Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    
    Jerry,
    	I, for one, don't like it because it spooks deer.  people are
    spending $$ on Uv killer and camo to hide in the woods.. with Blaze
    orange, you'll stand out like a sore thumb - even if deer are color
    blind.  The stuff is extremely bright.  I do agree that in high 
    hunter areas it's probably wiser to wear it than not.  I wear red
    and green checkered wool clothing and hunt in the north woods.  I do
    not want to be told I have to wear orange.
    
    - Rob

    I respectfully disagree that it spooks deer.  I've shot 4 deer in the
    last 6 years and my father has shot 9 in the last 11.  Both of us wear
    blaze orange hats and vests over our wool coats.
    
    It's *motion* that visually spooks deer.  Not color.
    
    While I'm generally against mandating anything, it's hard to argue with
    the safety records of states like Maine who mandate orange.  While red
    shows up in the midday hours, it is not very effective in the early
    morning or late afternoon.
    
    Mark.

    
    
       If you want you can also treat the orange clothes with UV killer as
    well.
    
      RE: "even if deer are color blind." -- this is totally FALSE deer can
    see colors, not well and not many but they can see colors, as a matter
    of fact RED is one of the easiest colors they can pick out. I read an
    interesting article from a professor at Mich. state university, they
    dicected a deer's eyeball and apon examinaion under an extremely
    powerfull microscope they found color rods and light gathering cones.
    
       As far as the orange goes I have worn orange since I started hunting 
    some 14 years ago, I have had deer walk right by me +- 10 feet and not
    even look at me, I think your movement has more to do with it than the 
    colors you are wearing.
    
       I for one feel that even if you dont think you should need to wear
    the orange there are reasons for it; 
      example- you are setting against a tree with your red green checks
               75 yrds beside you a deer is standing, 25 yrds beside it a
               guy is standing with red green checks he pulls up and fires!
               if either of the guys were wearing orange the other hunters
               would of seen the other. 
    
         Believe me your eyes will pick out ORANGE before red any day of
    the week. I would rather be seen setting in the woods than laying in a
    casket!!! the way I figure it is if I spook a couple deer per season by
    wearing orange then we both have the same thing at the end of the day
     OUR LIVES!  A deer is not worth a human life! I dont like being told I
    have to wear something but I dont need to be told to wear orange in the 
    woods during deer season.
    
    
                                          Lee
    

     I agree with Mark.  Motion spooks deer.  I wear an orange coat, hat,
    and pants.  I've killed nine deer in the past six years between Maine
    and NY.  I've had deer with in ten yards of me.  I had one spike walk
    out on a logging road with in 15 yds of me while I was standing in the
    middle of the road and look right at me.  He then looked the other way.
    He didn't spook till I moved, then he moved like He$$. I don't care if 
    I look like a pumpkin out there.  
    
    Just my opinion
    
    Jeff

    I don't *like* to wear the orange, just like I'd prefer not to use
    seat belts, or wear a helmet when riding a motor cycle, or having my
    kids wear lifejackets in a boat/canoe.  Heck I wish I could hunt deer
    in Maine in rifle season in full camo.  But, IMHO, I'd be a damn fool
    to do so.  I wear the orange because if I don't I significantly
    increase my chances of being shot and then my hunting days are over. 
    (Unless of course there's hunting in the hereafter ;^)
    
    Sounds like there's a couple deceased people in NY that might still be
    alive to hunt another day if they wore orange.  If I could control the
    actions of EVERYONE else who hunts, I wouldn't have to wear it.  But I
    can't, so I do.
    
    I know we all profess not to put finger to trigger until we've
    positively identified our target.  I practice this too.  However, When
    I'm in the woods and I hear a noise that might be a deer coming my way,
    there are involuntary things that start to happen.  My senses get
    sharper.  My heart beat increases.  Adrenalin starts pumping.  I grip
    the rifle harder.  And I'm looking for that deer.  I haven't even moved
    a finger yet, but in a sense, I am getting ready to shoot.  With us,
    more saftey conscious hunters, we don't get further into this
    "pre-shoot" mode until we are certain of our target, backdrop, other
    hunter locations, etc.  Unfortunately, there are others that don't make
    that pause to consider their next actions.  Who among us hasn't had
    "buck fever" of varying degrees at one time or another.  Another name
    for this disease could be just not practicing what you know is right. 
    I'm referring to the stories of people ejecting a full magazine of
    unfired ammo, staring in disbelief at the 10 pointer that just appeared
    out of nowhere and forgetting to raise the rifle until after it walks
    away, etc.
    
    I'm not making an excuse for the jerk that shoots at noise or what he
    thinks he sees.  They deserve the harshest penalty that can be given.
    
    But as long as there are people that don't live in my "perfect" world,
    I need to be alert and aware and exercise a certain amount of
    protection from them.  I don't want to, but the possible consequences
    of not doing so are to great in my book.  Kind of like going through
    life without wanting or buying health insurance.  There's a lot of bugs
    out there that I just might bump into.
    
    Pete
    

    >If I could control the actions of EVERYONE else who hunts, I wouldn't have 
    >to wear it.  But I can't, so I do.
    
    This, in a nutshell, says it all.  
    
    Great note, Pete.  Thanks for saying so eloquently what my exact
    thoughts are regarding hunter orange. 
    
    The question now is, "should it be mandated?"
    
    Mark.

    Mark, I'll probably draw some fire (wearing ornage or not :^) but I
    believe it should be mandated.  Not because I believe it's "in my
    best interest" (which I do feel), but because I believe it actually
    helps protect the sport of hunting.  With fewer "accidents" (or call
    them whatever you will), there is less fuel for the anti-hunters. 
    Statistically, hunting *IS* a safe sport.  I'm old enough to remember
    the pre-orange law days.  There were LOTS more people shot and killed. 
    My uncle's best friend was one of those shot in Ashburnham, MA back in
    the 60's.
    
    So I believe it should be mandated for the good of the sport.  "Live
    Free or Die" is fine, but I do believe that if there are too many of
    the "Die's", then the live free will cease too. IMHO.  (By the way, I'm
    limiting this to Orange here.  I'm not for more gun control laws, etc. 
    Just want to make sure no one thinks I'm opening up that can of worms.)

    
    I agree mostly about deer and blaze orange, expect when not hunting on
    snow, what are you going to blend in with?  Maybe if you're in
    birches...
    
    I don't wear orange on normal occasions.  Occasions I will wear orange
    (a vest) when it's pooring rain and I want to wear my camo Gore-Tex duck
    hunting parka.  It's personal choice.  Maybe I'm stubborn, some will
    say I'm stupid.  I must hunt with alot of stupid people, most of them
    wear green wool plaid.  I find it hard to accept that someone can
    mistake a deer for a human, no matter what the human is wearing
    (barring a full whitetail hide).  I know it happens, it's happened alot
    in NY this year, and once in VT that I know of.  I'd like to know more
    about the circumstances of each accident, it seems most of them are
    real late in the afternoon, or when the light is really poor. 
    Personally I carry a mini-Mag flashlight, very small, and I sit until
    there's no question it's dark...I'm not hunting mind you, and before I
    get up I turn my light on...but who can tell, it wouldn't suprise me if
    some fool blows me away seeing that flashlight bouncing around...it's
    hard to figure and those fools shouldn't be out there.  There's alot of
    people that are trigger happy, and don't follow good ethics.
    
    All I do is pray I come home safe, or that any action I take won't
    endanger anyone else.  The things we're talking about now is why I
    love bowhunting so much, even though I've never killed a deer with my
    bow...
    
    Kevin

    Ahhh, hunter orange... that magic color that saves countless lives and 
    distinguishes a hunter from a deer.
    
    If I have to be wearing hunter orange to protect myself from some
    hunter who thinks deer wear green plaid or red check and camo, then
    theres a more serious problem here than we realize.
    
    Actually I wouldn't mind wearing it except that its manufactured in the
    most awful choices of material... Vinyls that harden up in cold
    weather, cheap nylon or very frail cloth... Lousy styles, cheaply
    produced vests with thin elastic waist bands...  If I could find a nice
    comfortable vest made of something quiet, with a few pockets, sized to
    fit big guys, for a decent price I wouldn't mind useing it.  I've
    looked everywhere for a decent one but to no avail.  I've gone so far
    as to have my wife make one for me... but again, the material available
    is very thin and frays easily... chinsy stuff...   What I did see that
    I really like is a vest that actuall looks like a harness of some sort. 
    It's no more than a 2-3" strip of material that goes over the
    shoulders, crosses at the back and comes across at the waist like a
    vest. I think I saw one picture in one of the hunting magazines... try
    to find one however!!!  One of the guys has a mesh elasticised vest
    with velcro straps to fasten it shut in the front... excellent, again
    though I havn't found one anywhere... I'd pay someone if they could
    locate one for me... XL or XXL  ;^)
    
    In VT none of the poeple we hunt with wears orange, and we havn't had
    any accidents or close calls... we all wear red plaid jackets, camo
    pants, and assorted lids from camo to red crushers, baseball hats to
    camo bush hats.  
    
    SO while I don't have a problem with the color itself, what does bug me
    is that people associate the lack of orange as a deer and assume it
    alright to shoot...  if its such a safety issue why only hunters... 
    what about hikers and nature lovers and people walking the dogs etc...
    
    FWIW, Fra

    
    I agree with Mark,Jeff, and Pete. The issue at hand is "SAFETY". None
    of us can control the actions/reactions of another hunter. The "Blaze
    Issue" is for safety only. If deer could carry guns most of us would be 
    dead! This subject and the Hunter Safety Education issue were discussed
    last year when N.H. was voting on these issues. The are very sore
    subjects, but are backed quite well with stats. With the most recent
    death of a hunter (1991) here in N.H. both issues are sure to be
    brought up as a voting issue again.
    
                                                        Guy
    

    
    How do any of us know if it would have made a difference in any of
    the discussed tragedies, if the person had on X amount of blaze orange?
    
    Blaze orange is not the issue.  The issue is people not knowing what
    the hell they're doing out there, and not giving a damn.  Hunting has
    turned into a game of bragging rights for a lot of people, where killing
    the game is the only thing that counts.  It's not much different with
    the rest of our society where morals and ethics have been thrown into
    the gutter.
    
    Another issue is the problem of scoping that movement.  Maybe we should
    mandate open sights, because there weren't hunting accidents in the
    "old days."  I carry bino's with me to scope something in question, or
    if I want to identify a member of my hunting party...but the scoping of
    other hunters is fairly common, I've had it happen to me.  Do the
    idiots that scope you when walking through the woods really know how
    extremely dangerous that behavior is? Do they realize a scope really isn't 
    a passive device when attached to a firearm..point of impact is usually 
    somewhere near the crosshairs, do these idiots realize this?
    
    It's not as simple as mandating blaze orange folks...
    
    Kevin

re: Jim 

> I would like to see some sound, logical reasons why it's not a good idea.

 I think that perhaps the strongest argument against _mandatory_ hunter orange
is that the woods do not contain only hunters and it is unreasonable to
place them at a higher risk than hunters if _they_ do not wear orange. I think
that such a tactic is bound to backfire on this point:

re: Pete

>Not because I believe it's "in my
>    best interest" (which I do feel), but because I believe it actually
>    helps protect the sport of hunting.  With fewer "accidents" (or call
>    them whatever you will), there is less fuel for the anti-hunters. 

 But a higher percentage of those remaining accidents will be non-hunters.
"The Public" will tolerate 100 hunter deaths more easily than 1 non hunter
killed by hunters. It provides a better emotional argument than currently exists
for increasing "keep away" areas from buildings to even absurd levels.

 As far as safety goes, I believe that it is up to each hunter to individually
assess the risks to him/herself and choose attire accordingly. I fully believe
that if all hunters were required by law to wear orange, fewer hunters would
be injured and killed. I also believe that if all cars were required to have
governors on them that prevented them from ever exceeding 65mph, we would
save thousands more lives, but I don't support that either. You do not endanger 
anyone else when you decline to wear orange. I believe that the right to make
that choice is reserved to ther individual.

 Personally speaking, I rarely fail to wear at least some orange. I always wear
an orange vest and usually a hat when I hunt public land or private land
with unknown hunters on it. On private land when there is little or no 
reasonable probability that I will meet up with any other hunters, I may opt
to wear only a red hat and red check. I have an orange vest over my red check 
hunting coat that never comes off. I have a red check hunting vest that is
reversable to orange; I'd keep it on the orange side all the time but the 
pockets are all on the red side.

 My personal decision is to wear orange because I want to assist other hunters
in identifying me as something definitely not to shoot at. The hunter has the
responsibility to make that determination anyway, but I want to make the job
especially easy because I have a wife and kids who depend on me. If someone
else wants to even just psychologically increase their chances of getting
a deer by trading off _their own_ personal safety, that's their call in my
opinion.

 The Doctah

>>            <<< Note 1098.12 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Turning Circles" >>>

>>re: Jim (uh, that's Jerry)

>>> I would like to see some sound, logical reasons why it's not a good idea.

>> I think that perhaps the strongest argument against _mandatory_ hunter orange
>>is that the woods do not contain only hunters and it is unreasonable to
>>place them at a higher risk than hunters if _they_ do not wear orange. I think
>>that such a tactic is bound to backfire on this point:

Doctah,

Since this is the exact question I posed, I'll offer a rebuttal to your
remarks.  First of all, my question concerned the voluntary use of hunter 
orange, not the MANDATORY use.

Other than that, your argument doesn't wash with me.  Even if we
have mandatory hunter orange for HUNTERS only, it still doesn't
prohibit non-hunters from wearing it.  Sort of like it is now.

Using your logic, anyone not wearing hunter orange (in the field, that
is) is at a higher risk than those wearing it.  In other words, those
who chose not to wear it are accepting that risk.  The same thing
applies if it's mandatory.  Those non-hunters who choose to be in
the field during hunting season and not wear hunter orange are accepting
that risk.  It is still their option as to how they dress.

If equal sharing of risk is really what you want, perhaps we should
OUTLAW hunter orange.  I know that's what it would take to get me to
not wear it.

By the way, non-hunters also live in Colorado, where HO is mandatory.
I haven't seen this become an issue.

The other argument that I have problems with is that the widespread
use of HO lulls those non-accomplished (or whatever adjective you
choose) into thinking if it ain't orange, shoot it.  The same can
be said for any safety color.  If people are not going to clearly
and accurately identify their target before shooting, the use
of HO won't make a difference, except that it will make it a bit
harder for them to mis-identify you.

I can understand one's aversion to anything that is mandatory.  In
fact, I didn't like the seat belt law until I got rear-ended a couple
of years ago.  Now, I don't even back out of the garage with buckling
up, and it doesn't have anything to do with a law.

