Nicely put. I figured my your username that you would be pro BO laws. Quickly came to find out your not, something I like.

I don't think the PETA supporter would get shot while being in the woods. I think I would purposely miss them by at least2 feet

Give them the hint to get the flock out of there.

So long as you understand your hypocrisy.

You are against adding laws, unless they are laws that you agree with.

A somewhat inconsistent viewpoint, in my opinion.

It seems better for society to add a law to prevent accidents rather than prosecute those accidents after they occur.

all I can say is that I hope Gov. Pataki sticks to his answer from last year New York State has a higher Voluntary orange compliance than the states that require it . making this an unneccessary law

First of all I was being facetious. Secondly, if you had read and understoodmy posts you would realize that I am not against adding laws in general but rather against adding laws that regulate common sense, such as the BO or seat belt, etc. type laws. Thirdly, is anybody for adding laws they don't agree with or against laws they do agree with? By your logic, everybody must be a hypocrite. Come on, think!

The BO proposal has been revamped from what I understand from the earliest revisions. They addressed the requirement for all types of hunting, psi requirement, etc. I think it is more tolerable, but doesn't change the question of it being enacted.

Whether it needs passing is another story. I'm middle of the road. I can see both sides of the fence.

My hang up is having to have it on while in an elevated stand. But that is just my view.

Phade,
Im not certain it should be a law either. Maybe, maybe not.
But what does an elevated stand have to do with it?
Where I hunt. and quite possible in some places in NY, the terraine is very wooded and very steep. The top of one hill to another may only be 100-200 yards away. In that terrain an elevated stand does not mean that you are above all shooting lanes. In fact your stand could be 100feet below me at times where I hunt

HI Danny,

Yes, I agree with that aspect. I've hunted places like that too.

My stance deals with the nature of the hunting from a stand. Studies show mixed results on the "visibilty" of BO from a deer's eye. Some say they can see it (not orange, but detect it via UV/Color variation), while others say they can't.

In a stand you aren't still hunting, pushing, etc. We're essentially still the large majority of the time, and we don't move location as in still hunting. We need to maintain our ability to be "invisible" as best as possible. The mixed results from studies, what other hunters have experienced, and my own experiences lead me to further confusion. I think I've been busted by Blaze orange before in the stand. But other times, it hasn't been a factor. I've had much more luck not wearing it while on stand in not being detected by deer. Of course the variables can't be controlled.

I'd like to get new study info from the so-called "new BO" that is less visible.

Safety-wise, I agree that BO makes sense. Ifit needs to be a law, not so sure.

I don't think the problem is identifing your target as much as it would be what is past your target.

Don't tell me that after you spot a nice buck moving across the woods you scan everything in the background before you shoot. It doesn't happen. Can't happen unless that deer stays still for a good 10 minutes or so. Honestly think about it.

Now you add in the guy with the brown carharts or camo moving through the land he shouldn't be on. He sees you in your blaze orange and is trying to sneak around you. You will have a hard time seeing him if you see him at all! Finally (after a week of hunting NY) you see a deer, the other hunter just kicked him towards you. You shoot and unfortunately you miss and hit the other hunter in the distance who you didn't see because he's hiding in his camo.

Now you don't want blaze orange so I didn't see the other hunter and he got hit by my shot. But you want ME to go to jail?