Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2019, 08:17:42 PM
SB 5148 sponsored by Senators Wilson, L., Becker, Fortunato, Palumbo, Short, Takko, Wagoner, and Warnick would enact the hunter orange requirement into state law and also add "hunter pink" as an acceptable color other than "hunter orange." WDFW would still be required to enact regs to determine when the wearing of hunter orange/pink is required for hunters.
http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/5148.pdf
Post by: Oh Mah on January 18, 2019, 08:48:28 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 18, 2019, 09:01:18 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 18, 2019, 09:07:17 PM
Should add a hunter orange requirement for all afield during big game modern firearm, hunting or not.
No, the government shouldn't be telling random people how to dress.
Post by: Oh Mah on January 18, 2019, 09:08:01 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2019, 09:09:59 PM
Should add a hunter orange requirement for all afield during big game modern firearm, hunting or not.Will never happen. If it does it would be an agency rule for lands managed by that agency.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 18, 2019, 09:11:46 PM
Post by: WapitiTalk1 on January 18, 2019, 09:15:47 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 18, 2019, 09:16:20 PM
Should add a hunter orange requirement for all afield during big game modern firearm, hunting or not.
No, the government shouldn't be telling random people how to dress.
Not random. People using the regulated lands.
Post by: luckyman on January 19, 2019, 07:03:56 AM
Post by: konradcountry on January 19, 2019, 09:10:45 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 19, 2019, 09:26:25 AM
My wife had someone take a shot while she was mushroom picking not more than 100' away. She never knew they where there. She wares orange now while out during mf season. A lot of people are un aware that its hunting season and never think to dress brightly.
So true, we've seen people dressed in black out huckleberry picking during bear season! I like to see they want to add pink, but it worries me about the legislature getting more involved in hunting.
Post by: Oh Mah on January 19, 2019, 11:02:16 AM
Post by: bradslam on January 19, 2019, 11:11:14 AM
So glad they are working on high priorities.
Did you look at the bill? It is one page that would one section to an existing RCW. I don't think much time is being spent on this and it makes complete sense, as fluorescent pink is equally effective, if not more so, than fluorescent orange. This should be a no-brainer.
Post by: bobcat on January 19, 2019, 11:18:45 AM
So glad they are working on high priorities.
Did you look at the bill? It is one page that would one section to an existing RCW. I don't think much time is being spent on this and it makes complete sense, as fluorescent pink is equally effective, if not more so, than fluorescent orange. This should be a no-brainer.
:yeah:
I probably won't won't wear pink even though I feel it's much more visible in the woods than orange. But I bet my daughters would like to wear a pink hat or a pink jacket. So I'm glad they're going to allow it. There's no reason not to.
Post by: Special T on January 19, 2019, 11:35:41 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 20, 2019, 02:08:39 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on January 20, 2019, 02:21:17 PM
Post by: Stein on January 20, 2019, 03:15:38 PM
1. I would like to see the rules kept with WDFW as opposed to actual legislation in order to remain nimble and be able to more easily address things like future changes to things like orange camo, what seasons, etc. If it goes this way, every change will require new legislation.
2. I see no need for pink. I like to keep things simple and traditional unless there is a reason to change. My daughter wears orange and doesn't think this is necessary and wouldn't keep her from hunting or make her hunt more. As a parent, I like the fact that we both understand clearly orange means serious safety stuff, not fashion. I would prefer to not combine the two.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 20, 2019, 03:19:56 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 20, 2019, 03:54:26 PM
"Jean Bergerson, past president of Minnesota-based Women Hunting & Fishing in All Seasons, echoed the support for safety, but also the unease with the color potentially being seen as an attractant to women and girls.
“I don’t care what color it is as long as it’s safe,” Bergerson said. “But I guess what disturbs me a little is there should be far more reasons for women to go outdoors and explore hunting and shooting than because you can wear pink. It kind of implies women are so shallow that all they want is pink.”
