Seriously

[nyantler]

I think the argument against madated BO is much the same as the argument most have for AR's... why should the State decide what we have to wear? If the argument is that its because it would be safer for all... then the same argument could be made for being selective about what buck we take... having to identify a buck and the size of his antlers ensures that the hunter knows and has identified his target.. which we all agree is safer and reduces the chance of shooting something other than a deer... so if increased safety is what we're looking for with mandated BO.. then we must look at mandated AR's as an additional safety procaution that should be mandated as well. I'm sure most won't see it this way... but if we're saying that safety is a reason to mandate then we must consider all means of ensuring safety... not just cherry picking the ones we like.

My eyesight is beginning to fail a bit and for my own purposes and the safety of others I will be having them checked and do what is necessary to fix that problem... Should I be required by law to wear glasses or install a scope on my gun? This is the road we go down when we're talking about creating new laws and limiting the choices of people... I absolutely see Docs points and agree with his concerns... but I'm just not ready for the State to be the one to dictate the solution.

[Dave]

I think the argument against madated BO is much the same as the argument most have for AR's... why should the State decide what we have to wear? If the argument is that its because it would be safer for all... then the same argument could be made for being selective about what buck we take... having to identify a buck and the size of his antlers ensures that the hunter knows and has identified his target.. which we all agree is safer and reduces the chance of shooting something other than a deer... so if increased safety is what we're looking for with mandated BO.. then we must look at mandated AR's as an additional safety procaution that should be mandated as well. I'm sure most won't see it this way... but if we're saying that safety is a reason to mandate then we must consider all means of ensuring safety... not just cherry picking the ones we like.

My eyesight is beginning to fail a bit and for my own purposes and the safety of others I will be having them checked and do what is necessary to fix that problem... Should I be required by law to wear glasses or install a scope on my gun? This is the road we go down when we're talking about creating new laws and limiting the choices of people... I absolutely see Docs points and agree with his concerns... but I'm just not ready for the State to be the one to dictate the solution.

Joe, that's a stretch even for you don't you think. Why don't we take it one step further to insure our safety and just ban everything. Then we would all be safe, no guns, no hunting etc. How idiotic does that sound. We are responsible for our own safety, an common sense don't you think.

[nyantler]

Joe, that's a stretch even for you don't you think. Why don't we take it one step further to insure our safety and just ban everything. Then we would all be safe, no guns, no hunting etc. How idiotic does that sound. We are responsible for our own safety, an common sense don't you think.

That was my point exactly... it's not only a stretch.. it almost reaches the point of ridiculous.

[First-light]

Bubba,

Wearing BO does not give me a false sense of security. I know damn well that another hunter will see me at 100 yards before he would see me wearing camo. Do I have control over that hunter raising his gun and shooting me, no. I do have control over the people that hunt my property and I know they wear BO as I do. In your neck of the woods there are less hunters than the ST. That is why you see less accidents. This is also why I have a huge problem with people trespassing, they are usually not wearing BO and are breaking the law.

[Dave]

That was my point exactly... it's not only a stretch.. it almost reaches the point of ridiculous.

Joe, sorry if I misinterperted your post.

[nyantler]

Joe, sorry if I misinterperted your post.

No problem dave.. Merry Xmas

[Dave]

No problem dave.. Merry Xmas

To you and your family too Joe, Have a Happy and Healthy Christmas and New Years.

[ncountry]

I think the argument against madated BO is much the same as the argument most have for AR's... why should the State decide what we have to wear? If the argument is that its because it would be safer for all... then the same argument could be made for being selective about what buck we take... having to identify a buck and the size of his antlers ensures that the hunter knows and has identified his target.. which we all agree is safer and reduces the chance of shooting something other than a deer... so if increased safety is what we're looking for with mandated BO.. then we must look at mandated AR's as an additional safety procaution that should be mandated as well. I'm sure most won't see it this way... but if we're saying that safety is a reason to mandate then we must consider all means of ensuring safety... not just cherry picking the ones we like.

My eyesight is beginning to fail a bit and for my own purposes and the safety of others I will be having them checked and do what is necessary to fix that problem... Should I be required by law to wear glasses or install a scope on my gun? This is the road we go down when we're talking about creating new laws and limiting the choices of people... I absolutely see Docs points and agree with his concerns... but I'm just not ready for the State to be the one to dictate the solution.

