Would You Support a Blaze Orange Compromise?

[Doc]

Lol...what I get from this info is bo is magic.. protects me from accidental discharges,ricochets, etc....

Just a compilation of stats (accidents vs. blaze orange usage). You make of them whatever you want. some are relevant, some are not. But for those that want to apply a bit of logic and reasoning, they do tell the story that not using blaze orange definitely puts you in the wrong column.

[growalot]

I really wish you'd watch this all the way through.......

 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=huntered.video

[ncountry]

Just a compilation of stats (accidents vs. blaze orange usage). You make of them whatever you want. some are relevant, some are not. But for those that want to apply a bit of logic and reasoning, they do tell the story that not using blaze orange definitely puts you in the wrong column.

 

No doubt. The problem I find with these statistics, is that the whole column will be used in the defense of wearing bo . For 2/3s of the items,  wearing bo would have 0 impact.

 

 

I would think most reasonable persons would agree that wearing bo makes you more visible  I believe the discussion should be : Do we need to have it a law forcing us to wear bo.

 

Statistically  when entering the woods the chance of getting shot are not much greater than nil. Why would we support more restrictions upon ourselves?

 

Imho It make many feel better, weather it is justifiable or not. Not a lot different than all the other foolish laws and regulations that are becoming more and more prevalent.

 

I would rather live in a society that took some personal responsibility than one that feels the need to be babysat.

 

 

Someone mentioned helmet laws.  I ride a bike. Its safer to wear a helmet , but on the occasion that I have rode through other states . I have taken the opportunity to let the air blow through my hair, for a few miles, and take the chance of smashing my noggin on the pavement . Yet most of the riders I met wore helmets.

[fasteddie]

I thought he promised to stop posting on this thread?

 

Oh well, it is becoming quite entertaining, from an amusement standpoint.

 

Maybe he enjoys your Sarcasm .......

 

[wildcat junkie]

Just a compilation of stats (accidents vs. blaze orange usage). You make of them whatever you want. some are relevant, some are not. But for those that want to apply a bit of logic and reasoning, they do tell the story that not using blaze orange definitely puts you in the wrong column.

Logic & reasoning? That seems to be rare commodity, especially in the last 6 years or so.

 

And is it any wonder why even non-hunters that are not boo-hooing bambi huggers are getting a negative opinion about hunters?

 

The hunting/firearms related forums seem to be populated with a certain percentage of knuckle dragging loonies of the Ted Nugent sect that can only summon enough intelect to hurl insults & deny anything that resembles logic & reasonimg when it doesn't fit within their narrow minded view of the world as it should be.

 

I couldn't stand Nugent when I saw his slob hunting whack em & stack em trash years ago. The guy's a completely raving mad lunatic a$$hole that takes shots that no ethical hunter would take. Lord knows how many animals there were that ran off wounded & didn't show up in his white trash videos. He shits his pants to avoid the draft during the Vietnam war & poeple in the hunting community buy into his "patriot" bull$it?

 

He is not a good ambassador for our cause & the caliber of hunters that worship him are unfortunately the biggest loud mouths and they reflect on the rest of us. It seems that many in our community don't have the gray matter to realize this & they emulate his actions, thus causing even more public image problems.

 

I stayed away from these sites for quite some time because of this kind of drivel. Lately, due to my son's recent interest in deer hunting I have become more active. I'm sure he woiuld have a dim view of the conduct on these forums by the few imbeciles that make the loudest noises thus making all of us look like a bunch of ignorant beer swilling red-necks in the eyes of the non-hunting public.

 

I got news for you boys & girls, if we alienate the modertate non-hunting community they outnumber us & if we don't clean up our act they will exert pressure on the democratic process with results that we won't like.

Edited December 5, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[Doc]

No doubt. The problem I find with these statistics, is that the whole column will be used in the defense of wearing bo . For 2/3s of the items,  wearing bo would have 0 impact.

 

 

I would think most reasonable persons would agree that wearing bo makes you more visible  I believe the discussion should be : Do we need to have it a law forcing us to wear bo.

 

Statistically  when entering the woods the chance of getting shot are not much greater than nil. Why would we support more restrictions upon ourselves?

 

Imho It make many feel better, weather it is justifiable or not. Not a lot different than all the other foolish laws and regulations that are becoming more and more prevalent.

 

I would rather live in a society that took some personal responsibility than one that feels the need to be babysat.

 

 

Someone mentioned helmet laws.  I ride a bike. Its safer to wear a helmet , but on the occasion that I have rode through other states . I have taken the opportunity to let the air blow through my hair, for a few miles, and take the chance of smashing my noggin on the pavement . Yet most of the riders I met wore helmets.

