BuckAlley

I understand many feel too many laws limit our rights, and freedoms. Some I agree do, and some are not necessary, and only become a burden in society. But this Bill I feel is very important for all of us, becasue it is about our safety. I don't know if there's any numbers out there on how many do or don't wear orange in the woods. But wearing camo only is still quite popular in the northern tier. Like I said before I see it every year. I don't so much where I hunt in the southern zone now. My darn father in law still insists on not wearing any orange to this day, and he huntsboth zones. I've begged him to please least put on a hat, so I know where you are. NOPE! The law would force him too, and I'd say about time!
The bill reads 21 of 22 fatalities from 89-90 weren't wearing any orange. Ok that was 15yrs ago, but do you feel those odds have changed any from camo hunters to Orange hunters. Yes the accidents have lowered, but I'm sure the odds are the same. Of accidents occurred 90% were fatal to those not wearing orange. Of all hunter related accidents 64% weren't wearing Orange. As of 1991 40 states require Orange, why is NY always so behind.
Ok so let me ask some of you this. You feel itseveryones right of choice to wear orange or not. But you advocate to others to wear it. Does that make any sense? So what do you think of the hunter that still sticks to camo only, becasue it is his right? Like what, hey its his own fault if he gets shot?? Do you guys not ever worry when in the woods about not seeing that guy in camo, or not accidentally shooting him? I don't want this bill for my very own safety from injury. I want this bill so I know where your at every minute I'm in the woods. I don't want to accidentally shoot that camo guy that I didn't see, becasue he was so well concealed I never knew he was there. Even when I've identified my target 100%. What happens to that bullet after my shot I can't control. The last thing I want to do is shoot in the direction of some hunter that doesn't want to be seen. I don't want to go through the misery, arrests, lawsuits, court dates if I accidentally shot a guy, becasue he felt it was his right to wear camo. If that happens its my fault 100% right now not his. If this bill becomes a law at least it'd be part his fault for breaking it, and the penalties can be less to me. Obviously I hope this never happens, and I've been lucky enough to identify camo hunters, but as long as its a hunters right to wear camo the risk is greater for all of us.

Sylvan

A man dressed in camo looks absolutely nothing like a deer. I would never shoot a man inmistakeof a deer regardless of what he is wearing. Like I've said before, a guy in a deer costume could come running through the woods past a responsible hunter and his reaction would be "look at that idiot, he's going to get himself shot!". Ittroubles me that there are actually hunters that are willing to state publically that theymay not be responsible enough to distinguish between a man in camo and a deer before they make the decision to shoot. If you raise your gun to shoot a deer you should be absolutely certain that it is a deer BEFORE you raise the gun! If you can't do that, you shouldn't be hunting! Now if you're talking about shooting at a deer and then hitting a man in camo you didn't see in the distance I don't think this is even worth considering. This kind of accidentis EXTREMELY rare and I doubt bo would make much a difference anyway. Far and away accidents are the result of an irresponsiblehunter hitting what they are aiming at, not that of bullet traveling beyond the target and inadvertently striking someone. The shooter simplydoesn't make sure of the target. If you really want to lower the chances of a hunter aiming at a deer and the slug passes by the deer only to hit a hunter in the distance, then outlaw driving deer. That would probably be more effective in reducing that kind of accident than bo.
It makes all kinds of sense. As has been said, I/we feel its a good idea to wear bo, it quite obviously makes you more visible and therefore a little less likely to be shot by some idiot who isn't responsible enough to make sure what they are shooting at is a deer.It seems to illude those that argue for the lawthatthisisnot, or has it ever been, a bone of contention. The question is, every time somebody comes up with a good idea thatwill likelysave a fewlives do we make it a law? If the answer is yes, then you can just imagine how many regulations can/will comeabout down the road with this kind of thinking.
Here's just a few...
- must wear safety belt in tree stand
- must unload gun when crossing fence
- must take hunter safety course yearly
- must have eye examination yearly
- must pull gun up into tree stand with a rope
- if overweight not allowed to drag a deer (this one would probably save a lot more lives than bo)
- if overweight must regularly attendweight loss program or hunting licence is invalidated.

...without much effort it would be easy to generate dozens more.

