Oregon Mandates Hunter Orange for Youth

[Mr VJP]

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.

[Doc]

Ha-ha ..... that's funny. The law is for minors only??? I guess once you reach a certain age nobody cares whether you get shot or not.....lol.

Well, they are one step closer to the other 37 states that actually show a little common sense and mandate B/O during their deer seasons. It takes a while to get past all the stubborness and all the conspiracy nuts that see B/O as the gateway to citizen slavery, but eventually, the stats begin to be something that simply can't be denied or ignored.

[Mr VJP]

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?

[wztirem]

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.

The last paragraph constitutes the author's opinion. I guess he perhaps would reconsider his last sentence if there was an increase in hunter shootings and fatalities. So then, lets ban B/O and see what happens. Sounds like a great idea(sic).

[bubba]

if anyone were to look at the game law book you get with your license, hunter orange is mandatory here for the youth mentoring program for 14 to 16 big game hunters. All you proponents should know that.  After all it is a feather in your cap to get us closer.  You geniuses should be aware of this data.

[Doc]

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?

Are we seriously saying that blaze orange will take us to a "police state"? Is that what all this fear of blaze orange is all about? Is this perhaps the slippery slope that someday will lead to mandated government uniforms? I honestly have a real problem with that level of paranoia. I hate to be so darn sarcastic because I do understand that these things are serious issues to some people but come on, let's reserve all the conspiracy talk for subjects that deserve it (and there are many).

I understand your point about the low percentages of hunters that wear B/O in Oregon. I'm not sure whether that means that the stats are flawed or whether the wording in this report is flawed, but obviously something is not right. What I will say is that if it is true that only 15% - 25% of the hunters there wear B/O, they really do have a serious problem and have a much greater need for a blaze orange law than we do.

I also noticed a pretty important question/answer statement that you failed to highlight:

Does wearing hunter orange reduce shooting incidents?

Yes. In states where mandatory hunter orange laws have been enacted, there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of vision-related (shooting) hunting incidents.

That's a pretty powerful statement that certainly shows no hesitation or ambiguity. Probably is not something to be passed over or ignored.

Look, I am not going to defend some study that I have never seen before, in a state that I know nothing about, but I am not surprised that the issue is coming up there as it appears to be the prudent thing to do as 40 (my number of 37 apparently has quickly become out of date) other states will attest to. I'm inclined to believe that all those states probably aren't wrong and it is likely just a matter of time before the rest wise up and take the obvious correct steps of mandating some level of blaze orange requirement.

Further, I have no fears that such laws in those 40 states and whatever additional states in the future, will lead to a police state, or have the storm troopers banging on our door. I see some real concerns that regard real government misuse, and a blaze orange law doesn't even show up as a blip on any list of those sorts of things. There may be some real arguments against B/O that I have not heard yet, but the one argument that has the least merit is government abuse and denial of personal freedoms.

Doc

 

[Mr VJP]

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?

[Mr VJP]

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]

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!

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not all that far out of agreement to some extent. However, I can name several such laws that are safety regulation that are designed to save lives that I would be pushing for today if they were not already laws. One has been mentioned before and that is the seat belt law. That one is exactly the same type of law as the blaze orange law that you are so adamantly against. It is a safety device that is made mandatory by the government and is designed solely for the protection of the individual only. However, I will tell you that my wife owes her life to seatbelts, and it's very likely that the only reason she had it on was that it was a newly passed law. That automatically makes me look at those kinds of laws in a different light. There are also a lot of safety items and equipment that we are forced by government to use in our cars that cost a whole lot more money than B/O. I don't hear most people complaining about that. I would imagine that there may be laws in place that require highway workers to wear those orange vests. If so, I'll bet they probably don't have much of a problem with it and they understand how important visibility is to their safety. If you are saying that all of those kinds of laws should be repealed in the name of personal freedom, then I guess we'll just have to accept that we will never agree on that.

Now, if you have some real nifty zoning law abuses you want to talk about, I think we can find some grounds for agreement on that subject .....

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.

