To Orange or not to orange?

I've been hunting too since I could hold a gun (40 + years) and my experience says orange makes you visible to others and avoids accidents.
Click to expand...

A distant relative of mine was involved in an accidental shooting while hunting deer.He shot and wounded his partner after mistaking him for a deer.The accident took place in Saskatchewan,and his partner was wearing orange coveralls and cap.
That is the only reported accidental shooting in the area in the over 30 years that I have hunted there.Therefore my 30+ years of experience would lead me to believe that orange does not prevent accidental shootings.

I know od several people in the last en years wwere killed in Alberta, one that come to mind were a father and son on a quad - apatantly, by an "experienced woodsman" from 100 yards "through the bush"?
Click to expand...

What kind of idiot mistakes a quad with two people riding it for an animal?It doesn't look like an animal,and it certainly doesn't sound like an animal.And what color do you suppose that atv was?I'll give you a hint,it wasn't brown,and it wasn't camo.

I've hunted and guided for over 40 years myself, and although orange may be able to be seen easier, it does not make it safer when idjits are involved.....
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
]
Woodsman said:
Are you kidding me? What do you need the dead bodies lying before you to believe? 18 hunters killed!
Click to expand...

All I need is to see a scientific study done in several areas, that also take into account levels of hunter education, density of hunters, intoxication levels, type of hunting, experience of hunters etc etc...And I also wouldn't mind seeing someone explain why Albertas accident # didn't' spike when blaze was dropped.

Also take into account non hunters (not wearing blaze) that regularly use the bush and how they have avoided being shot.

It's not as easy as just quoting a brief paragraph from a Wisconsin hunting website about a NY study.

I've been hunting too since I could hold a gun (40 + years) and my experience says orange makes you visible to others and avoids accidents.
Click to expand...

As I demonstrated above, individual experience means little. Your experience says one thing, mine another. Who is correct?

You think I'm a sheep because I disagree with you? Wow! I'd like to call you something right now, but I have more class than you!
Click to expand...

No,I think you are a sheep for blindly believing something just because it was told to you.

You're like the lone soldier out of step and his mother who is observing says "look, my son is the only one in step"
Click to expand...
.

I'm not the only one that questions the value of blaze orange for hunting purposes...And it's not just hunters in BC and Alberta. Doesn't Ontario require blaze for deer, but not for turkey or predator hunting?
 
]
PeakXV said:
I suppose it's a bit like a seatbelt - a useless tool & will never save your life .... until that unthinkable situation/scenario/accident happens to you.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's easy to find study after study involving seatbelts, there appears to be very few conclusive studies that indicate that wearing blaze is demonstrably "safer"
 
Orange is unnecessary from a purely scientific standpoint.
IF you want to wear it, wear it.
IF your nancy province mandates it, wear it.
 
Hi-viz is applied in many situations these days. It's on emergency and other vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians/runners, signs, roads, workers, lane dividers, etc, etc etc. It works very in its intended purpose in all these and other situations and it works well for hunting as well. How is that "nancy"?

Most folk that argue against it just plain don't like it and reject it for no other reason than they think it's "nancy" to wear it.


.
 
]
SuperCub said:
Hi-viz is applied in many situations these days. It's on emergency and other vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians/runners, signs, roads, workers, lane dividers, etc, etc etc. I
Click to expand...

Good applications for hi viz. In those situations, people are concentrating on something else (driving/working) and it may be at nightitme, too. People concentrating on other things may not notice someone.

Just the opposite is true with hunting, where a hunter is concentrating on the object at hand- Looking for game, identifying target, concentrating on the shot.


Most folk that argue against it just plain don't like it and reject it for no other reason than they think it's "nancy" to wear it.
Click to expand...

I dont' know if it's nancy, but it *is* an eyesore. I reject it because I dont' see any benefit to it.


.[/QUOTE]
 
I know someone that was shot while wearing a blaze parka. Maybe we should ask him what his thoughts on blaze are...

I always figured the MNR wanted us to wear blaze so they could watch us from a distance...:)

I wear it if I have too, depends on where I'm hunting. Otherwise, I can do without it.
 
Gatehouse said:
Good applications for hi viz. In those situations, people are concentrating on something else (driving/working) and it may be at nightitme, too. People concentrating on other things may not notice someone.
Click to expand...

Yes, if motorists would identify their victims before they ran over them, nobody would need blaze...:p
 
SuperCub said:
Hi-viz is applied in many situations these days. It's on emergency and other vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians/runners, signs, roads, workers, lane dividers, etc, etc etc. It works very in its intended purpose in all these and other situations and it works well for hunting as well. How is that "nancy"?

Most folk that argue against it just plain don't like it and reject it for no other reason than they think it's "nancy" to wear it.


.
Click to expand...

I see the benefit to high-viz clothing in some applications. Hunting is not one of them. However, if it makes you feel any better - feel free to wear it - statistically, you're no worse off with it on.
 
Gatehouse said:
I dont' know if it's nancy, but it *is* an eyesore. I reject it because I dont' see any benefit to it.
Click to expand...
The "benefit" is simple. It works like this .......

If you and TB are standing on a side hill 300yds away from me and only Tod is wearing orange, then only Tod is immediately and easily identified (w/o optical aid) as human.

You on the other hand, well that remains to be seen. ;) :D



.
 
SuperCub said:
The "benefit" is simple. It works like this .......

If you and TB are standing on a side hill 300yds away from me and only Tod is wearing orange, then only Tod is immediately and easily identified (w/o optical aid) as human.

You on the other hand, well that remains to be seen. ;) :D

.
Click to expand...

TB would be easier to identify, but Gate would still be safe, as a hunter should 100% identify the target, blaze or not...

Unless he thought a bear was attacking TB...:p
 
]
SuperCub said:
The "benefit" is simple. It works like this .......

If you and TB are standing on a side hill 300yds away from me and only Tod is wearing orange, then only Tod is immediately and easily identified (w/o optical aid) as human.
Click to expand...

You ned glasses. I can tell the difference between a human and an animal at 300 yards without optical aid.:p

Nevertheless, before I start shooting, I am going to make sure if it is a buck or a doe or a moose or bear or elk or goat or wolf....



You on the other hand, well that remains to be seen. ;) :D
Click to expand...


Low blow, Newf.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom