ORIGINAL: quiksilver

This absolutely wouldn't bea law to protect Stupid People from themselves. This would protect the American Working Class from the mentally deficient who can't figure out that it's not smart to climb 30' up a tree in a windstorm without a harness.

Think about who bears the burden in these situations. It's NOT the victim. That's for sure.

To prove my point: I challenge any one of you to find me one instance of a treestand fall victim with a net worth of over 2 million dollars. Look at who is falling, and you'll see where the financial burden really lies.

When I think about a law, I think about two things: Who is the REAL victim? How much does it really cost?

I know 2 guys who have fallen. One has undergoneat least 2lumbar surgeries to repair degenerative tissues from his fall. Never worked again. Epidural injections every month. Hundreds of thousands in lifetime costs.

The second kid is a quadriplegic. Visiting nurses for the rest of his life, spinal trauma surgery, lifeflight, months in hospital/rehabilitation, secondary problems due to paralysis. Now has the mental capacity of an 8 year old. His lifetime healthcare bill will be in the millions by the time he hits 40.

Hunting is a privilege just like driving. So, if you think seatbelt laws are a good idea... Then logically, it only follows that you should likewise support a safety harness law.

Safety belt laws are not in place to protect the driver from himself. They're in place to protect insurers from outrageous medical costs and to open the door for law enforcement to establish probable cause.