It was proposed to BC hunters about 5 years ago, and completely rejected. I dont' expect to see it mandated any time soon.
Newf...
Here's a little geography lesson for the left coasters. I doubt it will help.
To Orange or not to orange?
- Thread starter powder burner
- Start date
Here's a little geography lesson for the left coasters. I doubt it will help.
- Location
- AB foothills
Maybe they will remove manditory seat belt and helmet laws as well.
.
While I personally don't believe seatbelt or helmet laws should exist, (I dont' need gv't to save me form myself) I do think a person is an idiot if you don't wear a seatbelt in a car or helmet on a motorcycle. There are far too many studies that prove the safety benefits of these items.
All those studies will make it impossible for lawmakers to repeal these laws, since the public outcry from concerned mommys would be huge.
- Location
- AB foothills
I thought they liked orange (ala shade of NDP) in BC.
.
We've had the Neo- Con BC Liberal party for the last 3 elections, no ND for some time now. The BC Libs arent' really Liberals, I don't even know why they keep the name
The two aren't comparable on a statistical basis. In a vehicular accident, the usage(or not) issue is there in front of the police, media & thus the rest of the world. However, if you accidently swing on your partner in a hunting scenario & pull off at the last second due to the realization that there is no 'hunter orange' game that presently exists in the world - then you don't exactly call the media or conservation officer to report your near miss ..... you probably would laugh it off over a few beers.
In the hunting world, unless there is a casualty (or a rant on CGN) - what happens in the woods almost always stays in the woods. Scientific testing with hunter orange in combination with every conceivable situation of hunter cognitive ability, firearms ballististics in conjunction with trajectory, terrain backdrop, illuminance, luminance and daylight factor would be too expensive, dangerous, unethical, & time consuming to carry out...... & thus has never been done or will be done.
The most dangerous of these situtations can only be assumed(okay Fred drink 10 molson and fire 3 shots over that hill, be very, very careful though because there are 2 men up on the ridge tucked below a tree, one in blaze orange & one in camouflage - let's see what happens okay?) & that's why hunter orange's usage in these closet &/or hypothetical situations will/have save(d) lives even though they will most likely never be front page news, collected as a statistic or even necessarily realized by the hunter who's life it saved at the last moment due to something that 'wasn't quite right' or 'more wrong than right'.
Yet they all allow thousands of people to die every year due to health issues caused by smoking.And that doesn't take into account people killed as a result of fires caused by smoking.If they were to ban smoking,they would save many more lives than orange will ever save.So where is the common sense?
- Location
- Ft. Mac. Alberta
Maybe they should simply mandate orange seatbelts ??!!
Cat
Cat
- Location
- AB foothills
- Location
- WMU248 near Edmonton
Ok lets take this another step,
If you hunt using a quad, or haul game with a quad do you wear an approved quad helmet, and saftey glasses or visor.
helmets save lives dont you know
oh and is your quad helmet orange too?
If you hunt using a quad, or haul game with a quad do you wear an approved quad helmet, and saftey glasses or visor.
helmets save lives dont you know
oh and is your quad helmet orange too?
Now here's a man with the necessary intellect who doesn't require "studies" to prove the blatantly obvious. Koodos to you!
- Location
- Back in the Peace Country
Hunter Orange on others, to the Gatehouses, are useless...he identifies his object before ever shouldering a rifle... Sadly, Gatehouse, or myself, or anyone else who does not wear an obvious colour, IMO stand a higher chance of getting shot at or at least scoped.
Not everyone takes the time that Gatehouse does, or me, or some others...
I know guys who don't own binoculars, " they have a scope" why carry the extra weight.
Now I'm not just referring to being directly shot at,... but within the range of the game as well. There are guys who don't properly identify their animals, much less search the surrounding bush for a camo guy before firing...
While these idiots are not our problem, their actions may someday be one.
Education is part of the answer, but barely. Anyone can pass a 50 Multiple choice question on a weekend with an instructor who wants to see them pass.
Nothing more learned than a regurgiation of memory for a few.
In order to truly study the orange safety component, I'd say it would need to be conducted in a state where there are more hunting fatalities and accidents, than here in Canada, in order to see any accurate data.
It's like 4 way stops.. as long as everyone understand how it operates and follows that, everyone is fine,... get a few idiots, new drivers etc, and now and then there may be incidents.