Post by: dreamunelk on January 20, 2019, 04:37:35 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on January 20, 2019, 06:26:02 PM
I voted no for two reasons:
1. I would like to see the rules kept with WDFW as opposed to actual legislation in order to remain nimble and be able to more easily address things like future changes to things like orange camo, what seasons, etc. If it goes this way, every change will require new legislation.
2. I see no need for pink. I like to keep things simple and traditional unless there is a reason to change. My daughter wears orange and doesn't think this is necessary and wouldn't keep her from hunting or make her hunt more. As a parent, I like the fact that we both understand clearly orange means serious safety stuff, not fashion. I would prefer to not combine thetwo.
https://www.localnews8.com/news/politics/wyoming-to-allow-hunters-to-wear-fluorescent-pink-attire/716467391
I agree with this :yeah: takes the safety part out of any NO reasoning.There have been a few times in the woods where it looked like hunter orange and was not.Nothing in the woods can be confused with pink.Now onto the important question,,,,,,They say that deer and elk can't see the orange,Can they see the pink?Marketing wise if they can sell more product because women want pink then so what.This is spreading across the country and i like that they are considering the women on this.
As to the making women look shallow,that sounds a little like CNN trying to make everything Trump says or does look feminist. :twocents:
Post by: WSU on January 20, 2019, 07:31:25 PM
Should add a hunter orange requirement for all afield during big game modern firearm, hunting or not.
No, the government shouldn't be telling random people how to dress.
Not random. People using the regulated lands.
Nothing more American than making a legal dress code for the general population. Keep up the anti-government fight!
Post by: fireweed on January 21, 2019, 08:57:41 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on January 21, 2019, 01:12:37 PM
2)not a new rule just an allowed article(more rights)
3)not confusing at all(if someone can't figure this one out they should just continue with orange)
:twocents:
The more people on our side(hunters) in any hunting issue is better for all.
Post by: Gopher on January 25, 2019, 06:29:25 PM
Post by: hunter399 on January 25, 2019, 06:48:38 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 25, 2019, 06:53:27 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 25, 2019, 07:03:41 PM
Instead of a pumpkin patch, you'll have a ? patch. Hmmm....what's something that is pink?:yike:
Post by: hunter399 on January 25, 2019, 07:11:18 PM
Just another reason why I love that color. :chuckle: :chuckle:Instead of a pumpkin patch, you'll have a ? patch. Hmmm....what's something that is pink?:yike:
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2019, 04:50:44 PM
The bill is now sitting in the Senate Rules Committee which will determine if the bill will go on for a full Senate vote.
Post by: Bob33 on February 04, 2019, 05:02:59 PM
The bill was passed out of committee after an amendment was made. The new bill essentially states that WDFW must allow hunter orange and pink and WDFW is to determine when/where/how much is needed.OK. Why in the world wouldn't be exactly what they already require for hunter orange?
The bill is now sitting in the Senate Rules Committee which will determine if the bill will go on for a full Senate vote.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-414-080
(1) Except as authorized in subsection (6) of this section, it is unlawful to hunt upland birds or rabbits during any upland game bird season unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(2) It is unlawful to hunt deer or elk during all modern firearm general seasons in any manner unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(3) All modern firearm permit holders must wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(4) All master hunters must wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing during all deer and elk hunting seasons that allow the use of modern firearms, except as authorized by department permit.
(5) It is unlawful to hunt bear, cougar, bobcat, raccoon, fox, coyote, rabbit, forest grouse, turkey or hare during those times and in those places open to the taking of deer or elk during a modern firearm season, unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(6) Persons who are hunting upland game birds during an upland game bird season with a muzzleloading firearm, bow and arrow or falconry are not required to wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(7) Wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing means: A minimum of 400 square inches of fluorescent hunter orange exterior clothing, worn above the waist and visible from all sides.
(8) A violation of this section is an infraction, punishable under RCW 77.15.160.