Wow ,I am in agreement. I hate it when someone writes something that makes one question his own beliefs. I dislike any new and 1/2 the existing laws that over protect us today. I wear bo when hunting in a highly hunted area, but if I want to walk out back and go hunting without bo it ought to my prerogative. At the same time I like the AR. I guess if I stick to my beliefs I would just have to hope my neighbors and family start passing up some smaller bucks on their own(like that is going to happen) oh well.

Wishing every one has happy holidays!!

Edited December 24, 2011 by ncountry

[wztirem]

Mandatory blaze orange can saves lives. Life is precious. Such a law is necessary. I just hate to read the reports of a hunter being wounde/killed because the shooter never saw the hunter because he was dreesed in camo. What a cross to bear for someone involved in such an accident. Is killing a deer that important to potentially risk being a victim of a hunting accident. I think not.

[Doc]

Mandatory blaze orange can saves lives. Life is precious. Such a law is necessary. I just hate to read the reports of a hunter being wounde/killed because the shooter never saw the hunter because he was dreesed in camo. What a cross to bear for someone involved in such an accident. Is killing a deer that important to potentially risk being a victim of a hunting accident. I think not.

I have made this point so often, I am tired of repeating it. There are still some folks who think that just like the seat belt law, this is a major stepping stone to the destruction of democracy and the beginning of a police state. I can't fight logic like that ..... lol.

[Pygmy]

LOL all you want, Doc...

Some of us still choose to support our basic freedoms...

There aren't a whole lot of them left...

[SteveB]

Making it mandatory will not ensure a higher compliance rate then it is currently especially with our enforcement arm stretched as thin as it is. Think how many people you see driving with a cell phone to their ear or without a seat belt. And those trespassing or poaching are not going to be concerned with a BO law.

I have heard that NYS voluntary rate of BO is actually higher then many states where it is mandatory - what makes anyone think making it mandatory here will result in any real rise in the rate of usage? We cannot legislate common sense and anyone thinking so is delusional in that area. A new law that will result in no statistical change in the accident rate is nothing more then another "feel good" law, of which we are overburdened with now.

Edited December 24, 2011 by SteveB

[bubba]

yup it is always the poachers and tresspassers whio choose not to wear bo Like it is the archers who wound all the deer.

[Doc]

LOL all you want, Doc...

Some of us still choose to support our basic freedoms...

There aren't a whole lot of them left...

Well, I really don't want to turn this thread into a philosophical debate on the need for a sysytem of laws, but let's just leave it at the fact that I am not an anarchist and do still believe that there are some laws that are useful and that not all laws result in a doomed democracy. There are excesses in both to gentle or too harsh, but I personally do not see a blaze orange law as rising to the alarming level of despotism.

[Doc]

Making it mandatory will not ensure a higher compliance rate then it is currently especially with our enforcement arm stretched as thin as it is. Think how many people you see driving with a cell phone to their ear or without a seat belt. And those trespassing or poaching are not going to be concerned with a BO law.

I have heard that NYS voluntary rate of BO is actually higher then many states where it is mandatory - what makes anyone think making it mandatory here will result in any real rise in the rate of usage? We cannot legislate common sense and anyone thinking so is delusional in that area. A new law that will result in no statistical change in the accident rate is nothing more then another "feel good" law, of which we are overburdened with now.

If a law's validity hinged on a necessary 100% compliance, this country would have no laws at all.

As far as the assumption that there would be no statistical change in the accident rate, I simply don't agree with that. The numbers that I saw on the web-page that I referenced before tell me that there would be a positive impact.

As far as the statement that compliance is higher here than states that have mandatory B/O laws, I have to have that proven to me. I know there are a lot of these kinds of statements that are simply folk legend and have absolutely no basis in fact.

[nyantler]

Of 29 fatal hunting accidents in the last 10 years in NY.. 15 were mistaken for deer or other game and were not wearing any orange.. another was in the line of fire and killed (no orange).... but 13 of the 29 were not even visual related fatalities...