Actually what is not reflected in these stats is the comparative percentages of those that wear blaze orange vs. those that do not. that overwhelming percentage of accidents involving those that are not using blaze orange is coming from a minority percentage of hunters, which makes them even more significant.

 

As to the argument as to whether blaze orange should be mandatory, I will leave that to others to debate. Like I said earlier, it would not break my heart if it became law, because like so many have already concluded, wearing blaze orange during a firearms deer season is pretty much the only sane thing to be doing.

 

However, do not think that the only victim in an accident are those that recklessly hit the deer woods trying their best not to be seen by fellow hunters, or those that think they are proving some kind of point about their "Libertarian" attitudes. There are families and friends left behind that have to go through the grieving process and frequently financial hardships when the breadwinner is suddenly removed from the family.

 

Also, the next time you draw a bead on a deer, take a look at the jumble of downed logs, trees and brush and ask yourself if you are 100% certain that  tucked back in there, there isn't some fool hunkered down there in his camo suit. Don't see anyone ....right? Well that's because we have some pretty good camo these days and it does what it's supposed to do. But then too, think what your life would be like if as you pulled the trigger you found out he was there by the scream when he was hit. I wouldn't want to be thrust into that scenario because some hard-head is out there demonstrating his "rights".

[wildcat junkie]

Maybe he enjoys your Sarcasm .......

 

Hey, I'm flexable. I can be civil & polite or I can be an a$$hole if I choose to be.

 

The key words here are, drum roll.... "if I coose to be"! It seems some unfortunate souls don't have that ability  to control their a$$hole factor.

 

If someone sets the tone, I can play it anyway they want.

[DirtTime]

We interrupt this mud pile of a thread to bring you the following special broadcast:

 

Well, reread this twice. All I really see is people having another pi$$in' match over a "What If" post. Reminds me of elementary school on the playground.

 

While trying to debate in here on a few things ( I learned quick, this place isn't worth getting all fired up over ), a statement hit me in the head like a brick: "It's always better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt!".

 

I tried to lighten it up, but it seems the bunched up panties have reached the brain and it will require surgery to remove them.

 

 

Now, you may carry on as usual........

Edited December 5, 2014 by JustRob

[wildcat junkie]

Actually what is not reflected in these stats is the comparative percentages of those that wear blaze orange vs. those that do not. that overwhelming percentage of accidents involving those that are not using blaze orange is coming from a minority percentage of hunters, which makes them even more significant.

 

As to the argument as to whether blaze orange should be mandatory, I will leave that to others to debate. Like I said earlier, it would not break my heart if it became law, because like so many have already concluded, wearing blaze orange during a firearms deer season is pretty much the only sane thing to be doing.

 

However, do not think that the only victim in an accident are those that recklessly hit the deer woods trying their best not to be seen by fellow hunters, or those that think they are proving some kind of point about their "Libertarian" attitudes. There are families and friends left behind that have to go through the grieving process and frequently financial hardships when the breadwinner is suddenly removed from the family.

 

Also, the next time you draw a bead on a deer, take a look at the jumble of downed logs, trees and brush and ask yourself if you are 100% certain that  tucked back in there, there isn't some fool hunkered down there in his camo suit. Don't see anyone ....right? Well that's because we have some pretty good camo these days and it does what it's supposed to do. But then too, think what your life would be like if as you pulled the trigger you found out he was there by the scream when he was hit. I wouldn't want to be thrust into that scenario because some hard-head is out there demonstrating his "rights".

Best post yet.

[Doc]

 

Now, you may carry on as usual........

Hey ..... Thanks for the permission.

 

To me the Blaze Orange debate is an important one and is worthy of discussion.

[L. I. Yankee]

Let's dispell the myth of "high light gathering scopes"

No standard optical scope "gathers" light. They ALL reflect light. The better the optics, the less light is lost through reflection.

A scope has 8 lens surfaces that can hinder light transmitance. (reflection)

If each surface reduces light tranmitance by 3%, that's 24% of the light that is lost or 76% light transmitance. If it only loses 1% for each surface it only loses 8% or it has 92% light transmitance.

Well you say, I can just buy a scope with a BIG oblective lens to "gather" more light.

Wrong! The relative brightness you see is due to magnification coupled with the "exit pupil" diameter. The exit pupil diameter is determined by the the diameter of the objective lens divided by the magnification.

