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

[theharvester]

No you both should choose like it always was.

[BobT]

Personally, if hunters truly used appropriate care to be certain of their target and what is beyond, there would be no need for blaze orange in my opinion. Unfortunately, this is not the case as there are too many out there that don't use the brain they've been given and there is the potential for accidents to happen. 

So, for those such as yourself, theharvester, you feel we should have the option to choose whether to use blaze orange clothing while hunting, PFD's while in a boat, seat belts in our car, helmets on our bikes and snowmobiles, etc. without government mandate. I might actually agree with that but what I've been talking about is how the government will allow certain unsafe practices while requiring safe practices for others. It's a double standard.

Edited October 20, 2015 by BobT

[theharvester]

Where are all these accidents ? There are lot of accidents is bs .maybe in the metro . Then wear orange or dont go .

[Rick]

.i dont why your so concerned about me.this is the usa i should have freedom to choose .

No you both should choose like it always was.

We don't have the choice to choose. Blaze orange is mandated for certain classes of hunter and not for others. A double standard.

[BobT]

Where are all these accidents ? There are lot of accidents is bs .maybe in the metro . Then wear orange or dont go .

You keep asking where are all the accidents. Nobody has been saying there are a lot of accidents. They do happen however. 

Here's a chart that I found showing the effect of hunter orange laws in four states. The article this comes from was dated June, 2010. This chart does show a significant decrease in hunting accidents and deaths when orange laws go into effect.

 

[theharvester]

How many fatalities per 100,000 hunters ? 82 % ? Decrease ? How many were there . This is useless

[BobT]

A forty percent decline in fatalities is useless? I respectfully disagree. 

[delcecchi]

The data shown is useless.  If there had been two incidents previously and then there was one, that is a 50% reduction that quite likely was due to chance.  On the other hand, going from 500 to 250 is also a 50% reduction and less likely to be chance.