out of. That one was in the Town of Marshall. So it appears that the stats are a bit flawed.

I don't think anyone is trying to say that blaze orange is like a suit if armor and will guarantee that slugs and bullets can't touch you. It is just a case of putting odds in your favor. Which to me sounds like a pretty good idea when we're talking about my life.

Doc

Doc, I am a firm believer in devices that have built in exponential  safety factors. There is no doubt that hunters who choose to wear some form of blaze orange while hunting increase the safety factor when it comes to hunting. I would hate to imagine what the outcome would be if everyone gun hunted in camo.

[Doc]

Scary thought, isn't it? I don't think NYS would be enjoying the excellent safety record that we now have. It is good that nearly all hunters have a fair level of common sense.

[bubba]

then why is our record better than the states with mandatory orange?  Because we wear orange? hmm

[wztirem]

Perhaps there is a documented scenario where a hunter completely dressed in camo is wounded by another hunter despite all efforts by the shooter to identify his target and backdrop. If the hunter in the background was wearing some form of B/O the shooter would not have taken the shot.

As you can imagine the shooter is in big trouble! Hopefully the wounded hunter is not killed and makes a full recovery.

You can argue all you want but B/O saves lives!

[bubba]

If you find that scenario plese post it again my questions is not answered. How are we safer than the states where orange is mandatory?

[wztirem]

Perhaps those states mandating B/O have done so to protect hunters from the distinct possibility of being accidentally shot. Statistics aside, why allow the scenario of insanity now and the possibility of serenity later (forever) for some unfortunate hunter who should have known better.

We can argue forever concerning this subject, all I can say is "good luck" hunting and perhaps one day you may see me during gun season all decked out in orange! Be sure to wave,thanks!

[bubba]

a great dodge end of story

[Campwildwood]

a great dodge end of story

I agree Bubba. They can twist and convolute a subject, but the FACT remains that it has not been proven that B/O is the cure for all. We do not need to mandate B/O orange, we just need hunters to identify their targets and beyond. As Doc wanted to make a case concerning the 16 month old child, he willingly left out the FACT that the hunter hunted over a bait pile, trespassed and was within 500 ft of a home, better yet, the house was in plain view when he shot at the deer. In other words, Doc's response has nothing to do with B/O in that case and was pointless to bring up, again in the topic of B/O.

[Campwildwood]

Perhaps there is a documented scenario where a hunter completely dressed in camo is wounded by another hunter despite all efforts by the shooter to identify his target and backdrop. If the hunter in the background was wearing some form of B/O the shooter would not have taken the shot.

As you can imagine the shooter is in big trouble! Hopefully the wounded hunter is not killed and makes a full recovery.

You can argue all you want but B/O saves lives!

The scenario makes sense, but the data doesn't support it.

[bubba]

dont give maybe's give definitely's.  The data would suggest that it isnt better wearing orange, in fact it is shows it is not as safe, if a state where it is mandated has more accidents per hunter than a state where it is not mandated.  We simply do not have the incidents where it would even be considered to make it mandatory. In other words not enough poeple get hurt in a year to make anyone care.  When your debates start with perhaps or maybe, there is no fact in it, just theory.  I feel that bo is as big a gimmick as having the have the newest camo patterns to hunt.  Two questions  1 How did people ever go to the woods and hunt before there was blaze orange and ever get home?  2 If BO is safer how do more people get shot in it then out of it?  I realize no one will actually answer these questions with fact because there is no fact to answer them with.  And the real ianswer no one will say because it disproves your theory. wztirem you said I can argue allI want but the fact is BO saves lives. Show me the data to prove that because all the Data I get from DEC and form other ststes shows it is actualy not the case. Prove it to me.

[Doc]

As Doc wanted to make a case concerning the 16 month old child, he willingly left out the FACT that the hunter hunted over a bait pile, trespassed and was within 500 ft of a home, better yet, the house was in plain view when he shot at the deer. In other words, Doc's response has nothing to do with B/O in that case and was pointless to bring up, again in the topic of B/O.

My response was a correction to an incorrect statement of statistics. I never said that it was anything more than that. As far as the illegality of the acts surrounding the shooting, is irelevant to the the statement that I was correcting.

Doc

[Doc]

Perhaps there is a documented scenario where a hunter completely dressed in camo is wounded by another hunter despite all efforts by the shooter to identify his target and backdrop. If the hunter in the background was wearing some form of B/O the shooter would not have taken the shot.

As you can imagine the shooter is in big trouble! Hopefully the wounded hunter is not killed and makes a full recovery.

You can argue all you want but B/O saves lives!

The scenario makes sense, but the data doesn't support it.

Really? I've been looking all over for that kind of data that you are alluding to. So far I have not been able to find it for NYS. PA .... yes, NYS ..... no.  Could you point me to the place where I can find that sort of thing? Is there an internet link or something where you found that info?