So you buy a 3-9 power scope that has a 60mm objective lens. That gives you an exit pupil of almost 7mm. That should be brighter than the same scope that has a 42mm objective lens right? Not really. The human eye can only admit light through a 5mm exit pupil. the 42mm objective lens has a 4.7mm exit pupil while the 60mm lense only takes advantage of 5mm of the 7mm exit pupil. Almost all of that extra weight & bulk of that huge scope is a waste. The scope must also be mounted higher to clear that huge lens so it is more prone to getting knocked askew & it doesn't come to the eye as quickly.

BIG objective lens can not make up for poor optics.

2nd, the theory that blaze orange would case accidents because people would be shooting as long as didn't see orange is about as absurd as the crap about being trapped in a burning veicle by a seat belt.

For every life caused in the later instances, many more could be saved by safety requirements.

Another thing. How many of you can honestly say that if you were watching a trophy buck waiting for him to take one more step or change angle as the exact time of sunset lapsed, you woiuld take a shot 5 or even 10 minutes later when the opportunity presented itself? Would you reaaly pass even though there was plenty of light?

As far as I can see, the restrictions on some of the best times to kill a mature buck are far more restrictive than requiring somone to wear an orang hat.

What I am looking at here is a possible bargaining chip to convince the hand wringers in Albany to allow us to hunt during those most productive times like in many other states.

I have done it....when it's over its over. I play by the rules

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

[growalot]

Yes I have passed on a high racked 12pt...and untold smaller buck and doe at last light and just after legal...I have past 10's  and 8's plus numerous smaller buck and doe as they walked by during legal light on the neighbors land...ya no what ? life went on...I lost no sleep...... I'll not have, when my days on this earth dwindle to an end, any life regrets concerning this to dwell on.....

 

By the way...I'm also the type of person that has no desire to have the mounted heads of the deer I take lining my walls(BTW I've taken some very nice deer)...which is great for others...just not my thing....I hold every animal encounter whether it's killed or passed as a trophy encounter... tucked safely in my mind for later enjoyment.

[Lever action]

I have always wore B/O during the firearms season and I shoot as many deer as the guys in camo.

[wildcat junkie]

I have done it....when it's over its over. I play by the rules

Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

 

 

Yes I have passed on a high racked 12pt...and untold smaller buck and doe at last light and just after legal...I have past 10's  and 8's plus numerous smaller buck and doe as they walked by during legal light on the neighbors land...ya no what ? life went on...I lost no sleep...... I'll not have, when my days on this earth dwindle to an end, any life regrets concerning this to dwell on.....

 

By the way...I'm also the type of person that has no desire to have the mounted heads of the deer I take lining my walls(BTW I've taken some very nice deer)...which is great for others...just not my thing....I hold every animal encounter whether it's killed or passed as a trophy encounter... tucked safely in my mind for later enjoyment.

 

 

Good for you guys, the rules are what this thread is about. More to the point, trying to change an archaic rule. I wasn't trying to excuse hunting beyond the legal hours. I was also just trying to emphasize that it already happens.

Edited December 6, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[growalot]

WJ...you and some others could benefit from the realization that hunting is a match between you and the game...in this instance the deer...that inorder to enjoy all the bennifits of such a match the playing field should be at least some what level...IE what fun would a chess match between a novice and grand master be?

 

The deer have thier superior hearing and eyes and instictive knowledge to avoid areas at certain times.

 

We have all our technology and ability to reach out at great distances to kill them...what more do you want? them to walk up and kneel down? is there to be no challenge emotional ups and downs? Maybe we should just go out and tag them  and use GPS ...or You could find a farmer that wants to rid his farm and shoot till 11pm...you know tree farms can get nuisence buck tags..spot and drop there ya go...

Edited December 6, 2014 by growalot

[HuntOrBeHunted]

Dam near 15 pages later and guess what. You still don't HAVE to wear orange and people with or without orange on will still get shot. Numbers dont lie but some of you don't like facts.

[HuntOrBeHunted]

 

Data from NYS between 1989 and 1995

 

Reason for accident: Mistaken for game         5% wore B/O     94% did not    1% unknown

 

Reason for accident: Out of sight                    37% wore B/O   58% did not    5% unknown

 

Reason for accident: In Line of Fire                30% wore B/O   62% did not    8% unknown

 

Reason for accident: unintentional discharge  28% wore B/O   69% did not    3% unknown

 

Reason for accident: struck by ricochet           35% wore B/O   62% did not    3% unknown

 

Reason for accident: Other/ Unknown            44% wore B/O   66% did not    0% unknown

 

Total of all reasons                                           24% wore B/O   73% did not    3% unknown

 

Obviously, blaze orange is not a magic bullet that eliminates all hunting accidents. However, the numbers do show that the use of blaze orange does have a significant impact on safety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

[wildcat junkie]

The really interesting stat is the one that shows BO wearers are less likely to be victims of accidental discharge.

