Hunters: Blaze orange clothing required - FOR SOME who are afield.

[Rick]

If the rational for wearing blaze orange is for hunter safety shouldn't it be either for all or none who are afield during small game season?

Here is what the MN DNR regs are:

  With Minnesota’s small game hunting season underway, conservation officers (CO) with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources report some hunters not wearing required blaze orange clothing.   “The blaze orange requirement is for safety,” said CO Marty Stage.

Small game season: At least one visible article of clothing above the waist must be blaze orange when taking small game, except when hunting migratory birds from a blind or on the water, wild turkeys, raccoons or predators, when hunting by falconry, when trapping (outside deer seasons) or when hunting deer by archery while stationary.

Discuss below - to view set the hook here.

With all of the exceptions it is confusing as to why they would have the regulation in the first place.

Either everyone is REQUIRED to wear hunter orange for safety (my preference) or everyone is left on their own to decide if the safety risks outweigh the benefits to bagging game. Instead of having the state decide who gets the exception to not be as safe.

If you are afield where there might be other hunters....how would you like to see it... Required to wear or nor?

[theharvester]

We used to hunt for pheasents and ducks at the same time this orange for small game is way over board .you should decide yourself if u want to wear it.

[Cliff Wagenbach]

I think it is just plain dumb not to wear at least a blaze orange hat while hunting small game!

Very easy to take that hat off and put on a camo hat when you go after ducks!

Cliff

[BobT]

I do think the rules are ironic. The state cares if you're safer while hunting upland game but if you're waterfowl hunting the state doesn't care if you're safe. 

[96trigger]

Pretty simple Bob, you are not moving when hunting ducks, you have a set up, on water, and are stationary.  People don't walk by you, and you don't usually walk by people.  Most people move around in wooded or grassland areas for the other types of small game. That movement can be mistaken for small game. Even while bow hunting land that borders public, I will hang an orange hat in the tree.  I've had .22 bullets go whizzing by me.  The obvious interpretation is that if you are moving, you should where blaze orange, stationary, no need. 

Edited October 9, 2015 by 96trigger

[BobT]

Pretty simple Bob, you are not moving when hunting ducks, you have a set up, on water, and are stationary.  People don't walk by you, and you don't usually walk by people.  Most people move around in wooded or grassland areas for the other types of small game. That movement can be mistaken for small game. Even while bow hunting land that borders public, I will hang an orange hat in the tree.  I've had .22 bullets go whizzing by me.  The obvious interpretation is that if you are moving, you should where blaze orange, stationary, no need. 

I don't agree that it is "simple" and I resent the implication. A wise man once told me, "Common sense is not so common." In other words, common sense is a learned understanding. 

We wear orange to be seen by other hunters to hopefully avoid a tragedy. We are required to wear orange while hunting deer whether on the move or sitting still in a stand. Admittedly, it's been a while and I haven't looked at the rules lately but if I remember correctly, one must wear orange if he/she is licensed to take deer and afield whether armed or not. I also believe one is required to wear orange while bow hunting during the firearms season but again, it's been a lot of years since I looked up that rule too. What about portable blinds?  Are they required to also display some orange? Seems it would be the smart thing to do.

I try to be aware of what is behind my target whenever I squeeze the trigger on my firearms. It would really suck to be out hunting deer and take a shot only to discover that I hurt or killed a duck hunter behind my deer that happened to be wearing camo and I was unable to notice him/her.

[theharvester]

You wouldnt get a duck wearing orange.they can see a lot better then you. How many people got shot duck hunting by a deer hunter ? None . Find something else to worry about .you could shoot a car behind your deer maybe we should require orange on a car . 

[BobT]

You wouldnt get a duck wearing orange.they can see a lot better then you. How many people got shot duck hunting by a deer hunter ? None . Find something else to worry about .you could shoot a car behind your deer maybe we should require orange on a car . 

Pretty defensive attitude. Let's just hope you're not the one that happens to be the first. 

[theharvester]

You obviously havent hunted ducks or hunted up north .how many accidents have happened per year very very few if any .other than deer hunting there is no reason to wear orange unless your driving pheasants or grouse with a group.i hope your not the first to shoot a car. This is going way overboard.

And i take offense that you say " i hope your not the first" comment.you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning or by a car than getting shot.

[Rick]

You obviously havent hunted ducks or hunted up north .how many accidents have happened per year very very few if any .other than deer hunting there is no reason to wear orange unless your driving pheasants or grouse with a group.i hope your not the first to shoot a car. This is going way overboard.

And i take offense that you say " i hope your not the first" comment.you have a better chance of getting hit by lightning or by a car than getting shot.

If that's truly the case then folks should only have to wear orange when deer hunting or when they are party hunting, right?

I know you aren't talking to me but as for myself I have duck hunted many times and many different ways. I do understand your point. It's no secret though, people do get shot duck hunting.