I will say that I'm surprised at the number of pro-HO replies.  I
really figured that it would be quite the opposite.  Live and learn.

Jerry

    RE: Kevin
    
      I don't beleive that anyone here believes it is as simple as mandating
    hunter orange.   My feelings are that I want to take every _reasonable_
    chance at decreasing the odds that I will get shot, while at the same
    time still being able to enjoy hunting.  Hunter orange does not detract
    from my hunting experience.  It does _help_ (not guarentee) other
    hunters to identify me more easily.  I can't see any logic in not
    wearing it.  Until Im convinced that everyone out there is responsible
    and diligent in identifying there target before pulling the trigger,
    I'll continue to wear orange.  It's not a cure all, but it's an easy,
    painfree way to improve the odds that I'll walk out of the woods rather
    then be carried out.
    
    Jeff

     Hunter orange is required here in CO, and I agree with this rule.
    It helps me keep tabs on my hunting partners when we do a parallel
    at a distance type mountain sweep. I can spot hunters 5 miles across
    a valley with my naked eye, and readily observe if a certain area might
    be 'uncovered' and worth hunting. I have been able to get very close
    to deer (upwind), and only spooked them from 'fast' movement (slow
    movement 'still hunting' allowed me to get very close). The line that
    deer can see orange is a bunch of bunk. Even if they do have a few color
    rods in their eyes, it can only pick out color at extremely close
    range (within 5 feet maybe). Maybe a equivalent from our point of view
    would be to pick out 1" circles of blaze orange spaced at 10 feet against
    a grey background at 500 yrds. You would see solid grey with no orange.
    Your retina does'nt have dense enough color rods to see the orange circles
    at this range.
     For the slob hunter shooting at sounds, even a tiny glimpse of blaze
    orange through a bush might keep you from being shot. For the idea that
    people will shoot anything that isn't orange; lets say slobs will be
    slobs but you'll be more visible, and good hunters always are sure of
    the target before shooting anyway. The most convincing argument is that
    if you are in the background of any hunters quarry YOU WILL BE SEEN
    even if the animal is running and they are pressured to do a quickly
    executed shot. Maybe your hunting partner would take the shot because
    he could see exactly where you are and know it was safe, instead of
    passing up an animal because he knew you were back there....somewhere.
    Blaze orange roolze!!!
    
    chuck

 Sorry, Jim. I misread that. I thought you were asking about opinions regarding
mandatory orange.

>Using your logic, anyone not wearing hunter orange (in the field, that
>is) is at a higher risk than those wearing it.  In other words, those
>who chose not to wear it are accepting that risk.

 But risk exists only because people are hunting. And non-hunters believe that
an equally viable solution to that increased risk is to ban hunting (I'm
not kidding!)

 I think it's a good idea; I just don't think it should be mandatory. I am
consistently philosophically opposed to mandatory anything that in the
end affects only you.

    One thing I don't like is the attitude some hunters (and yes I
    know they're a small minority, but...) take, that if it _isn't_
    wearing orange, it's OK to shoot at. In Mass. I have to wear it,
    and do so. In Vermont, I don't have to, and usually don't. (There
    are times, like when hunting new areas, or spots I know are more
    heavily hunted, I do put on some orange.)
    
    I dislike having Big Brother _order_ me to wear it. I also would
    like to believe that the other guy is also a sensible hunter who
    ID's his target. I hate the need to assume that I _will_ encounter
    a bozo.

    Let's turn it around. What would happen if we _outlawed_ blaze 
    orange? Would some of these boneheads maybe get it through their
    thick skulls that they have to *look* before they shoot?

    
    As one of my hunting partners stated while we were hunting in Canada
    who wears Blaze orange from head to toe, "If I get shot and killed
    for being mistaken for game, If and When they catch the person my
    spouse will have one hell of a good law suit".
    
    
                                                          Guy
    

    A bonehead is a bonehead.  Whether it's mandatory HO or mandatory
    non-HO.  I happen to feel that it's wise to wear it and don't complain
    about the law that makes mandatory in Maine where I hunt deer.  On the
    other side though, I would not sign a petition to force it on anyone
    either.  I hate all the big brother laws.  Speaking solely for myself,
    I think it's a good idea to wear it.  
    
    I want to increase my odds of living to hunt another day, inspite of
    the bozos and boneheads.  A person who has the option of not wearing HO
    must just accept the fact that their odds are somewhat less favorable
    than mine.  Whatver shakes your tree.....
    

    Deja Vu.
    
    Didn't we have this discussion at least two times?
    
    (I like the thing about the lawsuit. Too bad most hunters are broke.
    I mean I'd rather be shot by accident by a golfer :-)

    I am kinding of jumping into this subject late, but just saw it and
    want to throw my $.02 worth in.
    
    I live in Georgia, where it is the law to wear 500 square inches of
    blaze orange when hunting.  This ususally consists of a cheap, loud,
    plastic vest.  Out of 800,000 hunters in the state, hunting almost
    every weekend of the season, that is about 8,800,000 people total in
    the woods hunting.  Out of all that number, last year there were 43
    hunting accidents in the woods.  Out of that, 4 were shooting
    accidents.  Those odds, 4 out of 8,800,000 sell me on wearing my
    orange.
    
    Now, should it be mandatory?  Yes, only to a point.  I think it should
    be mandatory that you wear some amount of orange, even if it is broken
    up in a cammo pattern, when moving about the woods.  I personally have
    hunted in loud solid colors, my first hunting trip, and have had a doe
    come within 10 yds of me, lookin right at me, and didn't run.  As
    stated earlier, it is motion.  I look at wearing orange as a defensive
    measure for my safety, and not as a hassle to deal with during hunting.
    
    Even hunting private land with people I know, I will not even think
    about going into the woods without my orange.  Now, once I get to my
    stand, I take it off.  But you can bet your ass, before I climb down my
    stand, the first thing I do is put on my orange, and lower my rifle.
    
    In summary, you are the one with control of your rifle, but you sure as
    hell don't have control of anyone elses rifle.  So, to better my odds
    of not being dragged out of the woods like a deer, I  wear my orange.
    
    As far as being loud, and cheap, and not finding a good orange garment
    to wear, my friend Earl, who has not even entered hunting notes yet,
    has a reversible blaze orange, realtree cammo insulated vest which is
    real neat.  Wear it to your stand, reverse it once you get to your
    stand.  I feel it is safe to hunt in your stand without orange.  Most
    hunting accidents are people shooting at people moving around in the
    bush, not sitting in a tree.
    
    Orange saves lives.  Mandate it.  55mph is the speed limit.  it saves
    lives, it's the law.

Manadtory orange == stupid law. If you mandate orange you only mandate it
for the hunters. Since other people use the woods, I believe you would
increase the probability of them being shot since you would establish the mind
set that people in the woods are required to wear orange. 
A better law would be to mandate that the deer wear orange. Then the idiots can
be trained to shoot at things that are only orange thus avoiding the needles
slaughter of innocent people, trees and other animals.

I wear orange from head to foot. I have shot two deer that were less than
15 yards away from me. One I shot while I was on the ground the other while
in the tree stand. In both cases the deer froze and looked straight at me I 
froze too. I think they suspected something but did not spook. When they 
looked away and started walking I took the safety off, aimed for the heart/lung
and took my shot. Motion, noise and smell spook deer and not orange. If you
move, it may easier to spot movement if you are wearing orange then
if you are wearing camo. I don't know but I have not had any problems of
taking a deer for the past ten years with my orange clothing so I wear it.
I would object to the idea of "having to wear orange". You know the risks so you
take your chances. Wearing orange should be a personal choice.

    
    a previous reply stated something to the effect of he believes in
    hunter orange and agrees it should be mandatory to a point, but removes
    it upon arrival to his stand... something to that effect.  basically 
    what i'm hearing is that it should be mandatory but with exceptions...
    
    Is it legal to remove your 500 sq" of hunter orange when you reach your
    stand?? probably not.  so is this really a viable law?  I know alot of
    mass hunters who do the same, whether right or wrong... if it's not
    going to be followed to the letter of the law then why make it a law at
    all.
    
    I still don't think it's a orange issue so much as a educational and
    common sense issue.
    
    When the time comes that VT opens up a doe season, then you can be sure
    i'll have some of it on...  Mass is mandatory, and i wear it, don't
    like it for the reasons stated earlier, but i wear it...  
    
    Fra

We have to darn many laws already.  We need fewer laws, not more.  The more
laws we make, the less people feel the need to rely on common sense.

Yes, I wear orange when I'm in the woods during NH firearms season.  I have
been known to hike into my stand (well before light) with a waterfowl 
parka in my backpack and wearing an orange vest.  At the stand I'll tie the
vest around a tree just above my head and wear the camo while I sit.  If
I'm still hunting though, I wear lots of orange.

I'm a bit less careful during muzzleloader season - usually wear red/black 
check jacket, but usually also have an orange hat.

During archery only season, I'll be in camo.

As I understand it, Maine has mandatory orange.  How long has this
been in effect?  Was it in effect a couple of years ago when that
woman was shot in her backyard?  Did the law help her, or could it
have contributed to her death?

 - Dave

    
    
    I always wear a blaze orange coat and crusher-hat. I never have had a 
    problem with deer, some have almost stepped into my stand.
    
    As for making it the Law, I feel anything non-orange will be at risk.
    
    Movement as mentioned earlier will wreck a days hunt more than the
    color.
    
    Just my 2cents......
    
    Rick
    
    Oh yeah....U.V. killer, breath camo, BAW! Ha,ha,ha,ha,he,!!!!!!
    
    BTW:: There's a new process from a clothing manufactuer in Canada that
          by using presure, presses the orange color into the Wool.
    
          You can buy a 100% Wool coat in orange that will not fade over
          time. I read this in latest, The Sportsman's Guide. You know
          its like a Gander Mountain book.
      

    
    	I happen to believe that if hunter orange is mandated by law to
    be worn by hunters during rifle big-game seasons, then we should 
    make the law state that anyone (hunters and non) wear hunter orange
    when afield during this season.  The problem with this is obvious
    bad press on hunters - we're trying to have our cake and eat it too.
    
    re Bob Harris a few back regarding taking off your orange on stand,
    why do this?   The reason I think people do it is because when 
    you move while wearing hunter orange, you look like a neon sign!!
    I'll maintain still that it's easier for a deer to see you while
    you're wearing orange than if you're not.  The stuff is supposed to 
    attract attention...
    
    	regarding the woman who was shot in Maine a couple of years ago,
    I think the "mandatory Hunter orange" law makes it easier for these
    situations to happen.   For crying out loud, I'll never understand
    how someone could be mistaken for a deer -wearing orange or not!
    
    - Rob

    
    
    	I've noticed that we're talking mostly about big-game 
    	hunting on the HO issue.... I've recently been hearing
    	of BIRD hunters getting shot, so about 3 years ago I
    	started wearing a FULL orange vest for BIRD hunting,
    	now it's going some when a MAN looks like a BIRD !!!
    
    	I realize that bird hunting accidents are most likely
    	"sound" shooting through thick brush, but we still
    	have to identify the game don't we??  
    
    	BTW As you have noticed this is one of MY HOT-BUTTONS !!
    	I just can't believe these CLOWNS seem to multiply
    	like rabbits ;-);-)
    
		~Mike~ (Who want SANITY put back into hunting)
     

    
    
      I don't think it should be mandatory but I have and always will wear
    a HO vest and hat..When it's cold out I'll even wear HO gloves..I too
    had a doe crossing some railroad tracks that stopped and looked both
    ways before crossing and looked right at me. Never knew I was there
    until I moved..I would much rather at least feel safe, that I am wearing
    HO, then be worried about some fool that is going to shot at movement.
    I can't understand how anyone can do this. I never have or ever will
    raise my gun at anything I cant say for sure is my target. There again
    I tend to spend more time at the archery only refuge in N.H.(more deer):')
    
    Gus 
                                                                           

    
    Last year part of the debate of HO was also during the overlap of
    bird season and archery season. Here in N.H. our bear season starts
    usually at the begining of Sept. and there isn't a huge crowd of
    hunters for this season. Our archery season starts in the middle of
    Sept. with Birds opening around the 1st of October. I never really
    thought about when I wasn't a Bow hunter but when shooting at a flushed
    bird the height of your shot flight could end up hitting an archer in
    a tree stand. This was another point of different seasons overlaping
    and the dangersof them.
    
                                                      Guy
    

    
    re .30
    
    The odds of that are pretty slim.  But Murphy's laws to applly to
    hunting.  I had a bird hunter come by me this year, I let him know I was 
    there, and he politely changed his course.
    
    Okay, for those pro HO people, do you bowhunt?  If so, and you all feel
    it make no difference on the deer, than why not wear it bow hunting?
    
    Maybe you do...I'm just curious.
    
    I think the deer are in a different 'mode' during the firearms season,
    much more spooked, moving, etc.  And sometimes they get pushed out
    of their core range.  The core range is pretty well memorized, rocks,
    stumps, etc., but outside of that, they wouldn't know you from a stump.
    That picture of the area isn't as well defined.  They certainly aren't
    as relaxed, the deer I see anyway.
    
    Kevin
                                              

re 28:

Mike, How do we get the SANITY back???  I stopped hunting about 18 years ago
(Ma.) because it was getting to crazy for me. About 6 years ago I decided to
give shotguning another try, would'nt you know the second time out a slug
hits the tree I am in fornt of about 18" from my head ( I looked like the
Great Pumpkin) but it didn't stop the old geezer from letting loose all 5
shots at the running doe's without looking or caring (what made it worse
was his young companion son or grandson maybe) getting a view on "how to hunt".
Anyways, I took up bow hunting..a little saner I thought. 
Now for what I really want to say, and this is hard because it means I have
to critize friends, (no longer hunting partners but still friends so far).
When I started archery it was with two friends how had been bow hunting for a 
few years. Now I really did not know what type of hunters they were but I knew
what type of people they were and figured they would be the type i would'nt mind
hunting with (WRONG), I won't go into the little things they did that i thought
was not right and I told them how I felt on certain occassions. Well, 2 years
ago they started telling me about these guys the work with that also hunt and
they related a few stories, i don't know what they were expecting for a reaction
but what they got must have suprised them cause I asked them point blank why
they didn't turn them in to a EPO officer, this happened a few times and then
they stopped telling me the stories. Ok, now i am wondering about hunting
with them, one guy in particular has taken some shots that to me were real
questionable. Last year I got them both to take a hunter safety course. It 
didn't help. I couldn't make opening day of bow and they went with the other
guys and my friend tells me that night of a spike that he jumped as he was
leaving the woods that night, he tells me how he grabbed an arrow and let it
fly missing the spike but (and he thought this was funny) ending up in the 
SHOULDER OF THE ROAD, I asked him where the hell was he coimng from and what
road (route 9 in Belchertown). I decided then that I would rather sit home
and read about hunting than be in the woods with him. And I know there is no
doubt in my mind that BOTH OF THEM are sound shooters even with HS. So now
I wait for my son to decide if he might like to try it next year, if not
I have a good supply of books to read during the season.