Arguably, all of these ideas would save a few lives. When do we say enough is enough? I think we're already there! Sooner or later somebody is going to come up with the idea that we can save a few more lives if we just ban hunting altogether. We'll hire professionals to kill off the deer andeliminate these irrresponsible hunters.

stretchhunts

I agree if you can`t tell a hunter dressed in camo VS a Deer than you don`t need to be in the woods. I`d think the shooting accedents aren`t b/c the hunter doesn`t have orange on but b/c someone shot at movement. [&o]

jcchartboy

Certainly made a difference to this young gentleman that was killed in my home to Town this season. Two of his friends shot at a deer, they never even figured out which killed him...


I should also point out I am against the requiring hunter orange, however I think the original statement "it isn't worth considering" was simply ignoring fact....

Sylvan

I made a bad choice of words here. I didn't mean that anyone killed by such an accident was not worthy of consideration. Certainly the families of the fellow who died felt it was "worth considering". The fact does remain however,that this type of accident is extremely rare. I didn't saythis typenever happened but ifit were the only type of shooting accidentthat everoccured, I doubt we would be talking about a bo bill right now. Far and away, most accidental shootings are not of this kind but rather the hunter shoots and hits what he aims at.That was my point. That is a fact.

rather_b_huntin

I'd like to weigh in and stand with the views of NY Orange. I personally wear BO in the field, usually a vest and hat. I don't want to see it become law by any means. The compliance rate is so close to 100% already, and I don't believe the holdouts are going to go shopping for BO any time soon. I agree that there should be extra caution when you are getting ready for the shot. There are times that we are as certain as humanly possible that the shot is clear, but something goes wrong. I got slugs dropped on me this year by another hunter that was hunting the farm I was on. I can't blame him 100 % for it. I had a hard time beleiving that it was happening. He was over 400 yards away shooting across a cut cornfield that drops in elevation probaly 50-75 feet in that distance. I could clearly see the deer he shot at, could see where the platform stand he was in, and could clearly hear the slugs coming through my tree. I would have never believed the slugs would go that far, but the proof is in the pudding. Also, as a person that has made a living working in the outdoors as both a logger and as a surveyor, I would like to see the state keep some question in the minds of hunters as to whether or not the "coast is clear". I feel that if hunter orange is mandated, the mentality of "if I don't see orange, its ok to shoot" will become more prevalent. I always wear BO in the woods during deer season, even for work. However, its not unheard of for people to come out to meet us on site that don't have BO. I would just like to see the laws keep everyone safe, not just the hunters. Like the main opinion here has been stated. I'm no fool, I wear BO when I hunt,and I don't need any help picking out my wardrobe.Keep up the good work gents...its attitudes that most of you have here that keep me feeling safe when I'm out doing what we love to do.

SteveBNy

rather_b_huntin - One of the best posts I've seen on this thread.
Thanks
Steve

dvdegeorge

DITTO !

BuckAlley

Sorry guys I just don't agree. The majority of us are alreadly in compliance with this bill, so whats the big deal. It just seems to me although we all here agree orange is the by far safer to wear in the woods, and the majority of hunters wear it. Your all willing to accept that its ok for a hunter to wear camo in the woods whenever he wishes during gun season. Even though you wish everyone would wear orange you accept this hunters choice, and placing himself at greater risk without any responsibility for his decision to do so.
I've been trying to make it clear obviously we all know about identifying our target 100%. But theres no way we can ever be 100% positive of whats ahead of us that we cannot see. If the majority of hunters are alreadly wearing orange, can anybody here honestly say its not the first you look for when the sun rises, and your scanning the woods for hunters around you? Obviously we check every place we can see, but unless that hunter in camo moves you may notsee him.I don't care how rare shooting at a deer you've identified, and your bullet travels & hits a hunter in camo beyond your intended target type accident may be. Its still too much of a risk, and a risk that can be reduced by wearing orange.Are we saying we need camo hunters to be sure to identify our targets? How can anyone of us accept this risk if we can decrease it with a law.
I'm sorry guys but I never ever want to point my gun in the direction of another hunter thatI don't know is there, becasue he's wearing camo. If the bill reduces that chance even slightly I'm for it. If hunters still insist on not wearing orange in the woods to this day, and age. I feel its time they were forced too, it just might save their a**!!!

SteveBNy

BA - these points made by rbh are very strong and should also be considered IMO.

Steve