[theharvester]

Birds see color .even if you camoed they still sometimes flare.why would anyone think you should wear blaze orange waterfowl hunting?  

The only accident i heard one of the three guys in a canoe stood up and got grazed in the head by the other guy in the canoe. Would blaze orange done any good . No

[Rick]

Birds see color .even if you camoed they still sometimes flare.why would anyone think you should wear blaze orange waterfowl hunting?  

The only accident i heard one of the three guys in a canoe stood up and got grazed in the head by the other guy in the canoe. Would blaze orange done any good . No

Not arguing that point. I will repeat the question, asked based on your logic, that you did not answer when asked about your earlier statement....

If that's truly the case then folks should only have to wear orange when deer hunting or when they are party hunting, right?

If you prefer not to answer, here is a thought. If the State is going to mandate we wear blaze orange, it should be for anyone moving afield during hunting season unless you are in the process of farming.

[theharvester]

Because there are 400000 people hunting deer mostly in a week or two .

Where are all these people getting shot ? Ive been hunting 44 years and there is no need for this . Just more regs we dont need.

How many people died getting shot duck hunting? None you might get peppered but you have to be really close to get hurt. Just another reg we dont need

[Rick]

Because there are 400000 people hunting deer mostly in a week or two .

Where are all these people getting shot ? Ive been hunting 44 years and there is no need for this . Just more regs we dont need.

How many people died getting shot duck hunting? None you might get peppered but you have to be really close to get hurt. Just another reg we dont need

You're kind of off on a tangent here and almost totally missing the point of the original post. You still didn't answer the question I asked you twice now and the thought I gave you doesn't require you to wear blaze orange while sitting in a duck blind.

[BobT]

The whole purpose of the orange requirement has been (to the best of my knowledge) to be seen so that the chance of getting shot by another hunter is reduced. I pointed out the irony in how we are not required to wear orange any time we are hunting or afield during a hunting season. I haven't endorsed changing the law but only pointed out the irony of it all.

A lot of people, as a measure of safety will wear orange while out jogging or walking during the hunting seasons but it is not required. So the irony is that apparently the government feels they are safe enough since they are not carrying a hunting license as if the license somehow makes one a higher risk. 

I have hunted waterfowl and on occasion have been very close on the receiving end of a shot pattern because, like virtually every other hunter around the pond/slew, we entered into our blinds in the dark and did not know where other hunters were or even if they were there at all and they did not know where we were located. Having pellets slapping the water in front of you is not a comfortable place to be. The point being is it is possible. 

If it possible to hunt while wearing some orange, even waterfowl. Geese are notoriously cautious and able to spot a hunter in the field but despite that, any time I have hunted geese I laid right in the mix with our decoys with nothing more than my camo clothing. I'm sure they can recognize a human form laying on the ground but I believe most times it takes more than just color or shape for an animal to recognize a threat and in my lifetime I have proved that to myself too many times to ignore it. There have been times when they would land among our decoys and be walking around me and not realize or recognize that I was a potential threat close enough to reach out and grab them. One time my 9-year old daughter was with me when this happened. It scared the crap out of her. It's an amazing experience. I've had deer walk up to me from behind and sniff the back of my neck surprising me so much I dropped my bow on the ground. I was wearing no camo on that trip.

[theharvester]

I would like to see you lay in a field for geese with orange on.lol. and there are dumb deer too lol

[BobT]

I would like to see you lay in a field for geese with orange on.lol. and there are dumb deer too lol

That has nothing to do with this conversation.

[theharvester]

Neither does you having geese come in when your laying in a field.what does this have to do with blaze orange?

[BobT]

Touché. My reference to that was to support the idea that a little orange may not be that much of an issue. Admittedly, as you have pointed out, I have no experience to back it up.

My point has been about the irony of the law regarding the use of orange clothing. It's purpose is to provide protection against accidental shooting and yet the law allows for situations where the orange is not required. Seems like a double-standard to me. Don't you think so?  

[theharvester]

No .your chances of getting hit by a car are way higher than getting shot .how many accidental shooting accur.none or very few . Also when using a shotgun with birdshot you have to be close.i think the dnr put in the orange so they can see you in the field and or the metro has a lot of nuts down there .

[Rick]

No .your chances of getting hit by a car are way higher than getting shot .how many accidental shooting accur.none or very few . Also when using a shotgun with birdshot you have to be close.i think the dnr put in the orange so they can see you in the field and or the metro has a lot of nuts down there .

You may not understand the concept of irony or a double standard based on your statement.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Rick

[ANYFISH2]

Just trying to catch up here.

So what are we exactly discussing here?

The need for blaze orange or the "unfair" exceptions?