Sorry for the rambling but I had to get this off my chest.

Jack 

    
    
    re. 31
    
    
          I am an avid bow hunter and do not wear HO. My season usually
    starts in the middle of september and once gun season gets into full
    gear, I do my bow hunting in an archery only game refuge. 60% of my
    hunting is done at this refuge so I dont feel any need to wear HO. If I
    am hunting in gun teritory then I will wear HO to and from my stand but
    once in a tree stand I will usaully take it off unless there is heavy
    pressure. I also do this during muzzle loading as some one stated
    earlier. 
    
    
    Gus      

    Jack, 
    
    this has nothing to do with hunter orange, but did I build you a bow??
    a martin bobcat??
    
    The name looked really familiar...
    
    We now return you to your regularly scheduled program...
    
    Fra

    
      I agree with mandating HO in states that have a high number of
    hunters per square mile (personaly I avoid these area's like a plague).
    But in states that have remote wilderness, I believe it should be up to
    the individual, for instance where I hunt I like to be able to blend in
    with the terrain, which means wearing green or red checked wool. And If
    I do see another hunter I am confident that I dont have to worry about
    being shot at, because he is probably there for the same reason I am to
    escape the chance of runing into a slob hunter, not to talk about the
    deer being in there regular schedules (not spooked).
     Also I believe that the majority of these so called accidents happen
    where the number of hunters is great, and not just because the hunter
    doesnt have any orange on.

    
    
    	I wear it, and make my kids wear it too, when we walk in the woods
    	behind my house.  This JUST started this year when I spotted a
    	tree stand up during Bow season.(since removed).
    
    
    	I enjoy my Sat./Sun. morning 'hikes', with my dog, and usually take
    	one of the kids with me.  I won't stop because someone might be
    hunting there.  One thing I really like to do is (leave the *#^% dog
    	at home) show the kids how to follow deer tracks.  This could be
    	a dangerous hobby during hunting season-so if we go out on Sat.
    	the Orange goes on.  Could I give it up for a week or two-mebe. 
    Should I have to?  Nope.  The area is 'legal' for hunting(heck, I could
    	be legal on my own property!).  The thing is it's not isolated by
    	any stretch of the imagination.  the area is essentially the bottom
    	end of a 'penninsula' that extends into Hudson/Marlboro Mass. from the 
    	Army Base in Sudbury and further.
    	
    	HO is a good idea, but ....like was said before, I make my kids
    wear it-because I feel like it.  I don't know who might be in 'my'
    woods.  Mebe it's one of you fine gents, mebe it's some drunk from
    	<.....> who is a slob.  
    (Face it, in Mass. it's easy to get a hunting license...mabey that 
    should be looked at??....) 
    
    	Should it be mandated??  I think not.  NOT because it's a bad
    product, but because it takes a little piece of responsibility 
    away.  You are responsible to identify your target-period.
    
    	Do I wear it?  Yes, because this country is becoming filled with
    those who refuse to accept any and all responsibility for their
    actions.
    
    		phew.....  have a nice weak-end...

    re. 27, why do I take my orange off on my stand?  Try to bring up your
    rifle wearing one of those orange vests, and just hear the sounds it
    makes.  I might as well lean against a pine tree instead of a hardwood.
    
    BUT, like I said previously, on private land, I take it off when I get
    to my stand.  On public land, I just don't hunt it anymore, to
    dangerous.  Also, it sounds like things are a little more quiet down
    south than up north.
    
    IF they made a quiet, comfortable, less restrictive orange vest, I
    think I would wear it all the time, but they don't, at least not in
    my budget.
    
    Bob
    btw, my hunting season ended sunday, with the exception of one more day
    on Saturday December 28th.  Still no deer.  My wife is questioning if I
    am really going hunting or not.
    

    re:34
    Fra, no it wasn't me...Jack

    re .37:
    
    Why don't you get some orange material that is quite.  You don't have
    to wear orange plastic.
    
    /brett

 Both my orange vests are quiet; one's a wool reverseable (~$40) and the other
came with my coat, and is made of "10 mile cloth" from LL Bean (~$15 but offers
no insulating properties.)

    
    
    my orange vest is quilted and very quiet....they're out there guys,
    just gotta look for 'em.....
    
    
    

    Here in Western Mass. they sell one that appears to be netting,
    but it's legal and very soft/quiet. Plus they only cost six bucks 
    or so ;-)

    
    I got a real nice vest from Cabela's for this past season.
    Cost about $15, fits over my coat and doesn't interfere with
    arm movement whatsoever, is quiet in the brush and about as
    orange as can be.
    
    DAP

It appears that this topic has died down, so I decided to reread and
summarize the results.  In particular, I have tried to interpret 
each reply as being either for or against voluntary use of HO, and
for and against mandatory use.  As there were several who made more
than one reply, I tried to count each person who replied only once.
Also note that not everyone expressed an easily interpretable opinion
on both issues.  Anyway, here's the results.

 For voluntary use		17
 Against voluntary use		 3
 For mandatory use		 7
 Against mandatory use		 6

Jerry

    Jerry, add one more too the mandatory list.  I feel that wearing HO
    protects 99% of the "careful" hunters from the 1% "slob" hunters.
    
    Also, I have for many years fought the issue of CHEAP PLASTIC Ho vests.
    What I did was go and buy a yard of HO material at one of the fabric
    stores;  Folded the sucker in half, cut out a half moon in the middle,
    Sewed(sp) 4 "pig'ns" on the side and bingo; Nice, quite blaze orange
    penny vest.  It is a little large, but hey for $3.00 or $4.00 and
    the last 5 years it has served it's purpose VERY Well.
    
    Jeff
    

    I'm with him!!!   You can add me to the list also. If you look around
    you can find a nice HO coat or vest that isn't noisey. My wife bought
    me a HO quilted vest for hunting season and it's very quiet. I think
    that it should be mandatory. When I went to my huner safety class they
    pushed HO alot.           
    
    
                               just my $.02 worth.......
    

    
    The misconception is that people with HO don't get shot by the careless
    slobs.  If you guys think that's the case it's just wrong.  I'd like to
    see the stats on what the victims were wearing when shot.  I believe I
    read in here a fatality from MA in which the target was wearing the
    required HO.
    
    I vote for volunteer use, but by any stretch of the imagination it's
    no cure all.
    
    Where what you want.  Force responsibility on our fellow hunters.
    
    Kevin

>I'd like to see the stats on what the victims were wearing when shot.

 In NH last year, hunter orange was not worn by any of the people who were
shot as a result of game misidentification or not knowing what was behind the 
target. However, in several of these cases, it is doubtful if hunter orange
would have made any difference. In addition, a solid percentage of the
accidents were unrelated to whether the hunter could see the victim. Hunter
orange is far from a cure all.

 Hunter orange doesn't help reduce self inflicted wounds, post hunting
accidents, etc. It does help enough of the time to merit serious consideration
though. 

 Maybe the real answer is forcing all hunters to wear brown and white
coats. Then we'd _really_ have to verify our targets. :-)/2

>>                   <<< Note 1098.47 by BTOVT::REMILLARD_K >>>
>>                   -< Keep mandate's to yourself please... >-

>>    Where what you want.  Force responsibility on our fellow hunters.
    
    Kevin,

	How do you propose that this be accomplished?  Competency
	tests?  Stiffer fines and penalties for violations?  Mandatory
	hunter safety training?

	I don't think that anybody in here would disagree with your
	statement.  I sure don't.  I just don't know of a good way
	to do it.

    Jerry

    
    re .49
    
    I agree with the methods you suggested.  But those won't stop it
    either.
    
    It's a big issue.  It's really not about hunter orange.  It's about
    greed, it's about pressure, it's about irresponsible behavior.
    
    The greed and pressure come from some people seeing a successful hunter
    as one that "brings home the deer every year."  Or the almost heroic
    display some hunters are given.  It makes us all want to be like them.
    Our society is so driven by immediate satisfaction.  Drugs, sex, all of
    it, I want it now and I want it all.  Hunter orange can't stop it.
    
    How many people ribbed you because you didn't get a deer?  It really
    use to bother me, and I put pressure on myself to "be succeesful".
    Most of us in this file are above that, I don't have to kill an animal
    to have a successful deer hunting season.  I really realized this, this
    year.  Once I realized what was bothering my, and I changed my attitude
    things slowed down, and I really enjoyed myself.
    
    I will fight mandatory hunter orange because I feel strongly that 
    irresponsible behavior should be dealt with.  The same goes for 
    gun control, if I can use an analogy, the guns aren't the issue.  When
    someone chooses to use a gun to solve his problems, instead of
    discussion, arbitration, etc. than that person has acted irresponsibly.
    
    When someone fails to identify his target, and understands that when the
    bullet leaves the barrel there's no gettin' it back, and kills someone,
    than that person has acted irresponsibly.
    
    Taking guns from people won't stop people from behaving irresponsibly.
    Just as mandating HO won't stop irresponsible hunting deaths.  There's no 
    way I'll believe that a person who is about to kill you with a gun, 
    because you cut him off on the highway for instance, would act
    anymore rationally if he didn't have a gun.  But if that person was 
    conditioned to react under that response, through education, maybe he
    woud automatically choose a different course of action.  
    
    Comptency tests sound good, but determining a fair criteria would be very
    difficult.
    
    Jim, I see you "2nd that amendment."  So, if I may ask, what is the
    difference between me saying, "We must ban all guns to get the murder
    rates down."  Most murders do occur with guns, hence guns must be the
    problem.  And you saying "We must mandate hunter orange to reduce
    the number of hunter related accidents."   I don't see a difference
    in logic in those 2 statements, both react to information in the same
    manner, by avoiding the real issue.
    
    So I will ask you, how are we going to get the murder rates down in
    our cities and towns without mandating the elimination of all guns in
    private ownership?
    
    It's a tough question, one that would take much more time and energy
    than one could put into a reply...that is where I'm coming from by
    not giving you a plan on how to eliminate hunter related accidents.
    Both problems have more things in common than we may want to admit to.
    
    This is interesting discussion...
    
    
    take care...Kevin
    

>>                   <<< Note 1098.50 by BTOVT::REMILLARD_K >>>
>>                         -< perhaps I rambled some... >-

>>    Jim, I see you "2nd that amendment."  So, if I may ask, what is the
>>    difference between me saying, "We must ban all guns to get the murder
>>    rates down."  Most murders do occur with guns, hence guns must be the
>>    problem.  And you saying "We must mandate hunter orange to reduce
>>    the number of hunter related accidents."   I don't see a difference
>>    in logic in those 2 statements, both react to information in the same
>>    manner, by avoiding the real issue.
    
>>    So I will ask you, how are we going to get the murder rates down in
>>    our cities and towns without mandating the elimination of all guns in
>>    private ownership?
    
>>    It's a tough question, one that would take much more time and energy
>>    than one could put into a reply...that is where I'm coming from by
>>    not giving you a plan on how to eliminate hunter related accidents.
>>    Both problems have more things in common than we may want to admit to.
    
Kevin,

First of all, my name's not Jim.  It's Jerry.  And you're right, I
do strongly believe in 2nd amendment rights.

As for comparing gun control to mandating HO, that's quite a stretch.
For one thing, the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" is a right reserved
by the people.  Hunting is a privilege.  As far as I know, there is
no constitutional provision which makes it a right.  This alone
separates mandatory HO and gun control as issues.
    
Hunting is a privilege which is subject to various state and local
laws.  It may seem to be a natural right, but all things considered,
it's a privilege.  I do believe that mandatory HO combined with
mandatory hunter safety training makes for a safer sport.  You are
absolutely right that it's the responsiblity of each and every person
who picks up a firearm to unmistakenly identify his/her target before
even taking aim, but there's some who just aren't gonna do it, regardless
of what laws are on the books.  That's why I'm in favor of mandatory
hunter safety training.  Hell, I'd been hunting for over 25 years
when I took the course, and I learned a lot.  And having to wear
HO is a small price to pay to be able to continue enjoying our
sport.  I just don't see it as an infringement on our rights.  Maybe
we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

It's kind of like having to wear seat belts.  I don't particularly
care for the law, but I obey it.  And, it saves lives.  There are
still people who get killed with their seat belts on, and I'm
sure that there have been cases where wearing a seat belt increased
the risk.  Is it an infringement on our rights?  I don't think so,
because driving isn't a right.

I'd recommend to all the readers in this conference that you jump
on over to the SOAPBOX conference and check the Sport Hunting
topic.  I know that many of you already do that, and that you
participate.  The folks over there who oppose hunting are jiffy
quick to stereotype hunters based on one or two isolated incidences.
The more we do to reduce the number of these incidences, the less
ammunition we give them.  Heck, let's not help 'em out.

I guess that's about enough rambling for now.  Like you said, it's
an interesting topic.

Jerry (Jim's the muppet guy.  Unfortunately, no relation).

    
    Sorry Jerry on getting your name wrong...it was a long day yesterday.
    
    You pulled a technicalitiy on me.  But let me point out, the pro gun
    control crowd does not agree with you on the interpretation of the
    2nd amendment...I'm sure you've talked with enough of them to know they
    feel it's for the military only, etc.
    
    So I still submit the logic is very similar.  Believe me I see where
    you are coming from with the mandating of HO, but I feel it's the same
    as mandating a waiting period...heck it could save lives...if that's
    the case why not agree with that logic as well.  I'm just trying to
    use examples you are quite aware of to show my point, there is a
    similarity in the logic between mandating HO and gun control, and many
    other issues in which society comes up with a cure-all for the symptom
    but does not address the real problem.  
    
    By the way the VT constitution gurantees its citizens the RIGHT to
    hunt, fish, and fowl...so I guess that technically makes hunting a 
    right in this state.
    
    again excuse my name swapping....
    
    Kevin

>>                   <<< Note 1098.52 by BTOVT::REMILLARD_K >>>
>>                            -< well it is in VT... >-

    
>>    You pulled a technicalitiy on me.  But let me point out, the pro gun
>>    control crowd does not agree with you on the interpretation of the
>>    2nd amendment...I'm sure you've talked with enough of them to know they
>>    feel it's for the military only, etc.

	I thought that you were asking me how I viewed the two.  As I
	see it, it boils down to this.

	Question:  What's the difference between using gun control to
	curb violent crime vs. mandating HO to curb hunting accidents?
	