Doc

[Campwildwood]

"Really? I've been looking all over for that kind of data that you are alluding to. So far I have not been able to find it for NYS. PA .... yes, NYS ..... no.  Could you point me to the place where I can find that sort of thing? Is there an internet link or something where you found that info?

Doc"

Well Doc, let me just respond the way you have when someone ask's you the same question, "First of all let me tell you that I'm not paid to do your research. If you are interested, do your own work."

[Campwildwood]

"Good points, I think about that scenario each time I am hunting. How about the guy in full camo who is still hunting and just like a deer he materializes from anywhere. It  makes my heart skip a beat!"

I agree, but does your reactions cause you to swing your firearm and shoot that target that mysteriously appears without confirming what it is? Do you shoot at a moving bush and "ground check" what you've killed? These are the cases that have happened in the last couple of years here in NY. Hunters who shoot without identifying the target, hence a high rate of deaths/injuries during deer drives every year, in which some of these hunters are wearing B/O & the shooter is WELL aware his/her hunting companions are in close proximity. I believe that many hunters like myself believe that wearing B/O makes sense, but don't think that making it mandatory will automatically save more lives. In some states, the opposite has occured. Its also interesting to point out that some of injuries caused by the shooter was in the process of doing an illegal act to begin with, therefore if such law was passed would some how give these individuals and others a false sense of reassurance that if the target that he/she is shooting at doesn't have B/O, theres no futher need to identify the target. Again, if proponents are so concern for fellow hunters lives, then B/O must be mandated for all individuals (non hunters as well) entering any field, yard (sense a hunter shot at a deer within 500" of a home), woods, trail, etc. during ANY firearm season including varmit/predator, turkey, waterfowl season. Right?

[Doc]

"Really? I've been looking all over for that kind of data that you are alluding to. So far I have not been able to find it for NYS. PA .... yes, NYS ..... no.  Could you point me to the place where I can find that sort of thing? Is there an internet link or something where you found that info?

Doc"

Well Doc, let me just respond the way you have when someone ask's you the same question, "First of all let me tell you that I'm not paid to do your research. If you are interested, do your own work."

First of all, when I made that reply, it was because I was being asked to commence some new research. Your statement indicated that you had already done the research and had some data already. Not the same situation is it?

However your reply confirms what I already thought.  You undoubtedly never have seen any such info either. So when you say that the data doesn't support the scenario that wztirem laid out, you really don't have a clue what the data supports do you?

[wztirem]

then why is our record better than the states with mandatory orange?  Because we wear orange? hmm

W Hunting Big Game

Forty states require the wearing of hunter orange while hunting (pdf). ... In states where mandatory hunter orange laws have been enacted, there has been a ...

www.dfw.state.or.us › ... › Hunting Resources › Big Game - Cached - Similar

[bubba]

how does one read the article?  It is one sentence and no link.

[Doc]

then why is our record better than the states with mandatory orange?  Because we wear orange? hmm

W Hunting Big Game

Forty states require the wearing of hunter orange while hunting (pdf). ... In states where mandatory hunter orange laws have been enacted, there has been a ...

[/color]www.dfw.state.or.us › ... › Hunting Resources › Big Game - Cached - Similar

Thanks for the info Bill. Now I guess we know just exactly what the data does support at least as far as the impact of blaze orange on hunter accidents.

Buried in that site, I found a link that is specific to New York State. Down at the bottom is a chart that breaks down the categories of hunting accidents between 1989 through 1995 and specifically whether the victims were wearing orange or not. It is kind of shocking, and while logic should have prepared me a bit, I did not expect the results to be quite that stark. the first category was "Mistaken for game". The number of victims wearing orange was 6. The number not wearing orange was 117.  The totals were 84 victims wearing orange and 259 not wearing orange. The link for that study is:

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/docs/Hunting_Associated_Injuries_and_Wearing_Hunter_Orange_Clothing.pdf

I have been looking for this kind of data for a long time and thank you for digging it out. What this does show me is that I need to sharpen up my internet search skill a whole bunch .... ;D

Thanks again for sharing that info.

Doc

[wztirem]

Isn't the Internet wonderful?

[Doc]

Isn't the Internet wonderful?

Yeah, but not so much when you have impaired search abilities as I apparently do.

Anyway ...... thanks for the link. The info was fascinating.

Doc

[wztirem]

Isn't the Internet wonderful?

Yeah, but not so much when you have impaired search abilities as I apparently do.

Anyway ...... thanks for the link. The info was fascinating.

Doc

   

Search Results   

  [*]  SEO - Fatal Treestand Accidents  On-line resource for outdoor activities. Fatal Treestand Accidents.

www.southeasternoutdoors.com › ... › Hunting - Cached - Similar

  Doc, All; Check out this link!