fatal shooting in st lawrence county last evening.

[First-light]

Bubba,

So why doesn't NY have a mandatory reg on this? Well there are only 10 states that don't require BO and NY is one of them. I don't know why the DEC doesn't mandate it. We are in the minority here. Study after study shows that after mandating BO vision related accidents reduce dramatically. So you know what, I don't have an answer for you. Maybe the politicians own stock in realtree camo! lol

[bubba]

I am simply saying if it is the right way to hunt one would think that NY would jump on it. As told to me by officials form DEC, they are against it. I certainly am in the minority when I speak out against having it mandatory, so one would think the voice of the majority would speak up for it and get results. There must be a reason that NY has voted it down I believe three times now.

Edited January 28, 2012 by bubba

[First-light]

Yes I would think that also. Scratching my head on this. Here is a link to a pretty good study done in Oregon.

Pretty much what we know but backs up some stuff we talk about.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/safety/hunter_orange.asp

[dave6x6]

As Burt clearly pointed out. Bubba knew full well that he wanted to point out an accident that occured while someone was wearing bo. Thats why he mentioned it in the very first post. Then he calls Burt out when no one takes his bait. Then he rants that the thread has been hijacked into a BO debate. Then he continues to reply with 4 or 5 posts demanding that Doc answer his question on BO on the same thread he was bitching had turned into a BO debate.. WOW Hope this achieved what you hoped it would Bubba. Taking the loss of a mans life to spread you veiws against wearing an orange hat..

[SteveB]

Maybe because our incident rate is the same or lower then most states that have it mandatory?

Just asking - those convinced it would make NY safer should have those stat's showing our rate of compliance is significantly lower then where mandatory and a new law would make a statistical difference.

[bubba]

No that is not true at all. I wanted to point out that there are stupid people out there and wearing bo is not going to help all times and my other point is and remains that and this is a statistic from DEC over 95 percent of hunting accidents happen when the participants are breaking a law intentionally. SImple as that. Also I pointed out this accident as it was 20 miles from my home in the area I hunt in, the same as I posted about the eagle being shot within 2 miles if my home. I expect before that thread dies, I will be blamed for that. If you look back there are several hunting accidents pointed out where the point was no one was wearing BO and that was the intention of posting them. I do not see anyone being chastised for that. And I started this thread the morning after it happened, and I did not have information regarding BO at the time, as the investigation was just starting. I never mentioned about bo until I knew it as a fact from the investigators. So your theories do not wash as I did it intentionally. The bottom line is bo would not have made a difference when people are shooting at movement after dark. My initial post regarding BO was after Burt started another thread about the story being in NYON. Without the facts he posted about wondering if they were wearing BO. I responded. Take it for what you want, but if you think I am a crusader whos only purpose is to keep bo out of the hunting woods, you are so so wrong. Most of my responses are based on what I am told by people in DEC. And again my thought is and will remain it is a false sense of security. How many posts have you read on here where people say they were shot at wearing bo? Idiots are everywhere. I responded to a post that said the person scanned the area for bo when getting in the stand. I got my head chewed off for that when they proved my point people get conditioned to look for just bo and not to look for people. I still contend and honestly it is the DEC's stance that this scenario happens a lot. Just my two cents worth, but hey it is MY two cents. Take it or leave it. I have a thick skin and if I can not have a varying opinion without being chastised and told what my opinion should be, so be it. I can take it, but I will continue to give it back also. My honest opinion on BO. I can take it or leave it. But you guys all for it are only expressing opinions as well as I am. So do not cry foul when I return an answer. I have been told I am wrong stupid and should not be an instructor over this topic. If you look at my vicious return attacks as they have been called, you will not see any of that from me. But hey to each his own.

Edited January 28, 2012 by bubba

[nyantler]

Maybe because our incident rate is the same or lower then most states that have it mandatory?

Just asking - those convinced it would make NY safer should have those stat's showing our rate of compliance is significantly lower then where mandatory and a new law would make a statistical difference.

Good point

[nyantler]

Just a thought... turkey hunting accidents should be an issue as well... many turkey hunters have fallen victim to "accidental" shootings in NY... and 100% of those hunters were not wearing BO.. yet nobody is calling for mandatory BO for turkey hunters... we just ask that hunters be more careful about identifying their target.. why deer hunting and not turkey hunting BO mandate? My point is we like to cherry pick when it comes to these types of issues... if we're talking about BO being the end all be all for hunter safety.. then maybe it should apply to ALL hunting... we all know that wearing BO voluntarily might be a good idea but it is not the problem nor is it the real solution...