With the exception of waterfowl and turkey, blaze orange doesn't adversely affect a hunter in anyway.  However, it allows for great visability for other hunters, increasing the chance for identifying a shooting hazard in the background.  I fail to see a reason to dispute this regulation.

Waterfowl, turkey, as well archery hunting (outside of firearms season) have an exception. All of which are not hard to understand, these birds pick out color well and the firearms and ammo used in them are short range.  As far as archery deer, the short range thing comes to mind, however for my own safety I will wear blaze on public Land where small game is hunted, this is so others can identify me before they shoot.  At these short ranges 0-40yds any hunter worth their salt should be able to identify hazards in the aim of fire.

Again, what is the problem?

 

[theharvester]

Just more regulation .if there isnt any accidents why worry about changing things ?

[ANYFISH2]

There has been accidents.

Did you ever think the low number of accidents is a direct result of blaze requirements?

It is not like the small game requirements are new, I know that have been around since the 90's at least.

If you worried a out you used to being able to hunt pheasant ands ducks at the same time, your probably jump shooting anyway. what difference does a small amount of blaze matter in that situation?

[96trigger]

I agree with anyfish2, I'm not really understanding the irony, or the unfairness of who wears orange and who doesn't. The blaze requirements make sense to me, as I tried to explain in a previous post, and as anyfish2 explained. There are indeed situations where blaze is needed, and blaze is not.

[Rick]

I would say blaze orange is rarely if ever NEEDED but it sure is a good idea.

Should it be mandated by law?

What's the difference between hunting small game and trapping or falconry when it comes to blaze orange safety requirements or chasing raccoons for that matter?

Why is it again that they are exempt?

[96trigger]

What's the difference between hunting small game and trapping or falconry when it comes to blaze orange safety requirements or chasing raccoons for that matter?

Aren't trappers taking small game? Therefor don't they need the blaze orange? I do not trap, so I don't know the regs, I also don't know the season.  Blaze orange for raccoons, in the dark, not sure what good it would do, but if I had to wear it coon hunting, so be it, it would have no effect on my success or failure, or my safety because its dark out.  Falconry I know nothing about, so I'm not going to comment. 

 

I'll bite, yep, it should be mandated by law.  I agree with the DNR in who needs to wear blaze orange, and who doesn't, for the reasons that we have already provided.  Mobility, projectile length of travel, #s of hunters in the woods, type of projectile, and  type of game and their vision, all play a role in determining when we should wear blaze orange and not.   

 

 

[BobT]

There are indeed situations where blaze is needed, and blaze is not.

Just out of curiosity, can you explain the difference between when it is needed and when it is not?

No .your chances of getting hit by a car are way higher than getting shot .how many accidental shooting accur.none or very few . Also when using a shotgun with birdshot you have to be close.i think the dnr put in the orange so they can see you in the field and or the metro has a lot of nuts down there .

Here again is the irony. Whether hunting waterfowl or upland game birds, the target range is the same.

What I'm getting from your arguments is that you're willing to take the risk of getting shot while in a blind hunting waterfowl in favor of increasing your ability to hide from your quarry. The odds of another hunter even being aware of your presence is far lower in those situations much less seeing you in the background of his/her target than if you're hunting upland game so the odds of getting shot while hunting upland game should be lower than for waterfowl. Yet, we are required to wear some amount of blaze orange while hunting upland game but not while hunting waterfowl. Do you see the irony that I speak of?

[theharvester]

What are the odds of getting shot in a duck blind? I dont know of one .ill take my chances .i dont why your so concerned about me.this is the usa i should have freedom to choose .

[Rick]

Aren't trappers taking small game? Therefor don't they need the blaze orange? I do not trap, so I don't know the regs, I also don't know the season.  Blaze orange for raccoons, in the dark, not sure what good it would do, but if I had to wear it coon hunting, so be it, it would have no effect on my success or failure, or my safety because its dark out.  Falconry I know nothing about, so I'm not going to comment. 

 

I'll bite, yep, it should be mandated by law.  I agree with the DNR in who needs to wear blaze orange, and who doesn't, for the reasons that we have already provided.  Mobility, projectile length of travel, #s of hunters in the woods, type of projectile, and  type of game and their vision, all play a role in determining when we should wear blaze orange and not.   

Now that is irony, seeing as you just said trappers should be mandated to wear blaze orange, the DNR says they do not need to wear blaze orange, AND you said the DNR is right. So which is it..
1. We follow your thought and require trappers to wear blaze orange

or

2. We follow your thought about the DNR being right and not require trappers to wear blaze orange.

By George, I think you might finally be getting it In a round about way.  

What are the odds of getting shot in a duck blind? I dont know of one .ill take my chances .i dont why your so concerned about me.this is the usa i should have freedom to choose .

So you should have the freedom to choose and upland bird hunters shouldn't?

Again, there is the irony we speak of.