Without data, we can't say that a traffic light would make things better, but the automatic assumption is that the employing of technology, be it traffic lights or hunter orange, reduces the human chance of error and thus we get a self fulfilling prophecy. We end up hunters and people who don't think and can't think, merely we respond to Red Light, Green light,...and when the power goes out, the fumbling idiots are lost in their own inability to think.
Orange means " don't shoot" ? does no orange mean it's ok to " shoot" ? I don't think so, or at least not for me. The mentality of hunter orange is insulting to me as a hunter.
Not everyone takes the time that Gatehouse does, or me, or some others...
I know guys who don't own binoculars, " they have a scope" why carry the extra weight.
Now I'm not just referring to being directly shot at,... but within the range of the game as well. There are guys who don't properly identify their animals, much less search the surrounding bush for a camo guy before firing...
While these idiots are not our problem, their actions may someday be one.
Education is part of the answer, but barely. Anyone can pass a 50 Multiple choice question on a weekend with an instructor who wants to see them pass.
Nothing more learned than a regurgiation of memory for a few.
In order to truly study the orange safety component, I'd say it would need to be conducted in a state where there are more hunting fatalities and accidents, than here in Canada, in order to see any accurate data.
It's like 4 way stops.. as long as everyone understand how it operates and follows that, everyone is fine,... get a few idiots, new drivers etc, and now and then there may be incidents.
Without data, we can't say that a traffic light would make things better, but the automatic assumption is that the employing of technology, be it traffic lights or hunter orange, reduces the human chance of error and thus we get a self fulfilling prophecy. We end up hunters and people who don't think and can't think, merely we respond to Red Light, Green light,...and when the power goes out, the fumbling idiots are lost in their own inability to think.
Orange means " don't shoot" ? does no orange mean it's ok to " shoot" ? I don't think so, or at least not for me. The mentality of hunter orange is insulting to me as a hunter.
]
I agree- They are not. Rather than compare seatbelts to orange, I jsut want to compare orange to lack of orange.
This is my point, too..... There is virtually no data, so nobody can really prove that orange helps or not. there are far too many variables. All we have is "my experiences tell me this"
I'd like to say that in provinces where blaze is the norm, blaze helps, because hunters are used to associating blaze with a non target (doesn't help the hapless hiker or dog walker, of course)
I'd like to say that, but can't- because Alberta dropped the requirement and the forests aren't' running with the blood of shot hunters!
We could probably say that Alberta is the greatest study of the effectiveness of blaze ever. What happened when hunters stopped wearing blaze? Nothing.
I agree- They are not. Rather than compare seatbelts to orange, I jsut want to compare orange to lack of orange.
This is my point, too..... There is virtually no data, so nobody can really prove that orange helps or not. there are far too many variables. All we have is "my experiences tell me this"
I'd like to say that in provinces where blaze is the norm, blaze helps, because hunters are used to associating blaze with a non target (doesn't help the hapless hiker or dog walker, of course)
I'd like to say that, but can't- because Alberta dropped the requirement and the forests aren't' running with the blood of shot hunters!
We could probably say that Alberta is the greatest study of the effectiveness of blaze ever. What happened when hunters stopped wearing blaze? Nothing.
]
One more reason we can't prove it's usefulness- lack of incidents involving peopel that were or were not wearing blaze..
s.
I've read on a few forums over the years, how a hunter chastised his buddy for not wearing his blaze. The story usually goes like this:
I saw movement through the bushes, and got ready, this could be a deer. I got my rifle up and had it aimed at the movement, which was getting nearer and would soon step out onto the trail. My finger trigger took up the slack and then the bush parted.
Out popped my hunting buddy! I flew into a rage because he wasn't wearing his blaze,and because of that I almost shot him!
When I read that part "I flew into a rage because he wasn't wearing his blaze,and because of that I almost shot him![/I"] I gotta think "no, you almost shot him because you pointing your gun at an unidentified target, and you are an idiot.
One more reason we can't prove it's usefulness- lack of incidents involving peopel that were or were not wearing blaze..
s.
I've read on a few forums over the years, how a hunter chastised his buddy for not wearing his blaze. The story usually goes like this:
I saw movement through the bushes, and got ready, this could be a deer. I got my rifle up and had it aimed at the movement, which was getting nearer and would soon step out onto the trail. My finger trigger took up the slack and then the bush parted.
Out popped my hunting buddy! I flew into a rage because he wasn't wearing his blaze,and because of that I almost shot him!
When I read that part "I flew into a rage because he wasn't wearing his blaze,and because of that I almost shot him![/I"] I gotta think "no, you almost shot him because you pointing your gun at an unidentified target, and you are an idiot.