[Doc]

I have on no less than a half dozen posts added a link to the stats about blaze orange accidents vs. non-blaze orange accidents and anyone who wants to take the 5 minutes to access and read the stats wouldn't have to "guess" about the effectiveness of B/O. Also Burt's link to the article from Oregon does an excellent job of pointing out the same thing. It's all very clear for those that are truly interested in the subject. It's pretty much a no-brainer that B/O is saving lives. Does it eliminate all shooting mishaps. Obviously not, but we will never know exactly how many hunting shootings have been avoided because most are wearing B/O these days. Stats that study existing accidents suggest that it is significant. Should it be mandatory? ..... I guess I wouldn't complain if it were, but I am more concerned that people don't get away with belittling the importance of wearing it than I am as to whether somebody passes some law. I happen to believe that based on the stats, it would be a worthwhile law, some don't agree ..... I guess that's what makes the world go around. But understanding that there are newbies on this site that take some of these comments about ignoring a proven piece of safety equipment as gospel, I continue to challenge those views whenever I hear it. Probably always will.

[bubba]

yes we have heard all the newbie on here and all the influence we have on them over and over. I am sorry that you see my opinions as belittling BO. But I am entitled to my opinion about the true effectiveness of it. If that ruffles some feathers so be it. Again I have to ask if it is so effective why is it not mandatory and why is the DEC against it becoming mandatory? I again point out if the DEC was for it, it would have been law a while ago. Sya a lot about it I think. If that is belittling it, I guess I am belittling it.

Edited January 29, 2012 by bubba

[Doc]

yes we have heard all the newbie on here and all the influence we have on them over and over. I am sorry that you see my opinions as belittling BO. But I am entitled to my opinion about the true effectiveness of it. If that ruffles some feathers so be it. Again I have to ask if it is so effective why is it not mandatory and why is the DEC against it becoming mandatory? I again point out if the DEC was for it, it would have been law a while ago. Sya a lot about it I think. If that is belittling it, I guess I am belittling it.

Yes Bubba you are entitled to your opinion.

As far as your question about the DEC being against the mandatory B/O, I first of all have to say that I don't know for a fact that they are. I haven't really heard any official declaration one way or the other from the DEC. And second, if you have a question as to why the DEC feels a certain way about any subject, the best thing to do is to ask them. I am not a part of the DEC, and have no special knowledge about their positions or attitudes.

[bubba]

fair enough I guess. How about if I write them and ask and post the reply? Logically there must be a reason it has not passed here in NY and the one time it did, the governor vetoed it. Someone wants it to not be a law. Maybe the antis hoping we will all kill each other

Edited January 29, 2012 by bubba

[Lawdwaz]

I heard (rumor) that at one time they tried to right a description for a new law on BO but had it all screwed up with bowhunters and duck hunters all required to wear it! Lovely................................

Lets talk about making the shooting hours 30 minutes before sunrise to 30 minutes after, like PA and many other states.

I see PA hunters don't have to wear a back tag anymore, about time NYS went the same route.

[bubba]

only the southern tier has to wear a tag. In the north where it is much calmer we dont have to. As far as the hours you may as well. 90 percent of hunters do so anyway

[First-light]

As a good hunter you identify your target before you shoot. I remember a video I have from the guys that made Bowhunting October Whitetails. There was a video dedicated to gun hunting and the time frame you have to identify the animal you are shooting. It was kind of a split second identification process, dealing with shooting running game. Bubba's thought about blaze orange plays into this. If blaze orange was mandatory, In this scenario, I wonder how many hunters would shoot first, after not seeing any BO, and ask questions later. Now, I would hope all of us here identify first and shoot second.

[bubba]

Where did I ever say to shoot at running game. There was once in this state BO passed the legislature and Governor Pataki vetoed it stating it was the states stance that it will condition people to look for only orange before shooting, and this was a major concern, which was agreed upon with the DEC. SInce it has not been brought up for a vote again in NY I would say that is the stance NY still has officially. Just my interpretation. Feel free to google it and see. Those words were in the Govornors response with his veto. Again I am not for mandatory blaze orange, but if it were to become an issue in the legislature again, I would support it for all seasons to include archery and muzzleloading, not just pick and choose which ones there will be less resistance. If as the biologists all say deer do not see it, it would make sense to me that all people be as safe as possible, not just a chosen few. Most shooting accidents take place at close distance which can be done with a bow as well as a muzzleloader.