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2019, 05:20:04 PM
Because what you posted is what the WDFW Commission has enacted as a regulation. There is no law passed by the legislature saying WDFW has to enact hunter orange/pink/rainbow colors. This bill would essentially force the WDFW Commission's hand by saying pink is allowed in addition to orange.The bill was passed out of committee after an amendment was made. The new bill essentially states that WDFW must allow hunter orange and pink and WDFW is to determine when/where/how much is needed.OK. Why in the world wouldn't be exactly what they already require for hunter orange?
The bill is now sitting in the Senate Rules Committee which will determine if the bill will go on for a full Senate vote.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-414-080
(1) Except as authorized in subsection (6) of this section, it is unlawful to hunt upland birds or rabbits during any upland game bird season unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(2) It is unlawful to hunt deer or elk during all modern firearm general seasons in any manner unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(3) All modern firearm permit holders must wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(4) All master hunters must wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing during all deer and elk hunting seasons that allow the use of modern firearms, except as authorized by department permit.
(5) It is unlawful to hunt bear, cougar, bobcat, raccoon, fox, coyote, rabbit, forest grouse, turkey or hare during those times and in those places open to the taking of deer or elk during a modern firearm season, unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(6) Persons who are hunting upland game birds during an upland game bird season with a muzzleloading firearm, bow and arrow or falconry are not required to wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(7) Wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing means: A minimum of 400 square inches of fluorescent hunter orange exterior clothing, worn above the waist and visible from all sides.
(8) A violation of this section is an infraction, punishable under RCW 77.15.160.
The Commission and WDFW could've prevented this whole thing in the first place if the commission at one of their meetings revised the current hunter orange reg and added pink as an acceptable color. But they haven't so now the lawmakers are forcing their hands.
Post by: Bob33 on February 04, 2019, 05:27:57 PM
I see. So now the WAC will be changed to read " fluorescent hunter orange OR pretty hunter pink"?Because what you posted is what the WDFW Commission has enacted as a regulation. There is no law passed by the legislature saying WDFW has to enact hunter orange/pink/rainbow colors. This bill would essentially force the WDFW Commission's hand by saying pink is allowed in addition to orange.The bill was passed out of committee after an amendment was made. The new bill essentially states that WDFW must allow hunter orange and pink and WDFW is to determine when/where/how much is needed.OK. Why in the world wouldn't be exactly what they already require for hunter orange?
The bill is now sitting in the Senate Rules Committee which will determine if the bill will go on for a full Senate vote.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-414-080
(1) Except as authorized in subsection (6) of this section, it is unlawful to hunt upland birds or rabbits during any upland game bird season unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(2) It is unlawful to hunt deer or elk during all modern firearm general seasons in any manner unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(3) All modern firearm permit holders must wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(4) All master hunters must wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing during all deer and elk hunting seasons that allow the use of modern firearms, except as authorized by department permit.
(5) It is unlawful to hunt bear, cougar, bobcat, raccoon, fox, coyote, rabbit, forest grouse, turkey or hare during those times and in those places open to the taking of deer or elk during a modern firearm season, unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(6) Persons who are hunting upland game birds during an upland game bird season with a muzzleloading firearm, bow and arrow or falconry are not required to wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(7) Wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing means: A minimum of 400 square inches of fluorescent hunter orange exterior clothing, worn above the waist and visible from all sides.
(8) A violation of this section is an infraction, punishable under RCW 77.15.160.
The Commission and WDFW could've prevented this whole thing in the first place if the commission at one of their meetings revised the current hunter orange reg and added pink as an acceptable color. But they haven't so now the lawmakers are forcing their hands.
Post by: dreadi on February 04, 2019, 05:30:46 PM
Post by: BNAElkhntr on February 04, 2019, 05:37:00 PM
[size=78%]You Both Are Right I'd Like to see a little Information Put out Say A PSA for all persons in the woods That if you aren't hunting Please consider wearing Orange or Pink somewhere and leave the Brown and Black at Home If nothing else its easier to Find you if Lost[/size]Should add a hunter orange requirement for all afield during big game modern firearm, hunting or not.
No, the government shouldn't be telling random people how to dress.