	Answer:  In my opinion, there are two major differences.

	1) I haven't seen any proof that gun control reduces violent
	   crime.
 	2) In my opinion, gun control is an infringement on a 
	   constitutionally guaranteed (U.S. Constitution, that is)
	   right.

	I don't believe that the same can be said for mandating HO.
	For one, there is evidence to support the claim that mandating
	HO reduces hunting accidents.  The Colorado DOW thinks so.
	In the Colorado Hunting topic of this conference, I posted
	a reply in which the DOW published the "hunter accident"
	figures.  They are down, and the DOW attributes it largely
	to mandatory HO and mandatory hunter safety training.

	As for mandating HO being an infringement on a right, I'll
	stick by what I have already stated.  I'll address the VT.
	constitution further down.
    
>>    So I still submit the logic is very similar.  Believe me I see where
>>    you are coming from with the mandating of HO, but I feel it's the same
>>    as mandating a waiting period...heck it could save lives...if that's

	It could also cost lives.  Most people in the pro-gun camp don't
	buy this premise.  Two questions for you.  1) Do you think that
	a waiting period will save lives?  And 2) Do you think that
	mandatory HO saves lives?

>>    By the way the VT constitution gurantees its citizens the RIGHT to
>>    hunt, fish, and fowl...so I guess that technically makes hunting a 
>>    right in this state.

	I wasn't aware of this.  I'm curious as to what this really means,
	though.  For example, even though VT recongnizes this as a right,
	the state still reserves the right to restrict one's ability
	to exercise this right.  For example, you have to purchase a
	mandatory hunting license to exercise this right.  You can
	only exercise your right during the times (seasons/hunting hours) 
	set forth by the state.  When you exercise your right to hunt
	waterfowl in VT, you still have to plug your magazine so that
	you only have a 3 shot capacity, and you have to use steel	
	shot (I'm guessing on this).  
	
	If you don't buy any of the above, how about this.  Is it legal
	in VT to carry loaded gun in your vehicle during hunting season?
	If it isn't, would you oppose such a law?  Why or why not?
	This and mandatory HO are both safety related issues, and 
	both are placing a restriction on how you exercise your right
	to hunt.  Also, where do you stand on mandatory hunter safety?
	Why?
    

	So, I'll stick to my original position.  In my opinion, mandatory
	HO does save lives, and it's not an infringement on a right.
	I'll agree that we already have too danged many laws, but that
	doesn't mean that all new laws are bad.  If you can't depend
	of people to police their participation in this activity 
	voluntarily, then what choice do you have.  

	Jerry

Jerry see my comments in **, we're not talking the subject anymore,
so this will be my last reply to this...it's just not going anywhere.

================================================================================
Note 1098.53                      Hunter Orange                         53 of 53
CSC32::J_HENSON "I'll 2nd that amendment!"           76 lines  20-DEC-1991 10:47
                                  -< round 2 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>                   <<< Note 1098.52 by BTOVT::REMILLARD_K >>>
>>                            -< well it is in VT... >-

    
>>    You pulled a technicalitiy on me.  But let me point out, the pro gun
>>    control crowd does not agree with you on the interpretation of the
>>    2nd amendment...I'm sure you've talked with enough of them to know they
>>    feel it's for the military only, etc.


	I thought that you were asking me how I viewed the two.  As I
	see it, it boils down to this.

	Question:  What's the difference between using gun control to
	curb violent crime vs. mandating HO to curb hunting accidents?
	
**Jerry, I was trying to draw an analogy, if you don't see that they
**are analogous than my attempt was in vain.

	Answer:  In my opinion, there are two major differences.

	1) I haven't seen any proof that gun control reduces violent
	   crime.
 	2) In my opinion, gun control is an infringement on a 
	   constitutionally guaranteed (U.S. Constitution, that is)
	   right.

	I don't believe that the same can be said for mandating HO.
	For one, there is evidence to support the claim that mandating
	HO reduces hunting accidents.  The Colorado DOW thinks so.
	In the Colorado Hunting topic of this conference, I posted
	a reply in which the DOW published the "hunter accident"
	figures.  They are down, and the DOW attributes it largely
	to mandatory HO and mandatory hunter safety training.

**I'm not pro-gun control.  But statistics have been used, and will continue
**to be used that show certain methods of gun control reducing violent crime.
**I didn't intend to argue gun control with you...hey I'm on your side!!!
**But there are 2 sides to every story...and each one is as believable as the
**other.

	As for mandating HO being an infringement on a right, I'll
	stick by what I have already stated.  I'll address the VT.
	constitution further down.

**I never said it was an infringement on a right.
    
>>    So I still submit the logic is very similar.  Believe me I see where
>>    you are coming from with the mandating of HO, but I feel it's the same
>>    as mandating a waiting period...heck it could save lives...if that's

	It could also cost lives.  Most people in the pro-gun camp don't
	buy this premise.  Two questions for you.  1) Do you think that
	a waiting period will save lives?  And 2) Do you think that
	mandatory HO saves lives?

**1)possibly. 2)possibly.  I've seen data to proove both.

>>    By the way the VT constitution gurantees its citizens the RIGHT to
>>    hunt, fish, and fowl...so I guess that technically makes hunting a 
>>    right in this state.

	I wasn't aware of this.  I'm curious as to what this really means,
	though.  For example, even though VT recongnizes this as a right,
	the state still reserves the right to restrict one's ability
	to exercise this right.  For example, you have to purchase a
	mandatory hunting license to exercise this right.  You can
	only exercise your right during the times (seasons/hunting hours) 
	set forth by the state.  When you exercise your right to hunt
	waterfowl in VT, you still have to plug your magazine so that
	you only have a 3 shot capacity, and you have to use steel	
	shot (I'm guessing on this).  
	
**You only have to purchase a license if you hunt on property owned by someone
**other than yourself.  But all other laws govern hunting/fishing.  I didn't
**mean to get into a debate about the value of the VT constitution.  I was 
**merely pulling the same technicality on you that you did on me...kinda half 
**hearted.

	If you don't buy any of the above, how about this.  Is it legal
	in VT to carry loaded gun in your vehicle during hunting season?

**Yes.  Handgun that is.

	If it isn't, would you oppose such a law?  Why or why not?
	This and mandatory HO are both safety related issues, and 
	both are placing a restriction on how you exercise your right
	to hunt.  Also, where do you stand on mandatory hunter safety?
	Why?
    
**I believe the law against loaded long guns was more for poaching reasons.
**Just a guess though.  I favor mandatory hunter safety, (I've already stated
**why...but), because it is an attempt to get to the root of the problem.
**This latest reply from you totally avoids the problem.  You concede that
**responsible behavior is what we should try to attain, but you aren't 
**advocating forcing responsible behavior.  Before you jump down my back for
**that hear me out...by mandating HO we have given in to the premise that 
**hunters are irresponsible, so we all must, according to law, dress up like
**pumpkins to be safe.  Ignore the constitutional arguement, because even that
**has its weakness, but I bet you sing the same tune as me for responsible
**behavior when it comes to crimes with guns.  Put 'em in jail and throw away
**the key, Purdy should have been in the clinker and all that...so why the 
**change in attitude when it comes to forcing a law abiding responsible hunter 
**to wear certain color clothing???  Oh...that constitutional argument again...

	
	So, I'll stick to my original position.  In my opinion, mandatory
	HO does save lives, and it's not an infringement on a right.
	I'll agree that we already have too danged many laws, but that
	doesn't mean that all new laws are bad.  If you can't depend
	of people to police their participation in this activity 
	voluntarily, then what choice do you have.  

	Jerry

**Yup.  And lots of other things could be mandated that would save lives.  
**The immediate ban, and removal of all firearms, would save lives...forcing 
**auto's to not exceed 20 mph would save lives...living in a bubble would save 
**lives...Where do we draw the line between personal freedom and over governing?
**I accept that people die by others irresponsible behaior...it sucks, but it
**happens, it's a result of the world we live in.  I still feel that to cure 
**the problems we have to change social behavior not mandate laws to attack 
**the symptoms.

**Enough...I respectfully disagree with you.  Have a nice weekend.

**Kevin

I am in agreement with all those that feel that WE as hunters are REQUIRED
to know and identify our targets before raising our weapon of choice. I
personally would not go into the woods during deer season (longgun) w/o
being well visible to all people in the woods at the same time as myself, but
that is my choice. If we are talking mandating HO (name should be changed to
Saftey Orange) who are mandating it too? Hunters, Hikers, Bikers everybody
that wants to go into the woods at the same time as hunters and if so why
just during deer season? There are other times that I would take my rifle
into the woods. IMO it would be another law that is not enforcable and doesn't
address the problem of irresponsible people in our society. One last point
is to distinguish my comments between H/O and Hunter Saftey, I believe
everyone should be made to take a Hunter Safety course.

May the Peace and Love of HIM be with you and yours this Christmas.

Jack

re. the last few.

I guess the Kevin and I (and probably others, as well) can just agree
to disagree.  I feel that mandatory HO is a good idea, but it's 
certainly not the overriding concern in my life.  I sure don't
want to turn this into some sort of crusade.  I also like the notion
of stiffer penalties for those who violate the game laws, including
accidental shootings.

I certainly don't want to see this become an issue which pits us
against each other.  I can understand why some of you don't like
the mandatory part.  I guess that no one likes to be told that they
have to do something.  I'll respect your opinions and ask that you
respect mine.  I think that that's enough said on Hunter Orange.

There is one thing that I would like to point out, though.  And that
is that hunting is still one of the safest sports in the world.  When
I was a kid, I remember reading that you have less chance of being
hurt while hunting than you do while driving to the opera (or something
like that).  I think that we all need to remind our detractors of
that every now and then.  That doesn't lessen the tragedy of
an accidental shooting, but on a percentage basis, we're a pretty
safe bunch of folks.

Enough said.  Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.

Jerry

I would imagine that ALL of the "hunters" in this note who are in favor of 
MANDATORY HO would have enjoyed living in 1939 Germany. There you were told
what to wear, what to think, which they obviously don't want to do. I'm 
sure they are also in favor of MANDATORY helmet laws, MANDATORY seat belt 
laws, Hell why not MANDATORY helmet laws for cars and seat belt laws for 
motorcycles. If it only saves ONE life it's worth it.

We should be stressing responsibility not legislating it.

I like having my freedom without government interference. They already 
control too many things I do. It should be my choice whether or not to 
wear HO or SO. If I feel threatened enough that I think it's necessary to 
wear it when I go in the woods, that should my choice and not mandated by 
some tree hugger that never goes past the paved streets of Boston.

I, also do not believe in "hunting accidents". They are more like negligence 
but "most" of them are definitely not accidents. When a "hunter" pulls that 
trigger, he/she fully intends to kill whatever is on the receiving end of that
bullet. That to me is  not an accident. If what he/she kills is not what he/she
intended, he/she should be brought up on charges of criminal negligence, and 
if convicted, should spend a LOT of time in prison.
    
    Cowboy

 <<< Note 1098.57 by RANCHR::GIFFORD "When nature calls you have to answer" >>>
                             -< One vote against >-

>I would imagine that ALL of the "hunters" in this note who are in favor of 
>MANDATORY HO would have enjoyed living in 1939 Germany.
    
    Give me a freakin' break.  
    
    Mark.

           Ditto what Mark said..............

    Last two, Amen!   
    
    Jeff

    
    I have to agree that maybe the "enjoyed living in 1939 Germany"
    statement was a bit overzealous, but I can see the point. I feel that
    it's not the governments job/responsibility to look out for my/anyone
    elses safety. It I feel that there is reason to wear HO, then I wear
    it. If not, then no. Personally, I feel HO is a great idea, but I don't
    want it forced on me. I wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle too,
    but I hate the fact that I'm forced to wear it (when I ride into New
    Hampshire, I'll take my helmet off for just a bit so I can thumb my
    nose at Massachusetts! :)).
    
    	I'd gladly support ad campaigns, publicity about HO, and anything
    else to try and convince folks to wear it, but I won't support
    mandatory laws (even though Mass already has them!).
    
    					jim s.

>   	I'd gladly support ad campaigns, publicity about HO, and anything
>    else to try and convince folks to wear it, but I won't support
>    mandatory laws (even though Mass already has them!).

 Hear, here!

          <<< Note 1098.63 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "A Day at the Races" >>>

> Hear, here!

    Wear, where?
    
    
    

>>         <<< Note 1098.64 by CARROL::LEFEBVRE "World leader pretend" >>>
>>                                    -< :^) >-
>>
>>          <<< Note 1098.63 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "A Day at the Races" >>>

>> Hear, here!

>>>    Wear, where?

	Their, there!

    I think Jim said it pretty well...
    
    I don't like the mandatory HO
    I will wear it whenever i think it's necessary, and being non-mandatory
    it allows me to remove it legally when i reach my stand... (hang it on a
    tree or branch where i'm sitting)
    
    I don't like mandatory anything, it's just another way for big brother
    to keep us supressed.  Besides I still contend that the color shouldn't
    make a difference in whether or not theres an accident.  period
    
    Fra
    

> Besides I still contend that the color shouldn't
> make a difference in whether or not theres an accident.

 I agree with that, with one caveat. Orange makes the "in the line of fire"
accidents less likely. Who among us wouldn't take a shot at a walking 12 
pointer 100 yards away standing on the edge of a hemlock stand? You may
not really be able to tell what's on the other side of the hemlocks. If there's
a bowhunter in there, in camo, you may not see him. If he's wearing orange,
you stand a much better chance of seeing him and declining to shoot. All it 
takes is one branch to deflect the bullet or one twitch when pulling the trigger
to cause a miss. And it could have disasterous consequences.

 I believe that people who shoot others "mistaking them for game" are almost
universally at fault. People who shoot at a deer and miss and hit someone
else may or may not be at fault, depending on the circumstances.

 The Doctah

    re: 
    	Doctah,  Does this type of accident happen??  Just curious -
    it seems that all the accidents I've ever heard of involve someone
    that was either mistaken for a deer, or self inflicted.  Your backstop
    is important, indeed, but something like that is gotta be a once in a
    trillion...
    
    	Now... lets take a poll - of those responding mandatory Hunter
    orange - how many of you hunt in Mass and southern N.H. where 
    hunter density is extremely high?  In places like northern Maine,
    N.H., or northern V.T., I would imagine the scenerio mentioned in -.1
    would happen once every 10,000 years.
    
    my .02 worth  - Rob

>Doctah,  Does this type of accident happen?? 

 yeah, one happened like that last year. Here's the abstract from the 1990
hunting accident summary for NH.