[Doc]

The reason that I heard that Pataki vetoed the B/O bill was that someone convinced him that if it was law, people would start shooting anything that moved and was not blaze orange. I don't place a whole lot of credibility in that thought and I have never heard a study of all those other B/O states where this has been shown to be anything other than somebody's pipe dream. At any rate, I would hope that such a study would take place before enacting (or vetoing) any B/O law to prove that one way or another. At the very least, I would hope that the decision would be made on something other than somebody's "theory". There's plenty of states out there that have mandatory B/O laws and there has to be plenty of data someplace for those who have access to it. Until that kind of a study is performed, I will stay with the stats that I already have seen that show that B/O saves lives, or put another way, lack of blaze orange costs lives.

[bubba]

yeah we can continue to go back and forth about this forever. Myself am getting tired of you typing the same thing then me typing the same thing. What it will be, it will be. Just stating the reasons the governor vetoed it and my reasons for stating if mandatory it should be in all big game seasons. You can see it as you see it and I will do the same. And my last thought if people obeyed the laws, 90 percent of hunting accidents would go away. So enforce the laws make people follow them, and lives will be saved.

Edited January 29, 2012 by bubba

[Lawdwaz]

only the southern tier has to wear a tag. In the north where it is much calmer we dont have to. As far as the hours you may as well. 90 percent of hunters do so anyway

Thanks for the green light bubba.

[bubba]

it wasnt an approval it was a fact.

[First-light]

Where did I ever say to shoot at running game. There was once in this state BO passed the legislature and Governor Pataki vetoed it stating it was the states stance that it will condition people to look for only orange before shooting, and this was a major concern, which was agreed upon with the DEC. SInce it has not been brought up for a vote again in NY I would say that is the stance NY still has officially. Just my interpretation. Feel free to google it and see. Those words were in the Govornors response with his veto. Again I am not for mandatory blaze orange, but if it were to become an issue in the legislature again, I would support it for all seasons to include archery and muzzleloading, not just pick and choose which ones there will be less resistance. If as the biologists all say deer do not see it, it would make sense to me that all people be as safe as possible, not just a chosen few. Most shooting accidents take place at close distance which can be done with a bow as well as a muzzleloader.

You never did say anything about running game, I was using an example of not seeing BO and shooting first. That was it.

[bubba]

identify your target and well beyond simple as that.

[ncountry]

Hey guys I have for the, most part ,enjoyed following your debate. Imo it just boils down to a choice. More laws to protect us against our own stupidity or enforcement of the basic laws we have. I think that it is proven that Bo saves lives. In that case does anyone stepping off of their property and going for a walk in field or woods durring big game season needs to wear bo? While in certain areas of the state it would definitely be recomended in others it is just rediculous. A good idea... yes...a new law no. This is the direction our society is heading in. Less personal responsibility more rules/laws. Cell phones/bicicle helmets/seatbelts/roadblocks (at least up here in stlawrence county every week some where in the county set up)1 hour at customs,etc... All to make us safer. True..but at what cost. Antler restrictions and 100lb deer restrictions would make things much safer also eliminating any quick shots. Where do we stop or start? Mandatory single shots... After hunting in the southern tier for a few weeks the last 4 years many hunters(not all) might actually learn how to take aim at a deer and not just unload their shotgun every deer sighting.

[bubba]

Ty Ncountry for being a voice of reason. Unfortunately like me you will be labeled a north country hick who knows nothing about how the real world works. BTW when was the last time you got shot at? That is why I do not go to the southern tier

[ncountry]

Ty Ncountry for being a voice of reason. Unfortunately like me you will be labeled a north country hick who knows nothing about how the real world works. BTW when was the last time you got shot at? That is why I do not go to the southern tier

Never been shot at yet ..But after hunting down there (Which I enjoy greatly). I can understand how someone learning to hunt in that environment(opening day of firearm,sounding like opening of duck )would push for Bo. Not that I would agree with them though .lol