I am assuming those 13 were probably not related to shootings but to other factors.. like treestand falls and such... seat belt requirements maybe for treestand use? Or better yet outlaw treestands all together? Or treestands only 4 feet off the ground? With nearly half of all hunting fatalities coming from non blaze orange related incidents, shouldn't we be just as concerned about creating laws to avoid those deaths as well? Of course not...the list would become endless... continuing good safety education is always going to be the answer to keeping the number of hunting fatalities down without taking away the freedom of choice that so many of us claim to charish. That in no way means that I am against wearing blaze orange while gun hunting... we just can't continue to cherry pick one thing over another... there will always be those that will continue to throw a wrench in the works for any activity and create some percentage of undesirable incidents... that won't change no matter how many laws are created...

[Mike G]

How about those Giants!

[SteveB]

Great post Joe!!

Should be good for another 5 pages.

[bkln]

How about those Giants!

LOL, You beat my Jets so I don't like you :-)

[nyantler]

Great post Joe!!

Should be good for another 5 pages.

LOL.. legit question about the treestands, don't ya think??... Just trying to show how out of hand things can get if we just start making knee jerk reaction "feel good" laws... I'm sure I'll get the "he hates treestands" comments now...for the record I don't hate treestands at all...

[growalot]

OL.. legit question about the tree stands, don't ya think??..

Well of course not....for when you don't strap in or tie off in a tree stand the only one you hurt "physically" is your self....Oh wait...or the guy in full body camo that could possible snuck in under you that ya fell on...lol

Not wearing B/O could cause another to either shoot you or if they are in camo you shoot them ..that is the problem with your logic...your not just putting your self in harms way....look at the guy who shoot his buddy...then himself out of distress

[nyantler]

Well of course not....for when you don't strap in or tie off in a tree stand the only one you hurt "physically" is your self....Oh wait...or the guy in full body camo that could possible snuck in under you that ya fell on...lol

Not wearing B/O could cause another to either shoot you or if they are in camo you shoot them ..that is the problem with your logic...your not just putting your self in harms way....look at the guy who shoot his buddy...then himself out of distress

Yeah I already made that point earlier... its not good logic..that was the idea of the post...I thoroughly expected that some of you were not going to be paying attention.. and take the attack the poster route.. instead of getting the point...

You, of all people, I thought would want less DEC intrusion based on how you don't like how they handle your complaints... what makes you think they would handle enforcing a mandatiry BO law any differently? I understand that the law would make everyone "feel good"... but my point is why stop there?... lets just start picking apart all the issues everyone complains about and just start hammering out more and more laws to save us from ourselfs... starts to get a bit out of hand IMO

Maybe it would just be easier if we all just played video games instead and every time you kill a deer in the video the DEC goes out and kills a real deer for you... then we'll all be completely safe and nothing will be left to chance.

[growalot]

Because I of all ppl have actually pulled up on deer and had orange pop up just beyond the deer as I was about to pull the trigger....those moments tend to stick with you...the first time the guy got a younger less aggressive version of me in his face...telling me that he was on our land because he saw all the trucks leave....no you can't fix dumb and in his case a different result may have been to the betterment of the genetic pool ...but then I would have had to live with it for the rest of my life...and it could have been me for he was hunting as well...we both had orange on...hunting in hill country...this and last year I encountered two guys from lease next door...one wears and orange vest and his partner absolute camo head to toe during gun....and not carrying cells...for when I popped up in my stand...the on with orange had to hustle along the property line to retrieve his camo friend and high tail it out of there...same ones that told me to go blank my self last year when hunting next to the chicken coop...if a deer had popped up ..I could have easily been shooting directly at the camo guy due to the angle of the property line...and never seen him

[bubba]

Nah I cant do it

[WNYBuckHunter]

Well of course not....for when you don't strap in or tie off in a tree stand the only one you hurt "physically" is your self....Oh wait...or the guy in full body camo that could possible snuck in under you that ya fell on...lol

Not wearing B/O could cause another to either shoot you or if they are in camo you shoot them ..that is the problem with your logic...your not just putting your self in harms way....look at the guy who shoot his buddy...then himself out of distress

Actually, if you fall out of your tree stand and become paralyzed or die, it affects a heck of alot more people than just you, so its completely comparable to a BO law.