 "1. Shooter: 44 yeard old male
     Victim:  20 year old male
     Firearm: .30-30 rifle

 A father and son were hunting deer together. The shooter took a stand while
his son tracked deer in fresh snow. The shooter identified a buck and fired
two shots at the running deer. The victim, who was out of sight of the shooter,
was struck in the hip. He was positioned in relatively thick, snow-laden
cover approximately 190 feet from the shooter. The victim wore no hunter orange
clothing."

 To me, this is clearly an accident. I believe that the shooter has suffered 
enough simply by striking another human being with an errant round, much less
striking his own son. I don't know whether hunter orange would have prevented
this accident or not. But these types of accidents occur.

 Another one:

 "3. Shooter: unknown
     Victim:  36 year old male
     Firearm: shotgun

 The victim was hunting alone for woodcock. he was struck by one, #7 lead 
pellet in the center of the forehead. The victim was 'out of sight of shooter',
who was never identified. The victim wore no hunter orange clothing."

 That makes 20% of last year's accidents in NH. 

 The Doctah

    RE last couple
    
      Doctah; thats been my issue with orange over this whole S O debate
    your eyes are sure gonna pick out orange before a semi camo color!!!
    I am know that people have been shot in Pa when someone else has been
    shooting at a deer, even though Pa has manditory S O laws, there are 
    still a number of people that dont wear it.
    
      Where hunting pressure is high there are bound to be accidents or
    whatever you want to call it. for example how many of you have ever
    been in Pa the first day of buck season or doe season? at times it 
    litterly sounds like a war going on. when you get that many people and
    that many shots from all different kinds of high power rifles things
    will happen!
    
       On the other hand I almost got shot last year in Pa during the doe 
    season, I was right in the open woods the other 2 guys were dragging a 
    deer when 4 deer ran between us I knew I couldnt shoot but they didnt
    care and let me tell ya, you aint been scared sh*tless till you have
    bark flying off the tree your stading behind!! well those guys got an
    earfull from me I told them that if they need a deer that bad then you
    should go out and shoot one illegal at least then you wont be putting
    someone else in danger, or you had better wise up about where you are 
    shooting.
    
       I for one will always wear S O while hunting or even walking in the 
    woods during firearm seasons.  
    
       PS: may each of you have a safe and happy holiday
    
            
                                          Lee
    
                      Who hopes his gift is under his treestand 12/26/91
    
     

>    N.H., or northern V.T., I would imagine the scenerio mentioned in -.1
>    would happen once every 10,000 years.

Here is one in 10,000 years. I have two stands. A Oscala ladder near the house a
and a permanent one further in the woods. The last weekend of deer season I 
decided to use the stand that was further in the woods. Didn't see a thing. 
On my way back I started to take the ladder stand down. I have it wedged in a 
fork of a tree. I see one of my straps is torn. Further examination reveals a 
tip of the bullet sticking out of the tree and through the strap. I dug out the
bullet (.30 cal full metal jacket). Tried to figure out how the bullet got
there... no entry hole on the opposite side of tree. After few minutes finally
put things together. Someone fired (at a deer??) into my field, either
from the road or from woods near the road. They fired up the hill and missed.
Bullet traveled accross the field and 50 yards through the woods. Struck one
of the forks of the tree (blasted out a chunk of its side) became unstable (it
seems to have struck the other fork sideways),
hit the other fork, ripped my strap and came to a rest with about 1/8" of
the tip sticking out of the tree. Considering the size of the platform on the
stand and the path of the bullet, I figure if I had been in the stand that 
morning I would be -1 head. So here are some conclusions from this incident:

Full metal jacket bullets do not break up in the woods the way soft points
do. This bullet hit at least two trees and the only marks on it were from the
rifling. I could have used it to reload, it was that perfect. 

Some slobs will do anything for a deer including shooting into a fenced in 
field (also fired less the 500 ft from the house which is against state law). 
They have complete disregard for people and property. In this case for animals
as well since this idiot used a full metal jacket bullet.

Backstop is important.

    My apologies for the "1939 Germany" comment, but after reading all of
    those replies from hunters/gunowners who would welcome MANDATORY
    anything, my short wick burned at turbo speed and I shot off before
    making sure of my target. I realize that we all wear HO or SO for the
    same reasons. Whether voluntarily or mandated. I wear it, even during
    seasons that don't require it, but I hunt in Mass. and things can get a
    little crowded around here.
    
    I too would agree with promotion, awareness ads, or any other way of
    getting people to wear it, but I will never agree to legislation to
    require it. People should be allowed to use their own judgement as to
    their own safety. I wear seat belts when I drive, I wear a helmet when
    I ride my motorcycle (even if it weren't required by state law I would
    wear it). I don't like being told I have to do this but I'd do it
    anyway.
    
    Again I apologize for being such an a--, and offending the good hunters
    in this notesfile.
    
    Cowboy (Very Red Faced)

    No biggie...let's move on.
    
    Mark.

    So far, we have the following 'sides' -
    
    -Those who favor Hunter Orange and want its use made mandatory.
    
    -Those who favor Hunter Orange but want its use optional.
    
    -Those (few radicals like me ;-) ) who think the stuff should be
     banned.
    
    I still believe that the HO issue is a side issue - with the real 
    problem being how to ensure that every shot fired in the woods is
    aimed at a proper target, with a proper backstop. I do think that
    HO helps. Sometimes. I also think HO creates a sense, in a few
    irresponsible types, that 'If you don't see orange, it's OK to shoot.'
    
    I don't know how to ensure that all hunters have a proper sense of
    safety in the woods. Education, certainly. Mandatory education? No.
    The education that some people most need is a sense of values. They
    need to see beyond the actual bagging of a deer to the whole hunt
    experience. They need to understand that bagging a deer is not the
    whole experience, nor is it so important that safety canever be 
    compromised. And they are not going to learn that in a classroom.
    They will learn it from their fellow hunters. If Dad and Uncle Bob
    brag about being a couple of mighty meat-packers, who always get
    their deer, who hunt on each others' tags and wink at the illegalities,
    then that kid will grow up with one lousy set of values around hunting.
    Better he hangs around on street corners, IMHO. The kid who learns
    sportmanship from the actions of those around him will be a true
    sportsman.
    
    Dana
    
    

    re: .69
    
    Doctah,
    
    First let me cast my vote against MANDATORY SO.
    
    Question.... In both cases you gave the victim was "out of sight of
    shooter". HOW is something you must SEE going to help if you can't see
    it because the guy wearing it is out of sight????
    
    If I feel a need I wear it otherwise I don't.
    
    Harvey
    

>    Question.... In both cases you gave the victim was "out of sight of
>    shooter". HOW is something you must SEE going to help if you can't see
>    it because the guy wearing it is out of sight????

 It depends on how you define out of sight. If you define out of sight as
being "there was no direct line of sight between the principals" then it
doesn't make a difference. If you define out of sight as being "I didn't
see him in that thick stuff" then having orange on may help. There are lots
of times that I've known exactly where my partner was only because he was 
wearing orange. Had he worn camo he certainly would have been out of sight,
even though there would have been a direct path which a bullet could take 
between he and me.

 The Doctah

    in all this talk about hunter orange, it seems that when people argue
    HO's merits it's always compared to camo...  re:.76   is it that much
    better than red plaid? 
    
    You mean to tell me you can't pick out red plaid in the thick stuff...
    or someone wearing red wool pants...  is HO that much better than
    RED...  come on...
    
    Fra
    

    re: -1
    
    Hunting out here in the Rockies you can see HO along way off, we're
    talking about a mile off. I don't think I'd see you in red plaid and
    that same distance. Seeing you out there in HO would determine if I'd
    take a shot or not. There is allot of difference IMHO.
    
    This does not deal with HO, but a hunter from La. was shot and killed
    this year in Colorado 1/2 mile away from the guy that shot. The guy 
    that shot was shooting at an elk walking a ridge line and missed.
    
    I'll wear mine.
    
    Mark

>    You mean to tell me you can't pick out red plaid in the thick stuff...
>    or someone wearing red wool pants...  is HO that much better than
>    RED...  come on...
    
    Absolutely.  Particularly during early morning or late afternoon light.
    
    Mark.

    Last few.
    
    Anyone can argue (and will ;^) whether HO or SO should be mandatory or
    not.  Also, I doubt that anyone would argue that hunter safety
    programs DO make hunting a safer sport.  (Although I'm also sure there
    are those that in one breath say Big Brother legislates too much, such
    as mandatory HO/SO and then want mandatory hunter safety courses in the
    next breath.  Oh well.)
    
    However I would contend that it's difficult to argue that HO/SO is
    significantly more visible than any other color.  Many times my brother
    and I have walked into the woods pre-dawn and up to a point, no color
    is visible whether it's HO/SO, red, or any other color.  But as soon as
    there gets to be a certain amount of light in the air (roughly 1/2 hour
    before actual sunrise time), the HO/SO literally starts to glow, almost
    like someone flipped a switch.  I'm sure it's some natually excited
    wave length of the orange color (which is specified in the regs.) that
    our eyes are sensive to, but whatever the cause, this phenomenon does
    occur.  On a cloudy morning it happens a bit later; on a clear day, a
    bit earlier.  I've never seen this happen with reds, greens, or any
    other colors.  And that brilliant orange glow can't easily be mistaken
    to be anything but a hunter; unlike red which could be a patch of
    leaves.  
    
    Nothing will replace common sense and making sure of one's target and
    backstop BEFORE raising the rifle.  I'm also equally sure that wearing
    HO/SO makes me more visible to game (whether by color, noticed
    movement, or by being a solid colorless blob to the animal's eyes). 
    But if you're like me, the one sure thing I can do to protect myself
    (at least to some extent) against the careless hunters and also some
    number of freak accidents so I can hunt again another day is to wear
    the HO/SO.  Anyone who doesn't; more power to you and you have chosen
    to accept an increased risk that I don't.

    
    re .77
    
    I believe hunter orange shows up much better than red/red plaid.
    In the group I hunt with (NH), the range of clothes goes from
    all orange (including pants) to all red with the exception  of a 
    hat.  Several times I have seen a little orange dot coming through
    the woods, and upon closer look you see the red.  THis has occured
    at distances while on a stand and also while still hunting with a
    partner who is in head to toe read with an orange hat. When working
    in thick stuff the very first thing you see is the orange.
    
    --Bob
    

    I believe HO works much the same as other flourescent products
    (such as the Day-Glo tradename products) in that it not only
    reflects the normal amount of visible light (just like a red
    flannel jacket would) but also absorbs normally invisible
    ultraviolet and re-emits it in the visible spectrum.  This would
    also explain why it seems to `turn on' at dawn since prior to the
    first sun's rays bending around the horizon, there is negligible
    ultraviolet light available.  So the net result is that in
    sunlight (or any other source that has a good UV component) HO
    really IS brighter than normal fabrics.  Supposedly, even though
    it is brighter, it is still far enough into the red end of the
    spectrum to not be appreciably noticeable by deer.

	Mike

>    You mean to tell me you can't pick out red plaid in the thick stuff...
>    or someone wearing red wool pants...  is HO that much better than
>    RED...  come on...

 Red plaid looks awfully brownish in the same low light conditions in which 
orange still looks orange, at least through my eyes.

    
    One reason why some can't see the red plaid as well--- According to
    a medical study about 30% of males and 20% fo females are red-green
    color blind. Most do not know it. This is why red requires direct
    light for some to see it. And if you have this condition, which ranges
    from minimal to seeing NO RED, the worst color combination for you
    to distinguish is a combination of RED and GREEN. It affects some
    people strongly enough that they CANNOT see blood on a blade of grass.
    Just thought I'd throw out that little bit of trivia. Some places I
    hunt require SO, then I wear it. I am not for MANDATORY SO but use it
    when I think it is warranted.
    Enough ramblin'
    Harvey
    

    
    	Regardless of what some of us think, hunting is a privilege
    	and not a right.
    
    	Now, as to whether HO should be mandatory or not, I think
    	it should.  My reasoning is for the line of fire reason given
    	earlier.  Also, HO helps me detect what is walking through
    	the woods (ie I get my butt on the opposite side of a tree if
    	I identify another hunter cruising through the woods :*)  ).
    	
    	Clay

I'll add my $.02 worth. I don't like Big Brother telling me how to live.
What ever happened to freedom of CHOICE. If some fool wants to ride around 
on his motorcycle doing 100 MPH and wrecks, That's his choice on whether or not 
he wants his head sanded smooth on one side by the pavement. Same way with HO.
I wear it and I'll always wear it even though its required here in CO. If 1% of 
the hunters out there shot at sounds rather than Identifing the target do you 
really want to take the chance of being his with a bullet from a high powered 
rifle? You only have control of your own situation. You have no or very little 
control over other peoples situations. I don't shoot at sounds, most hunters 
don't either, But what about the tiny % of those who are SLOBS. Why take this 
unnecessary risk. Hunter orange may increase your chances of not getting shot.

Then there is the argument about deer see the orange and react to it. This is 
bull. I have been 20 feet from a 2 point buck(western) that had a herd of about 
12-15 does with him. We were standing out in the open where he could see me
from the time he walked into thew meadow. First the does came into the meadow
then the buck. If the does would have seen the orange they definitely would 
have warned the buck. The buck walks past the does to about 20 feet away. And 
stops and bends over to graze. The ground was covered in snow. Me and my HO 
stuck out like a sore thumb. The deer didn't bolt until I shued it away. Need
3 points that year to shoot it. I even raised my rifle slowly and had him in my 
sights. There is NO proof that will convince me that deer react to HO. Movement 
yes, scent - yes, color - NO. 

How would you feel if you see a buck 50 yds away along the tree line. You check 
it out with your 10X binos and see nothing behind him but dark timber. Its 4:30 
pm. You raise your 300 win mag and fire. The bullet goes clean thru the deer 
and into the woods. You hear a scream and walk up to investigate; there 20 feet 
into the trees is a fully camo'd hunter laying there with a bullety wound in 
his chest. Now, how many of you would have passed up the shot? If you truly 
live by the rule that KNOW YOUR BACKSTOP. How can you ever shoot at anything 
that doesn't have a BIG rock or mountain directly behind it? 
HO could have saved this man's life. That's why I wear HO. I don't want to get 
shot by some beer guzzling slob hunter and I've seen some here in COLO that 
down right scare me. 

Let the choice be yours but I think the smart choice is HO.

JC

    JC brings up a good point that I've often wondered about.  How many
    folks _truely_ know what is behind there target?
    