Post by: bigtex on February 04, 2019, 05:47:59 PM
YesI see. So now the WAC will be changed to read " fluorescent hunter orange OR pretty hunter pink"?Because what you posted is what the WDFW Commission has enacted as a regulation. There is no law passed by the legislature saying WDFW has to enact hunter orange/pink/rainbow colors. This bill would essentially force the WDFW Commission's hand by saying pink is allowed in addition to orange.The bill was passed out of committee after an amendment was made. The new bill essentially states that WDFW must allow hunter orange and pink and WDFW is to determine when/where/how much is needed.OK. Why in the world wouldn't be exactly what they already require for hunter orange?
The bill is now sitting in the Senate Rules Committee which will determine if the bill will go on for a full Senate vote.
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-414-080
(1) Except as authorized in subsection (6) of this section, it is unlawful to hunt upland birds or rabbits during any upland game bird season unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(2) It is unlawful to hunt deer or elk during all modern firearm general seasons in any manner unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(3) All modern firearm permit holders must wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(4) All master hunters must wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing during all deer and elk hunting seasons that allow the use of modern firearms, except as authorized by department permit.
(5) It is unlawful to hunt bear, cougar, bobcat, raccoon, fox, coyote, rabbit, forest grouse, turkey or hare during those times and in those places open to the taking of deer or elk during a modern firearm season, unless the hunter is wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(6) Persons who are hunting upland game birds during an upland game bird season with a muzzleloading firearm, bow and arrow or falconry are not required to wear fluorescent hunter orange clothing.
(7) Wearing fluorescent hunter orange clothing means: A minimum of 400 square inches of fluorescent hunter orange exterior clothing, worn above the waist and visible from all sides.
(8) A violation of this section is an infraction, punishable under RCW 77.15.160.
The Commission and WDFW could've prevented this whole thing in the first place if the commission at one of their meetings revised the current hunter orange reg and added pink as an acceptable color. But they haven't so now the lawmakers are forcing their hands.
Post by: bearpaw on February 04, 2019, 06:24:42 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 04, 2019, 07:52:41 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on April 22, 2019, 10:42:33 PM
Post by: Gobble Doc on April 22, 2019, 11:01:01 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: SuperX on April 23, 2019, 08:07:56 AM
Post by: konradcountry on April 23, 2019, 10:06:06 AM
for some of us, traditional is red and black plaid! I would like to see wearing orange and pink for muzzy season too - at this point they shoot 200y and don't have scopes... seems way more likely to have a mis-identification with a muzzy than a MF with a scope.
I doubt it is normally an identification problem.
If anything it is some j--ka-- just drunk and shooting at anything.
The last accident I recall involved a victim who was wearing orange. The hunter claimed he thought he was shooting at an elk.
Had no idea that elk wear safety orange.
I supposed I'd be fine with it for some crowded areas but the ranges should be left open.
Post by: 7mmfan on April 23, 2019, 10:09:39 AM
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?
Post by: Special T on April 23, 2019, 10:41:01 AM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on April 23, 2019, 11:42:07 AM
Post by: Gobble Doc on April 23, 2019, 12:39:33 PM
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 bandwagonMore 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?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Gobble Doc on April 23, 2019, 12:55:07 PM
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
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2019, 01:05:17 PM
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.
Post by: Gobble Doc on April 23, 2019, 01:13:08 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: SuperX on April 23, 2019, 01:20:04 PM
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 safetySo radical feminists pushing that breast cancer agenda are going to ruin hunting!?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Gobble Doc on April 23, 2019, 01:21:52 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 23, 2019, 01:32:09 PM
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.
Post by: Gobble Doc on April 23, 2019, 01:48:32 PM
Agreed. Or the lawmakersPiano 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.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: dreamingbig on April 23, 2019, 02:33:38 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on April 23, 2019, 09:00:01 PM
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.
Post by: dreamingbig on April 24, 2019, 02:39:00 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on April 24, 2019, 06:31:08 AM
Post by: Bob33 on April 24, 2019, 06:34:56 AM