 

 

While the anti BO crowds points to this as an absurdity ("magic bullet") that discredits the statistics, perhaps it demonsrtates that those thay wear BO have a bit more common sense than those that don't & are therefore more likely to employ good gun safety habits.

 

I never clinb into a ladder stand with my gun & I make sure there isn't a bullet in the chamber when hoist the gun up with a rope.

Edited December 6, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[ncountry]

The really interesting stat is the one that shows BO wearers are less likely to be victims of accidental discharge.

 

 

While the anti BO crowds points to this as an absurdity ("magic bullet") that discredits the statistics, perhaps it demonsrtates that those thay wear BO have a bit more common sense than those that don't & are therefore more likely to employ good cun safety habits.

 

I never clinb into a ladder stand with my gun & I make sure there isn't a bullet in the chamber when hoist the gun up with a rope.

 

LOL.. Really ? That one did make me laugh out loud..

[Mr VJP]

Here's where I am on this topic at this point in this thread:

 

B.O. Should not be mandated by law, but it's foolish not to wear it.

 

B.O. is needed because some hunters are fools that will shoot at anything not having B.O.

 

The penalties for stupidly shooting someone while hunting are not severe enough.

 

The person shot is NEVER the guilty party.

 

B.O. necessity while hunting, is one of the biggest reasons non-hunters think hunters are idiots.

 

Hunters that chastise other hunters for not wearing B.O. have no more right to do so then motorcycle riders have to chastise other riders who don't wear a helmet.

 

If we allow legislators to pass laws to protect us from this type of stuff, pretty soon we will need to have life insurance to hunt and we will be wearing helmets in our cars.

 

The last thing I ever want to hear someone say is, "There ought to be a law!".

 

 

 

 

[wildcat junkie]

LOL.. Really ? That one did make me laugh out loud..

Laugh if you want, the stats are what they are & it certainly isn't the BO that makes the difference.

 

Please enlighten us with your opinion on why there is a difference. Maybe it's just a coincidence, maybe not.

 

It's certainly not out of the realm to suggest that those that voluntarily wear BO might be a little more safety conscious dispite the absurd posts that suggest just the opposite.

Edited December 6, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[jjb4900]

Laugh if you want, the stats are what they are & it certainly isn't the BO that makes the difference.

 

Please enlighten us with your opinion on why there is a difference. Maybe it's just a coincidence, maybe not.

 

It's certainly not out of the realm to suggest that those that voluntarily wear BO might be a little more safety conscious dispite the absurd posts that suggest just the opposite.

what's the point in decking yourself out in full camo if you're gonna wear a blaze orange hat, do the deer notice?

[The_Real_TCIII]

what's the point in decking yourself out in full camo if you're gonna wear a blaze orange hat, do the deer notice?

all my good hunting gear is camo so I wear it with an orange vest during gun season

[ncountry]

Laugh if you want, the stats are what they are & it certainly isn't the BO that makes the difference.

 

Please enlighten us with your opinion on why there is a difference. Maybe it's just a coincidence, maybe not.

 

It's certainly not out of the realm to suggest that those that voluntarily wear BO might be a little more safety conscious dispite the absurd posts that suggest just the opposite.

 

"demonstrates that those that wear BO have a bit more common sense than those that don't & are therefore more likely to employ good gun safety habits"

 

 

The above quote is what made me lol..

 

Imho.... debating weather bo should be mandatory is ridiculous......To me Tthe arguments for are the same type of arguments for gun control. We need to take some personal

 

responsibility in our own actions and safety. If we as a group feel that we need a law to protect us. we are screwed. We might as well hand everything to the gov. and ask for hand

 

outs when we are in need....

 

 

As i believe I said before it is foolish to hunt in some areas without bo, but If I want to do, like I commonly do, and head out back or hunt in the boonies below S Colton without bo

 

that ought to my prerogative..

[Doc]

By the way, I am guilty of violating one of my own pet peeves of posting data without identifying the source. So let me correct that now....

 

The address of the blaze orange vs hunting accident chart is: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/docs/Hunting_Associated_Injuries_and_Wearing_Hunter_Orange_Clothing.pdf

 

There was some other interesting little tid-bits in that article also. Some may want to look at the whole thing instead of just what I lifted out for re-post.