    Jeff

 Good point. If you were to take a really strict interpretation of the
"know your target and your backstop," I'd bet that fewer than 10% of the shots
now taken would qualify.

    re:.86  again the non-wearer of hunter orange is wearing camo...  I may
    be way off base but I truly find it hard to believe that  someone
    wearing red plaid wouldn't be seen... Having said that i'll stop
    rambling...
    
    in the situation described where the hunter in the background was shot
    by a "stray" bullet, this could happen under many different
    situations... running shots, any flat terrain, anything where there
    isn't a hill behind the target for a backstop...  How many guys out
    there have taken shots at skylined deer???  nobody I bet...
    
    mandatory: NO
    
    Fra

    re:.89
    
    Fra,
    
    In response to you question at the end of your reply. I DO NOT shoot 
    skylined deer. As a youngster my Grandfather and father DRUMMED that
    into all us boys. You have no idea where the bullet is going even if
    you do hit the deer. In 40 years of hunting I've NEVER done it and have
    no plans to. But that is my choice. I still don't like mandatory but I
    only wear full camo when bow hunting. when rifle hunting I CHOOSE to
    wear bright cloths.
    
    nuf' said
    Harvey
    

    Harvey,
    
    I don't want to come acroos as some kind of nut here, I guess what i'm
    really doing mostly is playing the devils advocate...  I mean, Ya I
    wear HO when necessary, and it's mandatory in Mass.  I always have
    some portion of HO on even when in VT where it's not needed... at a
    minimum I use a strip of it on my day pack (approx 100" sq). Some days
    i'll wear a HO hat and on those occasions when were driving areas, i'll
    put on a HO vest...
    
    I have a tough time writing down what i'm thinking, but essentially I
    guess what i'm trying to say is that target identification is the
    issue, not what colors your looking at.
    
    Knowing that theres a chance that there could be a bowhunter sitting
    camoed up, on the other side of the deer, does'nt seem to stop people
    from shooting deer.  People still pull the trigger... there are states
    where this could easily happen, but people still continue hunting.
    We all know the risks are there, but people continue to shoot running
    deer, deer with no hill behind them (probably the only realistic
    backstop) and others that shoot skylined deer.  I don't shoot skylined
    deer, and to be honest I havn't had the opportunity yet to see if I'd
    have the will power to hold back, although I hope I could.
    
    It's the type of sport where some very tragic things could and do
    happen.  I have a wife and kids, and am finding myself more and more
    inclined to wear the HO, but don't believe for a minute that it's a
    cure all...  even with it on theres always the chance of a bullet
    knocking on your door... I guess I can count my blessing that nothing
    has happened to me so far...
    
    there are other more Bizaar issues at hand than mandatory HO or not,
    when it comes to safety...  Like in MA, why do you have to hunt with a
    shotgun for deer but can use any rifle you want to varmint hunt???  Now
    theres something that should be addressed... wow, forget I said that!!!
    I don't want any more restrictions that might interfere with my rifle
    hunting and use of the new .220 Swift.
    
    Up until now, my thinking has been "out of sight, out of mind", if a
    guy walking by does'nt see me I feel more comfortable, and with the
    HO your really advertising...  I've had the unfortunate experience of
    being scoped out on a few occasions in MA, and hence why I feel the way
    I do.  Thats not to say I'm out rifle/shotgun hunting in full camo. 
    This is where the Red Plaid comes in, i think its a pretty good middle
    of the road choice.  Only now after all the talk I think I might start
    wearing a little more of the HO... consider me a convert. ;^)
    
    still don't think it should be mandatory however!
    
    Happy New Year,  Fra
                                          

>    Like in MA, why do you have to hunt with a
>    shotgun for deer but can use any rifle you want to varmint hunt???
    
    Fra, it could possibly be due to the larger number of hunters in the
    woods during deer season than during varmint season.
    
    Mark.

    
    re .91
    
    My feelings exactly concerning advertising...after being scoped myself
    I know that feeling...even to this day when I talk to some people about
    this they brush it off as not a big deal.  I never gave it much thought
    either until I realized that barrel was pointed directly at me!!! Low
    and behold if that gun went off where would I be now?  There's still
    people that walk through the woods with their damn safety's off!!!
    
    Two years ago, after the scoping incident, I received some nice Leopold
    bino's as a Christmas present from my wife...I asked for them so I
    would never be tempted to point my rifle in the direction of something
    I wasn't completely sure of...it's a standard I don't compromise on.
    
    I hear ya...
    
    Kevin

	Pardon my ignorance, but if I can learn something important
	about safety I guess I had better admit to being stupid...

	What is the truble of shooting at a "skylined" target?
	I have this picture of a buck above me on a ridge. If
	I'm not allowed to shoot at him, is it because my bullet
	could be deflected in his body, or is it that ultimately
	any bullet has to come down again (i.e. the lack of a
	backstop) ?

	Sorry to be ignorant.

						- Mike

    Re: Shooting at a skylined target.
    
    	Fisrt rule of thumb....Know your backstop.
    
    	Red

    
    re .94
    
    You shouldn't shoot at a skylined target for the basic reason that 
    .95 says, you don't know your backstop.  If you think a little deeper
    a couple of things could happen:
    
    1) You miss, bullets goes for miles, has to come down someplace
    2) You hit, bullet goes through deer, out the other side, still has
       to come down someplace
    3) Bullet deflection on the way to deer, see #1
    
    --Bob
    

    Off the subject of SO but relevant to knowing your backstop. Last
    thursday or friday (forgot which) a conference room in AKO1 (Acton,Ma)
    got hit with a stray bullet. The police that investigated determined 
    that the bullet (don't know what caliber) came some distance as it
    penertrated the first pane of the thermal pane and did'nt go thru
    the second. Someone either skylined shot or did'nt know thier backstop.
    
    (I don't think it was part of our downsizing)
    
    Jack

Re: <<< Note 1098.97 by BPO406::LEAHY >>>

>>    Off the subject of SO but relevant to knowing your backstop. Last
>>    thursday or friday (forgot which) a conference room in AKO1 (Acton,Ma)
>>    got hit with a stray bullet. The police that investigated determined 
>>    that the bullet (don't know what caliber) came some distance as it
>>    penertrated the first pane of the thermal pane and did'nt go thru
>>    the second. Someone either skylined shot or did'nt know thier backstop.

Was the bullet distorted?  If not, it was probably a direct shot from a long
ways off. If it was, it may have been a fairly close ricochet.

I remember reading that someone was killed from a bullet fired ~1/2 mile away.
I don't recall where it happened. might have been here in Colo. Probably from a 
skyline shot that missed. So it does happen. Anyone else recall reading about 
this.

JC

    re: .99
     Yer correct. The man was a hunter (Lousiana police officer) who
    got hit from a person taking a skyline shot at an elk a 1/2 a
    mile away. Man, talk about occupying the wrong space at the wrong 
    time. The odds are probably incredible, but not to this man. Never
    shoot unless you know your backstop!
    
    chuck

There was a question posted earlier about the safety factor of red
vs. orange.  I just remembered something from my hunter safety course.

During the course, a film was shown which recreated some actual, reported
accidents.  In one such incident, a guy was turkey hunting.  He was
calling, and had a red bandana/handkerchief which he was wiping his
face with.

Another hunter heard his calls and started working toward him, thinking
that he was hearing a turkey.  As he neared, the caller wiped his
face with the red bandana.  The other hunter saw the red, mistook it
for a turkey's wattle (or whatever you call that hangy-down red part
under a gobbler's beak), and shot him.

Of course, the guy doing the shooting was wrong.  He should never have
shot regardless of what color he saw.  However, in at least one
situation, red was a very un-safe color.

Jerry

    Yea, I saw that film too.  That was pretty stupid of the guy but I'm
    sure he didn't think of it at the time.  On the other hand, not many
    toms make hen calls......
    
    I think one problem with red, especially in the NE is that the swamp
    mapels turn great colors of red and red could blend right in with the
    trees.  How many more people would get shot from movement detected from
    other "hunters" with a doe tag.
    
    Hunters orange is *not* a color of nature (not in my neck of the woods
    anyway) and I think that's why they picked it.    I've often wondered
    if flourescent green, blues etc would be just as effective, but they've
    got everybody looking for orange so I guess why change it.
    
    /brett
    picked it

	RE: <<1098.98 PEAKS::OAKEY>>

I'm not sure about bullet deformity as I didnt see it, I am pretty sure though 
that the police investigating felt it came from a distance.
	
	RE: <<1098.101>>
If I remember correctly during my safety course that they used the tragedy
you mentioned as one of the main reasons that you DO NOT stalk turkeys.


Jack

    re .101
    
      Usually the leaves are gone from the swamp maples by the last week in
    September/1st week in October. There are other trees that turn red,
    though not nearly as brilliant as the ole "swamp maple"... So, it might
    not be a significant factor in someone "blending in" with the
    background while wearing a red suit :-)
    
      Gotta love those fall colors...
    
    Joe

                       WARNING DECWINDOWS USERS
   
   The next reply is very long.  It contains the regulations for the US
   and Canada concerning Hunter Orange as of 1991.

  This is taken from a pamphlet printed in 1991 by Highland Industries,
  Inc.  They make hunter orange fabrics.  It covers both the U.S. and
  Canada.

  NOTE:  I am putting section II before section I.  This is because section
         II is a summary, thereby making it shorter.




                 "HUNTER ORANGE" THE LAWS OF THE LAND

   Hunter Orange Survey

   II.  A summary of information obtained from the United States and
   Canadian Hunter Safety Coordinators.


   A. Recommended Hunter Orange although use is not required by law.

                United States           Canada
                -------------           ------
                ALASKA                  NEWFOUNDLAND
                ARIZONA                 NORTHWEST TERRITORY
                CALIFORNIA              ONTARIO
                IDAHO                   PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
                NEVADA
                NEW HAMPSHIRE
                NEW MEXICO
                NEW YORK
                OREGON
                VERMONT

   B. Prohibit Camouflage Hunter Orange

        1. Require garment to be of SOLID or CONTINUOUS Hunter Orange
           per state and province regulations.

                United States           Canada
                -------------           ------
                ALABAMA                 NOVA SCOTIA
                COLORADO
                ILLINOIS
                INDIANA
                IOWA
                MAINE
                MISSISSIPPI
                RHODE ISLAND
                SOUTH CAROLINA

        2. Refuse to recognize Camouflage Hunter Orange as a legal fabric
           as advised by the State and Provincial Hunter Safety
           Coordinators.

                United States           Canada
                -------------           ------
                FLORIDA                 QUEBEC
                KENTUCKY                SASKATCHEWAN
                LOUISIANA
                MARYLAND
                MISSOURI
                NEBRASKA
                NORTH DAKOTA
                VIRGINIA

   C. Require Camouflage Hunter Orange to meet or exceed their requirements.
      Taken from survey responses of State and Provincial Hunter Safety
      Coordinators.

                United States           Canada
                -------------           ------
                ARKANSAS                NEW BRUNSWICK
                DELAWARE
                GEORGIA
                KANSAS
                MASSACHUSETTS
                MONTANA
                NEW JERSEY
                OKLAHOMA
                PENNSYLVANIA
                TEXAS
                TENNESSEE
                UTAH
                WASHINGTON
                WEST VIRGINIA
                WYOMING

   NOTE: MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, and WISCONSIN require 50% of a Camouflage
         Hunter Orange garment be open Hunter Orange.

         NOVA SCOTIA refuses to recognize Camouflage Hunter Orange as a
         legal fabric except during archery deer season.



   ========================================================================

   I. A review of current regulations and recommendations compiled by
   Highland Industries, Inc., producers of Ten Mile Cloth (R) and Easy
   Ten (R) fabrics for hunting garments.


                          U N I T E D   S T A T E S

   ALABAMA  All hunters during gun deer season must wear a vest or cap
   with at least 144 square inches of SOLID Hunter Orange, visible from
   all sides.  Deer hunters in tree stands elevated more than 12 feet
   from the ground need not wear Hunter Orange, except when traveling to
   and from tree stands.  Only Hunter Orange, Blaze Orange or Ten Mile
   (R) cloth is legal.  (Exception: waterfowl, turkey and dove hunters
   and those hunting legally designated species during legal night time
   hours.)

   ALASKA  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to
   wear Hunter Orange.

   ARIZONA  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to
   wear Hunter Orange.

   ARKANSAS  All hunters, and those accompanying them, during gun
   seasons for deer and bear must wear a Hunter Orange hat and  an outer
   garment with at least 400 square inches of Hunter Orange above the waist.
   (Exception: Waterfowl hunters.)

   CALIFORNIA   Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to
   wear Hunter Orange.

   COLORADO  All firearm hunters for elk, deer, antelope, or bear must wear
   a minimum of 500 square inches of SOLID Hunter Orange above the waist
   which includes a head covering.

   CONNECTICUT  All hunters, from the third Saturday in October through the
   last day of December must wear at least 200 square inches of Hunter
   Orange, visible  from all sides.  (Exception: bow hunters, waterfowl
   hunters in boats, blinds, or other stationary positions, hunters of
   raccoon or opossum at night, landowners hunting deer on their own land,
   crow hunters from blinds, archery and firearms, turkey hunting.)

   DELAWARE  During a time when it is lawful to take deer with a firearm,
   any person hunting deer in this State shall display on his head, chest
   and back a total of not less than 400 square inches of Hunter Orange
   material.

   FLORIDA  All deer hunters, and those accompanying them, on public land
   during open deer season must wear at least 500 square inches of Hunter
   Orange on outer garments above the waist.

   GEORGIA  All deer, bear and feral hog hunters, and those accompanying
   them, during firearm seasons must wear at least 500 square inches of
   Hunter Orange on outer garments above the waist.

   HAWAII  All persons in any hunting area where firearms are permitted must
   wear a Hunter Orange outer garment above the waist, or a piece of Hunter
   Orange material of at least 144 square inches on both their front and
   back,  above the waist.  A SOLID Hunter Orange hat is recommended.

   IDAHO   Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to
   wear Hunter Orange.

   ILLINOIS  All hunters and trappers during gun deer season must wear a cap
   and outer garment above the waist with at least 400 square inches of
   SOLID Hunter Orange (Exception:  migratory waterfowl hunters.)

   INDIANA  Deer (bow and gun), rabbit, squirrel, grouse, pheasant, and
   quail hunters must wear at least one of the following SOLID Hunter Orange
   garments: vest, coat, jacket, coveralls, hat or cap.  (Exception:  bow
   hunters for deer during first archery deer season.)

   IOWA  All firearm deer hunters must wear at least one or more of the
   following  articles of visible EXTERNAL apparel:  A vest, coat, jacket,
   sweatshirt, sweater, shirt, or coveralls, the color of which shall be
   SOLID Hunter Orange.

