SB 5148 Would Add "Hunter Pink" to Current Hunter Orange Requirements

[Special T]

More regulation. How about neon rainbow next to be more inclusive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How's it MORE regulation by offering alternatives? It's fairly well accepted that fluorescent pink is more visible to most than orange, so whats the problem?

Archers have know this for a long time and many use  Florescent pink for fletchings and some time a fluffy yarn acting more like a lighted knock, Ive seen it oftet on Trad arrows.

[Bob33]

Daddy it's pink!

[Gobble Doc]

More regulation. How about neon rainbow next to be more inclusive?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How's it MORE regulation by offering alternatives? It's fairly well accepted that fluorescent pink is more visible to most than orange, so whats the problem?

I read it as amending a House Bill was adding additional language that WDFW would have to then work into the regulations. Seems like a lot of time and resources for an apparent non-problem.  I have no problem with pink if there is a safety argument to be made. But taking something as simple as hunter orange and adding more choices for the sake of pretty color options just seems unneeded. Then again the NFL really jumped on the pink bandwagon


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gobble Doc]

Now I’m thinking that the amendment proposed by Senator Wilson doesn’t really fall far from his
other bill proposals:

 House passes Wilson bill creating commission on LGBTQ inequities

Legislation passed late Friday by the House would establish a state commission to identify concerns specific to LGBTQ individuals and apply those concerns to inform practices and policies at state agencies.

“Many members of our community face an extreme and disproportionate risk of violence, discrimination and other challenges based merely on their identity,” said Sen. Claire Wilson (D-Auburn), the sponsor of Senate Bill 5356. “This action is needed to ensure that LGBTQ people receive the same consideration and protections against discrimination guaranteed all other Washingtonians under our state constitution.”

The legislation would create a state LGBTQ Commission whose membership, appointed by the governor, must provide for a balanced and diverse representation of race and ethnicity, geography, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, and occupation.

Among other things, the commission would consult with state agencies about the effects of agency policies and practices on the unique problems and needs of LGBTQ people, and advise agencies on the development and implementation of comprehensive and coordinated policies, plans and programs to address those needs.

“There are times when our state policies, however well-intended, fail to account for members of our community whose needs may not be as obvious or universally shared,” Wilson said. “At other times, policies intended to help and serve a particular community end up doing the opposite. This commission will be a valuable resource to the public and to our state agencies that serve us.”

Acknowledging the skepticism of lawmakers who questioned the need for the commission, Wilson said their doubts illustrated the very need for the commission.

“If you’ve lived in a community with limited diversity, and your friends and acquaintances tend to look and talk like you, you may have no way of knowing the challenges and inequities faced by those outside your circle,” Wilson said. “This commission can make sure those challenges are known, understood, and addressed.”

Having been amended by the House, the bill now goes back to the Senate for reconsideration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

Now I’m thinking that the amendment proposed by Senator Wilson doesn’t really fall far from his
other bill proposals:

 House passes Wilson bill creating commission on LGBTQ inequities

Legislation passed late Friday by the House would establish a state commission to identify concerns specific to LGBTQ individuals and apply those concerns to inform practices and policies at state agencies.

“Many members of our community face an extreme and disproportionate risk of violence, discrimination and other challenges based merely on their identity,” said Sen. Claire Wilson (D-Auburn), the sponsor of Senate Bill 5356. “This action is needed to ensure that LGBTQ people receive the same consideration and protections against discrimination guaranteed all other Washingtonians under our state constitution.”

The legislation would create a state LGBTQ Commission whose membership, appointed by the governor, must provide for a balanced and diverse representation of race and ethnicity, geography, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, and occupation.

Among other things, the commission would consult with state agencies about the effects of agency policies and practices on the unique problems and needs of LGBTQ people, and advise agencies on the development and implementation of comprehensive and coordinated policies, plans and programs to address those needs.

“There are times when our state policies, however well-intended, fail to account for members of our community whose needs may not be as obvious or universally shared,” Wilson said. “At other times, policies intended to help and serve a particular community end up doing the opposite. This commission will be a valuable resource to the public and to our state agencies that serve us.”

Acknowledging the skepticism of lawmakers who questioned the need for the commission, Wilson said their doubts illustrated the very need for the commission.

“If you’ve lived in a community with limited diversity, and your friends and acquaintances tend to look and talk like you, you may have no way of knowing the challenges and inequities faced by those outside your circle,” Wilson said. “This commission can make sure those challenges are known, understood, and addressed.”

Having been amended by the House, the bill now goes back to the Senate for reconsideration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe this is another Wilson. Lynda Wilson - R/Vancouver is one who sponsored this bill. She's battling breast cancer, successfully so far, and wanted to add this color for people who not only want to support the fight against breast cancer, but those who prefer to wear pink instead of hunter orange, Like @Bobcat and little girls.  (sorry BC:chuckle:) This bill requires no further restrictions, costs the taxpayer nothing, and helps more people feel included in hunting at a time when women are the fastest growing segment of hunters. Want to get mad at our legislators? There are about 1000 other bills that are more worth opposing than this one.

[Gobble Doc]

Piano man, you are proving my point. Pink for safety good. Offer pink. But for breast cancer or other political agenda?  It’s a pervasive theme that everyone with a personal agenda wants everyone to experience it. Probably just me but I had a feeling there was more to this than just hunter safety


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SuperX]

Piano man, you are proving my point. Pink for safety good. Offer pink. But for breast cancer or other political agenda?  It’s a pervasive theme that everyone with a personal agenda wants everyone to experience it. Probably just me but I had a feeling there was more to this than just hunter safety


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So radical feminists pushing that breast cancer agenda are going to ruin hunting!? 

[Gobble Doc]

Who said anything about ruining hunting?  I just believe it’s not just about safety and spending our tax dollars on it isn’t free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

Piano man, you are proving my point. Pink for safety good. Offer pink. But for breast cancer or other political agenda?  It’s a pervasive theme that everyone with a personal agenda wants everyone to experience it. Probably just me but I had a feeling there was more to this than just hunter safety


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pick your fights. This one aint worth your time...or mine. I'm out.

[Gobble Doc]

Piano man, you are proving my point. Pink for safety good. Offer pink. But for breast cancer or other political agenda?  It’s a pervasive theme that everyone with a personal agenda wants everyone to experience it. Probably just me but I had a feeling there was more to this than just hunter safety


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pick your fights. This one aint worth your time...or mine. I'm out.

Agreed. Or the lawmakers


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dreamingbig]

I didn’t read the whole thread but didn’t MT already make this change?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Special T]

I didn’t read the whole thread but didn’t MT already make this change?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

washington was just following the lead of many other states. If will get my girls out more im good with it.

[dreamingbig]

Yeah I just did a quick search and Colorado and Virginia pop up.  Some mention of a bill in Mt and Wy too.  I couldn’t care less if it is equally as effective for safety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trophyhunt]

Don't really gives two craps about this subject, but seen some people bitching about it on facebook.  What is the problem here?  Who really cares if pink is legal as a color requirement, much better things to complain about.

[Bob33]