Well, I seem to be having this difficulty in making the connection between blaze orange and tyranny. I try to make some constitutional connection with the blaze orange issue, and the stretch is so extreme that I really can't take it seriously. But then on the other hand, I think back to the several occasions when I have had these guys popping out of the brush during a deer season, and all I can do is shake my head and think how this guy is out there inviting someone to shoot him as though he has a right to do that. And then I think about those that say he has a right to be stupid. No he doesn't. Not when there is another party that can be innocently involved in his stupidity. As another thought, does he have the right to jeopardize the future and financial well being of his wife and children with his stupidity? How about if he becomes a ward of the state because of his stupidity? Does he have a right to my tax dollars too? I don't think so. Well actually unfortunately, I guess legally he does. So those that think he is only playing with his own life simply are not right. Sure I get adamant about that sort of thing. I don't want that guy to be playing games with hunting safety particularly as it may impact other hunters and innocent people around him. I don't think that people should always be allowed to skate out from under their responsibilities just on the basis that demanding him to do the right thing might somehow be super-stretched to represent his rights. Let's not forget the rights of those around him to be protected from the ramifications of his stupidity. 

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.

See, there are some aspects of that kind of argument that I see as being so far out that it ranks right up there with the other extreme end of the spectrum, namely the champions of spotted owl and snail darter issues. I start thinking about some of the extremism promoted by the ACLU as they twist and torture the legal system and try to bring about the out-of-scale responses to some rather inappropriate issues. It all has the same ring to it, but is simply coming from different ends of the spectrum. Blaze orange is not going to bring on the onset of an "oppressive regime". It is not going to cause fear and mistrust of the government. Honest, it's not ...... trust me. Those arguments don't even belong in a blaze orange debate. There may somewhere yet hidden away be some valid arguments against blaze orange but believe me none of them legitimately have anything to do with thwarting government oppression. 

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? 

We do already have laws against public intoxication. We do have drunk driving laws on the books. Heck, you can't even be out boating while intoxicated. Nobody complains about that except drunks.....lol. Booze is a highly regulated and controlled substance. And some of those actions do save lives. Is that a bad thing? Should those laws be repealed? I don't think so.

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?

You might want to talk to a few bartenders about their legal responsibilities when it comes to serving people who have already had too much. That scenario already exists. And I'll leave it up to others to assess how effective those laws are. I don't have the data to judge.

All this stuff may not have a whole lot to do with mandatory blaze orange, but it all does an excellent job of illustrating that a lot of those kinds of laws are really pretty good ideas.

[Doc]

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?

First of all, I doubt that is that case in all 40 states, but no, I didn't know that. But if we ever get a B/O law in NYS I hope that in some form that is a part of it.  Whether you include non-hunters or not would still have to be debated, but I wouldn't automatically rule it out without a whole lot of careful discussion. My guess would be that that stipulation is required to apportion liability as contributory negligence (probably for reasons of lawsuits). Of course you would have to examine the details of that stipulation of the law to see exactly what that means. I doubt that it means that the one being shot is going to be receiving a ticket.

[soupsamich]

Spending my entire life in Oregon I can tell you that the law is very unpopular.  If people have never been out west, Ill tell you its a little different and may not be totally understood. Much like coming here has been for me and the thought of tree stands. 

You can walk for days in the woods and probably never see another person while you are on public land.  If you live in eastern oregon and own a few thousand acres, which is fairly typical, you will only see who you invite. 

I agree with protecting our youth since they don't get to choose most things (like who their parents are).  But as far as adults, it is America and we should be free to make our own decisions if the outcome only adds to our own detriment. 

For the record, I always wear orange when I'm in the woods.  Id rather take my chances being seen by other hunters than trying to hide from them.

By the way, the popular forum in Oregon has gotten much nastier about this than the one here on both sides.  Entertaining reading

My 2 cents.

[Doc]

Spending my entire life in Oregon I can tell you that the law is very unpopular.  If people have never been out west, Ill tell you its a little different and may not be totally understood. Much like coming here has been for me and the thought of tree stands. 

Yup! That's why we don't get a vote about things that go on in Oregon. That is something they have to work out for themselves.

Doc

[soupsamich]

Unfortunately most of the voting in Oregon on these things come from people in portland who have never even seen life outside of a groomed nature trail with signs on where to go.

Still a good topic to argue/discuss. 

[Doc]

If Oregon handles such laws the way NY does, the good news is that such laws never get voted on by the general population. Most likely the only ones that will be heard on the subject are the hunters, or even more likely hunting organizations. I wouldn't worry too much about the general voting population. These kinds of things are seldom elevated to general referendums. If there is enough opposition, and the hunters feel strongly enough about the issue, they will flood the legislators with e-mails and phone calls and should have their way with the legislators that would propose, and vote on a B/O law and the Governor who may have to sign it. If the opposition is weak in actual committment or forms only a weak minority of hunters, the law will be passed. I doubt that the gentlemen hikers of Portland will have any say or impact at all. Of course that's assuming that Oregon lawmaking is similar to ours.

Doc