   KANSAS  Big game clothing requirements: (a) Each person hunting deer or
   elk in a management unit during a firearms deer or elk season shall wear
   Hunter Orange clothing having a predominant lightwave length of 595-605
   nanometers; (B) The bright orange color shall be worn as follows: 1) a
   hat with the exterior of not less than 50 percent of the bright orange
   color, an equal portion of which is visible from all directions; 2) a
   minimum of 100 square inches of the bright orange color on the front of
   the torso;  and 3) a minimum of 100 square inches of the bright orange
   color on the back of the torso.

   KENTUCKY  All deer hunters (including archers) during any gun season, or
   any hunt where firearms are permitted, must wear SOLID, unbroken, Hunter
   Orange color on their head, chest and back as outer garments.  These
   SOLID Hunter Orange garments may have a small patch or panel of another
   color, so long as the Hunter Orange is not significantly obscured.

   LOUISIANA  All hunters, including archers and small game hunters, on
   Wildlife Management Areas and all deer hunters elsewhere must wear at
   least 400 square inches of Hunter Orange on the head, chest or back.
   (Exception: bow hunters when no gun deer season is in progress, and
   hunters on privately owned and legally posted land.)

   MAINE  All firearm hunters during open gun deer seasons must wear an
   article of SOLID Hunter Orange clothing visible from all sides.  Camouflage
   Hunter Orange must be supplemented with an article of SOLID Hunter
   Orange.  (Exception: waterfowl hunters from a boat, blind, or in
   conjunction with decoys.)

   MARYLAND  All hunters and those accompanying them must wear either: 1) a
   cap of SOLID daylight fluorescent orange color; 2) a vest or jacket
   containing back and front panels of at least 250 square inches of SOLID
   daylight fluorescent orange color; or 3) an outer garment of camouflage
   fluorescent orange worn above the waist which contains at least 50%
   daylight fluorescent orange color.  (Exception: Hunters of wetland game
   birds, fur bearing mammals, doves, crows, wild turkeys, bow hunters
   during archery season only, falconers, and unlicensed hunters on their
   own property.)

   MASSACHUSETTS  All hunters during shotgun deer season and deer hunters
   during primitive firearm season must wear at least 500 square inches of
   Hunter Orange on their chest, back, and head.  (Exception:  waterfowl
   hunters in a blind or boat.)  All hunters on Wildlife Management Areas
   during  pheasant and quail season must wear a Hunter Orange hat or cap.
   (Exception:  waterfowl hunters in a blind or boat, and raccoon hunters at
   night.)

   MICHIGAN  All firearm hunters on any land during daylight hunting hours
   must wear a hat, cap, vest, jacket, rainwear, or other outer garment of
   Hunter Orange visible from all sides.  All Camouflage Hunter Orange is
   legal provided 50% of the surface are is SOLID Hunter Orange.
   (Exception: waterfowl, crow, and wild turkey hunters, and bow hunters for
   deer during open archery season.)

   MINNESOTA  A person may not hunt or trap during the open season in a zone
   or area where deer may be taken by firearms, unless the visible portion
   of the person's cap and outer clothing above the waist, excluding sleeves
   and gloves, is bright red or blaze orange.  Blaze orange includes a
   camouflage pattern of at least 50% blaze orange within each square foot.

   MISSISSIPPI  All deer hunters during gun season for deer must wear at
   least 500 square inches of SOLID Hunter Orange visible from all sides.

   MISSOURI  During firearms deer season, all hunters must wear a cap or
   hat, and a shirt, vest, or coat having the outermost color be Hunter
   Orange and must be plainly visible from all sides while being worn.
   Camouflage orange garments do not meet this requirement.  (Exception:
   Department of Conservation areas where deer hunting is restricted to
   archery methods.)

   MONTANA  All big game hunters and those accompanying them must wear at
   least 400 square inches of Hunter Orange above the waist.  A hat or cap
   alone is not sufficient.  (Exception: bow hunters during special archery
   season.)

   NEBRASKA  All deer and antelope hunters with firearms must wear at least
   400 square inches of Hunter Orange on the head, back, and chest.

   NEVADA  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to wear
   Hunter Orange.

   NEW HAMPSHIRE  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to
   wear Hunter Orange.

   NEW JERSEY  All hunters with firearms for deer, rabbit, hare, squirrel,
   fox or game birds must wear a cap of SOLID Hunter Orange or other outer
   garment with at least 200 square inches of Hunter Orange visible from all
   sides.  (Exception: waterfowl, wild turkey and bow hunters.)

   NEW MEXICO  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to
   wear Hunter Orange.

   NEW YORK  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to wear
   Hunter Orange.

   NORTH CAROLINA  Bear, deer or wild boar hunters with the use of firearms
   must wear a hat, cap or outer garment of Hunter Orange, visible from all
   sides.  (Exception: landowners hunting on their own land.)

   NORTH DAKOTA  All big game hunters with firearms must wear a head
   covering and out garment above the waist with at least 400 square inches
   of SOLID Hunter Orange material.

   OHIO  All deer hunters during gun deer seasons must wear a visible Hunter
   Orange hat, cap, vest, or coat.

   OKLAHOMA  All firearm deer hunters must wear a head covering and outer
   garment above the waist with at least 500 square inches of clothing of
   which 400 square inches must be Hunter Orange.  All other hunters must
   wear either a head covering or outer garment of Hunter Orange during open
   gun deer seasons.  (Exception: waterfowl, crow, or crane hunters, and
   those hunting furbearing animals at night.)

   OREGON  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to wear
   Hunter Orange.

   PENNSYLVANIA  All deer or bear hunters during the regular firearms
   seasons must wear at least 250 square inches of Hunter Orange material on
   the head, chest and back combined.  Woodchuck hunters must wear a SOLID
   Hunter Orange head covering.

   RHODE ISLAND  Statewide, 3rd Saturday in October-February 28, all
   hunters, unless bow hunting, hunting raccoon or fox at night and waterfowl
   hunting as provided, must wear an outer garment consisting of a minimum
   of 200 square inches of SOLID daylight fluorescent Hunter Orange material
   worn above the waist, and visible in all directions.  This may be a hat
   and/or vest.  Statewide, during shotgun season for deer, all hunters,
   except waterfowl hunters as provided, must wear an outer garment
   containing a minimum of 500 square inches of SOLID daylight fluorescent
   Hunter Orange material, worn above the waist visible from all directions
   and must include a head covering.  (Exceptions: during muzzle-loading
   season all hunters must wear 200 square inches as stated above.)

   SOUTH CAROLINA  On all WMA lands and lands within the Central Piedmont,
   Western Piedmont and Mountain Hunt Units during the gun hunting season
   for deer, all hunters must wear either a hat, coat, or vest of SOLID
   visible international orange.  Hunters are exempt from this requirement
   while hunting for dove, duck and turkey.  Small game hunters while
   hunting at night or on privately owned lands within the hunt unit are
   also exempt.

   SOUTH DAKOTA  All big game hunters with firearms must wear one or more
   exterior Hunter Orange garments above the waist.  (Exception: turkey
   hunters.)

   TENNESSEE  All big game hunters with firearms must ware at least 500
   square inches of Hunter Orange on a head covering and an outer garment
   above the waist, visible from front and back.  (Exception:  turkey
   hunters during gun hunts proclaimed by the commission of those hunting on
   their own property.)

   TEXAS  All hunters on Type I wildlife management areas of state parks
   must visibly wear a minimum of 400 square inches of daylight fluorescent
   Hunter Orange material with at least 144 square inches appearing on both
   chest and back.  (Exception: archery-only season; turkey, migratory
   birds; coyotes or fur bearers at night; and alligators.)  Type II area
   regulations are similar.

   UTAH  All hunters during big game season will wear a minimum of 400
   square inches of Hunter Orange material on the head, chest and back.
   Hunter Orange clothing is not required during deer and elk archery and
   muzzle-loading season except when a rifle season is in progress.
   (Exception: bighorn sheep season.)

   VERMONT  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to wear
   Hunter Orange.

   VIRGINIA  Hunters during firearm deer season and those accompanying them
   must wear Hunter Orange on the upper body, visible from all sides, or a
   Hunter Orange hat, or display 100 square inches of Hunter Orange within
   body reach, at shoulder level or higher, visible from all sides.

   WASHINGTON  All hunters must wear fluorescent Hunter Orange clothing with
   a minimum of 400 square inches fluorescent Hunter Orange exterior, worn
   above the waist and visible from all sides. (Exception: Persons who are
   hunting upland game bird during an upland game bird season with
   muzzle-loading firearm, bow and arrow or falconry.)

   WEST VIRGINIA  All deer hunters during deer gun season must wear at least
   400 square inches of Hunter Orange on an outer garment.

   WISCONSIN  All hunter during gun deer season must have 50% of their
   outer garments above the waist, including any head covering, colored
   Hunter Orange.  (Exception:  waterfowl hunters.)

   WYOMING  All big game hunters must wear one or more exterior garments
   (i.e. hat, shirt, jacket, coat, vest, or sweater) of Hunter Orange.
   (Exception:  bow hunters during special archery season.)



                                 C A N A D A

   ALBERTA  No garment color requirements or recommendations.

   BRITISH COLUMBIA  No garment color requirements or recommendations.

   MANITOBA  All big game hunters must wear a head covering of SOLID Hunter
   Orange above the waist, visible from all sides.  This 400 square inches
   can consist of camo.  (Exception:  archers, registered trappers,
   persons hunting black bears and gray wolves, March 1 to June 30, or a
   time of year and in an area where hunting season for all other big game
   animals is closed.  Further exceptions include: bull hunters, wolf
   hunters, outside of deer, elk, and moose seasons, and wolf and bear
   hunters during spring season, also upland bird hunters need to wear blaze
   orange during deer rifle season.)

   NEW BRUNSWICK  All hunters and licensed guides accompanying any person
   engaged in hunting must wear upon his back, chest and shoulders an
   exterior garment Hunter Orange in color of which not less than 2,580
   square centimeters in aggregate shall be exposed to view to be plainly
   visible from all directions.

   NEWFOUNDLAND  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to
   wear a minimum of 2,580 square centimeters of Hunter Orange (400 square
   inches).

   NORTHWEST TERRITORY Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended
   to wear Hunter Orange.

   NOVA SCOTIA  All hunters and those accompanying them must wear a cap or
   hat and a vest, coat, or shirt of SOLID Hunter Orange visible from all
   sides.  Camouflage Hunter Orange is permitted during bow hunter season
   for deer as long as there are at least 400 square inches visible from all
   sides.

   ONTARIO  Upland and big game hunters are strongly recommended to wear a
   minimum of 2,580 square centimeters of Hunter Orange (400 square
   inches).

   PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND  All upland game hunters are encouraged to wear
   Hunter Orange.

   QUEBEC  All hunters, guides and companions must wear at least 2,580
   square centimeters (400 square inches) of Hunter Orange on their back,
   shoulders, and chest, visible from any angle.  During hunting season
   through December 1st, coyote, fox and wolf hunters and guides are
   required  to wear the same as other hunters.  (Exception: crow, migratory
   birds, deer and moose hunters during special archery seasons.)

   SASKATCHEWAN  All big game hunters must wear a complete outer suit of
   scarlet, bright yellow, Hunter Orange or white, and a head covering of
   any of these colors except white.  (Exception: bow hunters and black
   powder hunters during special archery/muzzle-loading seasons.)

   YUKON  No garment color requirements or recommendations.

    I was recently reading somewhere, or heard on some show, that there
    is a state that is changing its hunter orange law.  They are changing
    to using neon Chartreuse this hear , year not hear, for safety colors.
    They say the chartreuse is more visible than the orange.  Does anyone
    have information on this, such as which state is doing this, etc.?
    It will be intereseting to see what the "accident" ratio will be after
    one year of this.
    
    bob
    

    On the subject of hunter safety, what do you folks recomend when you
    notice another hunter within sight? My scenario is that I'll be sitting
    on the ground, near the top of a hill, with full red&black Woolrich on.
    Over the coat, I have the typical blaze orange vest. I also wear a
    blaze orange cap.
    
    Do you whistle, blow a whistle, holler, cough, wave, or what to let the
    approaching hunter know you are there?
    
    With some of the accidents (?) here in NE, I have a bit more concern
    about this topic than in past years.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ed Marshall (headed for PA buck season next week!)
                                                      

    
    
    I usually give a whistle and when they finally look in my direction
    I'll wave to them just to make sure. If they are sincere hunters,
    they'll usually walk in the other direction, away from you. 
    
    Gus

      Yep, generally a quick whistle and a wave when they look in your 
    direction.  The same holds true if you are the walker and you see 
    another hunter posted.  This happened to me yesterday... I was walk-
    ing through some thick stuff, and saw a hunter down below me.  It
    was real quite in the woods (rain will do that), and he never saw me
    coming.  I probably could have snuck by undetected, but didn't want to
    take that chance.  I stopped in a spot where I could clearly see him,
    then whistled (not too loud).  He then turned in my direction, I waved,
    then proceeded on.  Just wanted to make sure he know I was there.  I've
    read about too many accidents this year... didn't want to take a
    chance.  A sudden snap of a twig, rustle of the leaves in all that
    thick stuff, and you never know what the other guy is thinking.  Don't
    want any sound shots headed in my direction.
    
    -Ron-

 After New York's 11 fatality season last year, the legislature began a move
towards mandatory hunter orange. Prior to passing the legislation, they
commissioned a study to see if mandatory hunter orange would prove to be
beneficial. The results of this study validate what my position has been on 
mandatory hunter orange all along.

 Currently 40 states have mandatory orange laws, and 10 suggest orange but do
not mandate it. Common sense would indicate that the mandatory orange states
would have lower accident rates than the others, at least according to 
conventional wisdom. Predictably (IMO), though, this is not the case. While
the states with mandatory orange laws have low accident rates, states with
no such laws have LOWER accident rates. (It looks to be about 50% lower.)
And we are not comparing apples to oranges, either. Among the states with
no mandatory orange laws are NY and CA, states with millions of hunters and
high hunter densities. The study also showed that compliance in some of the
"orange optional" states exceeded that of some of the mandatory orange states.

 The evidence is in. Mandatory orange laws are counter productive. This should
be good ammunition for the annual introduction of hunter orange legislation
in NH...

    re.111,  this is real interesting.  Can you input the exact numbers,
    or send them to me a1?
    
    bob
    

    re .111
        I take it you read John Harrigans column in the sports section of
    the N.H. Sunday News yesterday. I also thought it was very informative.
    If I remember to bring in the article tomorrow I will post the numbers.
    							Bret

 Yep- it was from John Harrigan's column.

