model722

Here is a question for you guys, what about people hiking in the woods? Lets say you have Jane(by the way she is anti hunting)out for a stroll through the woods(public) is she suppose to wear orange? Now lets say, we tell her she has to wear orange, well she hates orange it makes her break out. Haven' t we just given more fuel to the anti' s, not only are we making them wear clothes that they don' t like but now we are telling them we pretty much shoot at what ever. So if you want to be safe you better dress with lights up your arse or your going to get shoot. I know I sound extreme, but this is how the anti' s work, they can' t beat us head on so they start making every thing look like it' s for our own safety.

Shaky; lets not forget who pushes alot of gun LAWS, anti' s like Hillary Clinton. Now you keep bringing up the seatbelt law we had that on another discusion in politics. I am against the seatbelt law it does not effect others it effects the person that is not wearing the belt. You said ask a police person or fire person(you noticed I' m being politically correct) what they think well I have one thing to say, if you don' t like that type of stuff then don' t do that type of work. As far as the drinking laws I believe we need them becuase they would effect others. Isn' t this law telling us how to dress? Maybe next they can tell us what type of gloves, boots, and underwear we should have on. Like I have said this is just one step of many, give it time and you will one day see that I am right. First we had stricter pistol laws then it was we can only purchase certain types of guns, it goes on, and on.

I quess the big question here is, when are we going to be responsible for our selfs and when is enough going to be enough? I just hope people (hunters, and gun owners) will wake up and smell the coffee before it is to late. I' m pretty sure I will be around when we turn into England, and won' t even have the right to keep a BB gun. He** the U.N. is already trying to get us on there band wagon and ban guns all togehter. I hope I am wrong to feel the way I do but all any one has to do is take a hard look at history and see where this country is headed.

Shaky

Model722,
Well i dont' know if the law will make hikers where blaze orange or not - i haven' t seen anyone answer that but lets assume they do or will have to at sometime in the future. First, I think that is a valid argument and concern - but one that is easily defended especially by those better than myself. I haven' t thought about it too much so i' ll go to my convient road analogies. If people need air bags and seatbelts and helmets and crosswalk signs and such, one could say " hey can' t anyone drive safe, these damn cars are just too dangerous" OR one could look at the nature of the situation and see that accidents happen despite people' s best intentions sometimes. I' ll point out that BO didn' t just come out of the woodwork, and 85% of us already wear it, so Crazy Jane and her hypocrite friends could already use the argument against us, for many years now. Its been in Maine for 20 yrs now, see Marlin450' s post and what he has to say. Would you say NO to hunter education classes on the basis of that same arguement - " Jeez these dumb hunters have to take a class to learn to NOT shoot another person" - its the same thing if you ask me. None the less a valid concern but in the end I think its a non issue. In all honesty, i think some people' s knee jerk reactions to things with concerns over " they can' t tell me what to wear" and making stretches of the imagination about what " they' might make us do next, instead of looking at what the law might accomplish and who it could save and how it might hunting more enjoyable for some with the extra safety factor - well i think its a mistake. I just can' t except some of the exaggerated claims of what might happen because in regard to laws of this nature, i don' t see any precedent in history to think these claims have validity.

I like the seatbelt because its easy and I think fairly comparable. Lets says Joe makes a dumb mistake and hits Crazy Jane' s car - well the seat belt makes her break out too and since its not law, she doesn' t wear it. Well what would have resulted in maybe a bruise or two or a small cut lands Crazy Jane in the hospital in serious condition or dead. Well now Joe' s screwed a hell of alot worse, and everybody' s insurance just went up. I think that is an example of it effecting others and its not stretching for it either.

I understand everybody keeping there guards up about laws in regards to hunting, but they ARE NOT of the same nature of the gun laws and anti-hunting laws and in my very humble opinion shouldn' t be oppossed only on the fear of future laws. I just haven' t seen any proof of this type of law really leading to anything further and any other law wouldn' t rely on the BO law being passed 1st anyways. not that i can see - can anyone name a law that they think will becoming now and how the passing of BO will make it easier for that law to pass? I' ve asked many times what other laws, in any of the other states that already have mandated BO, have come into existence because of BO? Marlin 450 has been doing all right these pass 20 yrs, all i' m saying is I think we will be too. I fully accept I may be missing something and I' m only interested in learning, I' m not necessarily defending this law, nobody learns anything when they admittedly defend there ' side' with no objectivity. Hopefully I' m doing that, I truly understand everyone' s opposition because before I would have felt the same way, but not so much now, so I wanted to discuss it. It just an interesting discussion to me. I hope no one thinks I' m coming off like a jerk - its not like I having anything to gain from this discussion except learning for the sake of learning.

Marlin 450

In Maine only hunters have to wear orange, but you can bet your boots that you will see everyone wearing it, just because!!
Walkers, joggers, hikers and yes, even horses in pastures!!
It is quite hard to make yourself except it, but it will pay off in the long run with reduced accidents and a good show of faith by contributing to the cause.
That can only benefit the outlook towards hunters.

model722

Shaky I don' t think you are being a jerk at all, a little to trust worthy of law passers but not a jerk. Like I said before we can not compare vehicle laws to hunting laws. For the simple reason most people drive, not that many hunt. I do think we are in agreement that B.O. is safe. I' m just TOTALLY against passing more and more laws. As far as the saftey coarse issue goes it is a law already there so why don' t we do a better job of getting the info out. If you want an example of how laws (in general) can just keep going and going look at California.

Like I have said before if your going to make a law for hunters to wear orange then we better start making laws that during season EVERYONE in the woods is going to have to wear orange. All these laws are doing is giving fuel to the anti' s. Hunting has been going on for thousands of years, there is and always will be unsafe people. My question is HOW IN THE HE** DID OUR ANCESTERS HUNT AND NOT GET KILLED WITHOUT ALL THESE STUPID, NO COMMON SENSE, LAWS? All these laws are doing is giving us (hunters) a BAD name. I wonder how any of us made it this far without all of these self saving laws? Once again I ask when is enough going to be enough? Like I said there is no reason for a hunter to be in a tree, that is probably the next thing that will be under attack. What are you going to do then turn and say " well I can see where it is unsafe, well I don' t do it any way so maybe it is a good law" ?

Muddyemms

Avalanche, the bill says regular big game season--therefore the bow and muzzleloader seasons would not be affected.

farm hunter

Some of you might be familiar with " the Link Trail" in NY - I was walking on a section of it that cuts through a section of private land (the landowner farmer - obviously gave permission for it to cross his property).

Along the trail was a couple signs that said " WARNING - HUNTERS IN THE AREA" .

I couldn' t believe it - Maybe it doesn' t offend every hunter, but it struck me. I could just picture some tree-hugging anti-hunter reading the sign, and thinking they were in a " war zone" by the way it read.

While I' m all for blaze orange, and prefer to wear it myself, I' m against mandating it. I think such laws force Environmental Law Enforcement to focus on what I' d consider trivial infractions, like the proper amount of orange, displayed back tag, correct # of slugs in gun, etc. I don' t like the way a Non-Hunter, using State Land in hunting season does not have to heed the law - eg - I' m sure Blaze Orange never crosses the mind of some of the students doing studies for the local Universities. From my experience, some do not even seem to know that hunting is going on in the fall.??