    
    I've always had a belief...and it's different than a lot of other
    hunters.  I've stated probably earlier in this notes string.  I PREFER
    not to wear hunter orange, not because the deer may see me...but
    because other hunter might!  People are scoping people all the time,
    this has to be one of the #1 safety problems in the woods.  People just
    don't realize where the crosshairs are the bullet will hit, whether you
    have the gun on a deer or a human.  Never point a gun at anything
    unless you intend to kill it!!!
    
    Probably some of the biggest reasons people are getting shot are; 1. a
    majority of hunters feel they HAVE to get a buck - their priorities are
    wrong - and they don't just enjoy hunting, if they haven't killed
    anything they feel unfulfilled - this is a social problem, it begins
    with us putting pressure on each other to get the bigger deer etc...
    2. most hunters don't spend much time in the woods and DON'T know the
    difference between a deer and a human from their movement only - I'm 
    talking about the different movements in the body, legs, head, etc.,
    you don't have to see the "whole" deer to know it's a deer if you know
    how one moves in the woods...of course this is not a  reason to shoot, 
    proper 100% visual identification must be made.
    
    I hope this doesn't sound like rambling, but this is one issue that 
    makes my blood boil, and a major problem for the image of our sport,
    which equates to the future.
    
    Kevin
    

    There's a long article on this in the latest issue of 'Deer & Deer
    Hunting'. I believe the non-mandatory-orange states have about a
    one-third lower accident rate. (Don't have the article handy.)

    	As an interesting side bar to an old note, I got my deer this year
    wearing an orange hat, orange coat, orange pants, and orange gloves.
    Two days later, I got a shot at one with the bow wearing the same
    outfit. This was with no snow.
    
    	Yesterday, with snow, I had one walk up on me wearing all of the same 
    except for black gloves. He had locked onto me before I could draw. I had 
    hoped he would look down or something to give me time to draw, but that 
    never happened. If I can't take a single well placed shot, I don't shoot, 
    so after about a 10 sec. staring match, I just watched him bound off.
    
    	I guess the point in all this is that I am now a firm believer that
    hunter orange has virtually no impact on being able to get deer. I
    don't need any study to tell me the impact on deer. Unless I saw it
    with my own eyes, I'd be skeptical anyway. To think that I used to even 
    do the camo face paint for bow season. Never again.
    
    	Ray

>      <<< Note 1098.117 by FOUNDR::DODIER "Single Income, Clan'o Kids" >>>
>                          -< Proved it to myself... >-
>
>    	As an interesting side bar to an old note, I got my deer this year
>    wearing an orange hat, orange coat, orange pants, and orange gloves.
>    Two days later, I got a shot at one with the bow wearing the same
>    outfit. This was with no snow.
>    
>    	Yesterday, with snow, I had one walk up on me wearing all of the same 
>    except for black gloves. He had locked onto me before I could draw. I had 
>    hoped he would look down or something to give me time to draw, but that 
>    never happened. If I can't take a single well placed shot, I don't shoot, 
>    so after about a 10 sec. staring match, I just watched him bound off.
>    
>    	I guess the point in all this is that I am now a firm believer that
>    hunter orange has virtually no impact on being able to get deer. I
>    don't need any study to tell me the impact on deer. Unless I saw it
>    with my own eyes, I'd be skeptical anyway. To think that I used to even 
>    do the camo face paint for bow season. Never again.
>    
>    	Ray


Ray,

i'm kinda confused reading your note... you say you shot one with what I assume 
was a firearm, but did you see deer on 2 seperate occasions while hunting 
with a bow????  one where you got a shot, and another where you didn't???

also...  you contradict yourself...  you say "I am now a firm believer that
hunter orange has virtually no impact..."  but, that the deer "had locked 
onto me before I could draw... and just watched him bound off".   I read this
as the orange is probably what gave you away...

while it may be true that wearing hunter orange still allows you to see deer,
it is a serious hindrance when trying to draw on one with a bow.  it's not 
the color that alerts them, it's the movement of the big bright object.

i'll stick with the camo and face paint when bowhunting...  

JMHO, Fra

        Deer have a good sense of smell, hearing, and can see movement very
    good, but are color-blind.   It's the movement and the large patch
    of solid color that gives you away.  If you could wear the orange with
    the camo-pattern, they wouldn't be able to see you as well, but that's
    illegal in Colorado.

    BTW bulls are color-blind also.  The bull-seeing-red is also a farce.
    In a bullfight, the bull charges the movement of the cape, not the
    red, while the matadore(sp) stands as still as possible.

    fred();

    re:118
    
    	I shot one with the rifle, then got a shot at one with the bow two 
    days later. This was on 11/9 and 11/11 respectively. The first one I shot 
    with the gun seemed to have no clue I was there. 
    
    	The one I shot at with the bow also had no clue I was there. I knew 
    about where it was going to be coming from and had set-up behind a tree to 
    screen my movement from a deer coming in that general direction. Other than 
    that tree, I was fairly wide open. I was sitting at the edge of on old 
    logging road.
    
    	I'm positive that the one that "locked on" to me yesterday would have 
    done so whether I was wearing camo or not. It came from the opposite 
    direction I had expected and I was wide open from that direction. Clearly 
    a set-up error on my part. I had absolutely nothing to shield my motion 
    from a deer coming in that direction. Error #1.
    
    	I should also mention that it was about 20' (not yards) from me when 
    it locked on. I also first thought it was a doe. Considering the number
    of deer taken out of this piece this year, and the fact that I already
    have one in the freezer, I was going to let does go. It turned out to be
    a 3-pointer with a very skinny rack. By the time I saw the rack and 
    thought to draw, it was literally too close. Error #2.
    
    	Even with all that went wrong, a more seasoned hunter may have
    still gotten that deer. Had I drawn the instant I first saw it I
    probably would have gotten a shot anyway. I froze when it locked on,
    but was told that I should have tried just *slowly* raising my bow
    and drawing on it anyway. Error #3. Hell, it would have been better 
    than what I did, which was nothing :-o Live and learn.
    
    	Of the three deer I just mentioned, the most difficult shot of any was 
    the first one (the one I got). I have no doubt that I would have taken all 
    3 of these deer with my rifle.
    
    	This is not to say that I'll be wearing orange during bow only
    season, although I will never again do face paint ;-) My point is that,
    based on my experiences, I think the perceived advantage of camo is way 
    over-rated. Other than orange camo, anyone that thinks they need to be in 
    full camo during rifle season (IMHO) is taking way more risk than the 
    benefit is worth.
    
    	Ray

    I also believe camo is over rated. Only wear the stuff when it gets
    real cold as all my deep chill stuff is still camo. The early season
    gets a set of forest green sweats, a loden pullover and a black
    balaclava. Dark blue gloves for the hands, and up in a pine, cedar or
    hemlock, I'm hard to see. 
    
    They do see me though, I freeze and they pass it off..look away.
    
    If I decide to shoot and have the feet and body right, I'll wait until
    the first distraction, then draw and do it right now! not slowly. Of
    course they get the movement and look right up......but they can't
    figure out what the heck I am, the arrow is darn quick..
    
    I'm still batting 1000 (every release is a dead deer), a record that 
    is beginning to be very important to me.
    
    BTW, vanilla extract is a darn efficient cover scent and is cheap and
    best of all, available in every single food store.
    
     

    	I have taken two deer in a three year span. On both occasions I
    wore an orange hat, gloves, and overhauls. IMO camo, UV-killer, etc., is
    just a waste of money and a big ploy from companys looking for more
    profits. I would rather be safe than shot by some stupid so called
    hunter.
    

If you're sitting under a hemlock in low light, my guess would be that 
deer would detect movement alot easier if you were in hunter orange,
as opposed to a darker camo.  It's just so much brighter. During the
day, I would think it would not make as much difference.  

I ALWAYS where hunter orange while I'm moving, minimumly a hat, most 
often with a red plaid jacket.  When light is low and I'm moving I'll 
always where a orange vest as well.

However if I'm on a stand (tree or ground) I'll take some risk. During 
firearms season, I'll drape my orange vest over a branch, where it is 
highly visible, but it is not moving with me. If I detect another hunter 
anywhere nearby, I'll grab my orange hat and flag him so he sees me. 

Saturday PM, I was sitting under a hemlock, in camo coveralls, with my 
vest propped up next to me. When the light was low and time was just 
about out, I set the gun down, stood up, stretched, a minute later,
BEFORE I picked up my rifle, a nice buck materialized 25' away... He
didn't see me.  My guess would be that had I been wearing alot of orange, 
he would have detected the bright movement while I was standing up, 
stretching, etc... (Unfortunately he wound up HEARING me and bolted 8^)

But, RayJ, whatever your doing, you're obviously doing it right 8^)

-donmac

    
    	Camo does help you blend in to your surroundings. Thus, allowing
    you a little more movement, without being detected. If the deer
    doesn't smell you and see you move. It doesn't matter what you are
    wearing.
    	The Camo face paint is to stop the glare from the sun. The sun
    reflecting off of your face into your eyes. Causes your eyes to light
    up. Almost like a deers eyes at night when the light hits them. Except
    not as drastic. The deer catch you moving, then they pick up the glow/
    light of your eyes. This is why I was always told if a deer looks up
    at you. Close your eyes and tilt your head forward slowly. Then open
    your eyes slowly until you can just see the deer. With your head
    facing down and your eyes only half open. Which means less light
    entering your eyes, you eyes don't lite up.
    
    Ron

    re:121
    
    > Only wear the stuff when it gets real cold as all my deep chill stuff
    > is still camo.
    
    	Ironically, this is one of the same reasons I wound up wearing full
    orange this year. I have no good camo cold weather gear. My father gave 
    me a two piece BRIGHT orange hunting suit earlier this year. I was real
    skeptical about wearing it. Won't even give it a second thought now.
    
    	Ray

    I was out Sat in Ohio and had a small flock of turkeys cross in front
    of me while wearing my orange hat.  I also saw 21 deer that day while
    wearing the orange hat.  The turkeys did act a little nervous though,
    but continued in front of me anyway.
    
    Wess

    
    
    
        I would say that movement and brightness difference are the 2
    biggest factors of deer "locking on" to a person. there have been 
    studies done on deer eyeballs, they found light gathering rods and
    color cones, now how they distiguish what color they see is beyond 
    me.
      
        I have hunted a good number of years, have shot alot of deer, with
    a gun and with a bow, very few times have i ever been locked on, when i
    have it been caused by 2 things, lack of backround or movement. a deer
    can catch even the slightest movement.
        i think that saying camo doesnt matter is a pretty broad statement,
    if there is hunting pressure in your area during firearm season and
    there are alot of people out, human scent is everywhere in the woods 
    the deer become alittle less spooky unless the scent is really strong.
       its just like hunting around an active farm, the deer get used to
    seeing people so they dont pay much attention to them., last monday i
    was hunting in Pa the first day of buck season, just prior to shooting
    that 8 point the doe he was following was standing no more than 10 feet
    in front of me. the only time she locked on me was when i moved the '06
    into position to shoot the buck. 
         in this above mentioned scenario i had on a solid blaze orange
    parka, orange hat, orange neck warmer, and treebark bib pants. but this
    doe had no idea or didnt care i was there till i moved the gun about 3
    inches to the right. after i shot she bolted, if i was fast enough i
    coulda tripped her she ran by so close.
      
          In response to uv killer not being helpfull, well i may agree to 
    some extent during the daylight hours that uv killer doesnt help much
    but i have used it with huge success during the early morning, late
    evening hours. this is when i had the biggest problem with deer
    catching even the slightest movement. i had heard about uv killer but
    being a person that doesnt just run out and buy every new fad thing
    that hits the market i never tried it till a bowhunting friend told me
    he thot it made a big difference.
         So on his word i got some and treated one suit, i tried it out
    before season, and was really shocked at how much movement i could get
    away with, then i went out to the same stand with an entreated suit on
    and i was simmulating raising the bow, well i got my left arm up about 
    3" before the deer caught the movement. since that test i have treated 
    all my suits. and now the stuff is pretty cheap to buy.
         
         I have shot deer from the ground with the bow, its alot tougher
    than out of a tree stand, you have gotta be on your toes at all times
    and you better be at full draw when the shot is presented, and you
    generally dont have as much time to shoot as you would out of a tree, 
    and also as you found out sometimes the deer dont cooperate by coming 
    in at an odd angle, or by showing up behind you. its tough but by no
    means impossible. heck i shot a buck here in NY last year, i was
    kneeling in a corn field, he walked right up to 4 yards before a shot 
    was presented, his eyes dissapeared in the ditch to get a drink and i
    took the opportunity to draw and shoot.
    
                               just my .02 fwiw
                                     Lee
    

    re:127
    
    > i think that saying camo doesnt matter is a pretty broad statement,
    
    	Sorry if I implied this. It can make a difference, but it is not
    anywhere near as much of a factor as I once thought. It certainly has
    moved down from one of the top 5 things I worry about, especially 
    during rifle season.
    
    	As I get older I tend to fidget less. If you don't move around as
    much, having camo becomes less important too. My view of wearing so much 
    orange prior to this year was that, even to a deer, you'd stick out like 
    a tampon dispensor in a men's room. 
    
    	Ray

I always wear camo for bow and full 'pumkin' suit for rifle.
Just cos.


P.S. In Colorado If the crome on there bumbers or there ATV's dont scare the
deer Heck a 'pumkin' suit wont iether ;-}
~dave

    I had a comment on movement. A couple of years ago I was on a ground
    stand in camo and in front of a mossy boulder. About thirty yards or
    so to my left I had a big buck coming in on me. Unfortunately I had my
    bow up against the boulder and was getting ready to do a little still
    hunting since it was ten in the morning. While kneeling and moving the
    bow into position, as the direction this buck was traveling was going to
    take it directly in front of me, my arrow clicked on the boulder so I
    froze, fearing it had heard the noise. But it just kept on coming. I
    couldn't believe that while slowing moving the bow and drawing it on
    the buck in never picked up my movement. MY timing was off though and
    by the time I was at full draw, I lost it in the peep sight to my right 
    where it got too thick for a well placed shot. It passed only 12 yards 
    in front of me! The buck then went directly under my buddies tree stand and 
    as he drew on him, it looked right up at my buddy and bolted.

    I read an article that stated if you time your movement with the deers
    movement, it won't pick you out because everything around it appears 
    to be moving also. After this incident, I tend to believe it.
    
    Gus                                 

    try this....with your car sitting still watch the movement the wind
    makes in the tree limbs......
    
    
    now drive down road and try to see the same movement.
    
    We don't have the brain cells needed to process the relative movement
    unless it is pretty severe (full gale). Everything looks stock still.
    
    could be that the same relates to game.......
    
    

    Gus,
    
    I tend to think you are right, as long as the movement isn't sudden.
    
    Try it with Turkeys.......They've busted me more than once.
    
    
    Good Luck,
    Wess