Hunter orange for rifle bear hunting

[Itsintheblood]

Sorry for the last sentence. I was trying to say the same thing two different ways.

[jrebel]

Looking up the WAC on the state webpage it still clearly states (exception 2) except bear or cougar. Until it changes there, I’m not going to follow a rule out of a pamphlet that is not completely stated.

Alright someone has to help me out here because I clearly don’t understand. My comment was skipped right over. It clearly states under WAC 220-414-080 that this rule excludes bear and cougar hunters. Now just because the game department decided to put part of the code but not all of the code on the bear page of the pamphlet doesn’t mean that only what they state is correct. Was this a new adopted change that hasn’t been updated in the current WAC? I completely agree that seasons, limits and so on are justified by the big game regulations. However, a statement with a WAC number quoted means they are saying based on that code you are required to do so. Not what only the pamphlet states. Please get me inform me what I am missing.

@bigtex What is your take on this.  I would think the WAC would supercede WDFW pamphlet states. 

[ghosthunter]

Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.

I am not saying hunters could claim that.

I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.

[bigtex]

Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.

I am not saying hunters could claim that.

I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.

And what actual civil right would be violated?

[trophyhunt]

Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.

I am not saying hunters could claim that.

I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.

so could the hunting public.

[Bob33]

Looking up the WAC on the state webpage it still clearly states (exception 2) except bear or cougar. Until it changes there, I’m not going to follow a rule out of a pamphlet that is not completely stated.

Alright someone has to help me out here because I clearly don’t understand. My comment was skipped right over. It clearly states under WAC 220-414-080 that this rule excludes bear and cougar hunters. Now just because the game department decided to put part of the code but not all of the code on the bear page of the pamphlet doesn’t mean that only what they state is correct. Was this a new adopted change that hasn’t been updated in the current WAC? I completely agree that seasons, limits and so on are justified by the big game regulations. However, a statement with a WAC number quoted means they are saying based on that code you are required to do so. Not what only the pamphlet states. Please get me inform me what I am missing.

@bigtex What is your take on this.  I would think the WAC would supercede WDFW pamphlet states.

WACs for many of the changes in the pamphlet haven't been updated yet: seasons, 1x scopes, hunter orange, etc. I suspect it is a matter of timing and they wanted the regulations out as soon as possible.

[trophyhunt]

Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.

I am not saying hunters could claim that.

I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.

And what actual civil right would be violated?

being told what to wear seems a bit tyrannical?

[ghosthunter]

Just an opinion; if it's really all about safety and hunters have to wear hunter orange or pink then why wouldn't anyone out n about in the hills during an open season where firearms are being used be required to wear orange or pink?

The main reason there isn't such a regulation (hikers being required to wear orange) is that WDFW lacks the jurisdiction over hikers, the only exception would be WDFW could say anyone hiking on WDFW lands is required to wear orange. The DNR would have to adopt a similar reg for their lands, Forest Service for their lands, etc. The only way around this would be for the state legislature to actually adopt a law requiring the wearing of orange during hunting seasons, and that just isn't going to happen.

And any rule would be ruled unconstitutional.

And where in the constitution would the rule run afoul?

There are more than a dozen states that require those non-hunting companions of hunters to wear hunter orange. There are some states that require anyone using state wildlife area lands to wear hunter orange during hunting seasons. Just last month the Utah legislature passed a law granting authority to the Utah game department to enact rules to require the wearing of hunter orange by non-hunters such as hikers on state wildlife areas.

I bow to you Bigtex.

But part of this discussion was requiring non hunters on lands other than Wildlife Dept owned lands to wear orange or any required color. And as you state the DFW dose t have that authority. I believe it would be challenged by the public as a violation of their civil rights which is what I meant by constitutional even if the legislature were to pass it.

But hey that’s just my 

[bigtex]

Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.

I am not saying hunters could claim that.

I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.

And what actual civil right would be violated?

being told what to wear seems a bit tyrannical?

In court when someone says something violates their constitutional or civil rights they actually have to show what civil/constitutional right is being violated. Simply not liking a law doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or would violate their civil rights. Civil rights in the US prohibit discrimination based on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, and sex, so tell me, where does requiring the wearing of hunter orange by hikers on public lands violate their civil rights?

[bigtex]

Looking up the WAC on the state webpage it still clearly states (exception 2) except bear or cougar. Until it changes there, I’m not going to follow a rule out of a pamphlet that is not completely stated.

Alright someone has to help me out here because I clearly don’t understand. My comment was skipped right over. It clearly states under WAC 220-414-080 that this rule excludes bear and cougar hunters. Now just because the game department decided to put part of the code but not all of the code on the bear page of the pamphlet doesn’t mean that only what they state is correct. Was this a new adopted change that hasn’t been updated in the current WAC? I completely agree that seasons, limits and so on are justified by the big game regulations. However, a statement with a WAC number quoted means they are saying based on that code you are required to do so. Not what only the pamphlet states. Please get me inform me what I am missing.

@bigtex What is your take on this.  I would think the WAC would supercede WDFW pamphlet states.

WACs for many of the changes in the pamphlet haven't been updated yet: seasons, 1x scopes, hunter orange, etc. I suspect it is a matter of timing and they wanted the regulations out as soon as possible.

It takes the WA Code Reviser quite some time to actually update the online code, the codes take effect when passed by boards/commissions, not when they are put on the internet.

[Itsintheblood]

Looking up the WAC on the state webpage it still clearly states (exception 2) except bear or cougar. Until it changes there, I’m not going to follow a rule out of a pamphlet that is not completely stated.

Alright someone has to help me out here because I clearly don’t understand. My comment was skipped right over. It clearly states under WAC 220-414-080 that this rule excludes bear and cougar hunters. Now just because the game department decided to put part of the code but not all of the code on the bear page of the pamphlet doesn’t mean that only what they state is correct. Was this a new adopted change that hasn’t been updated in the current WAC? I completely agree that seasons, limits and so on are justified by the big game regulations. However, a statement with a WAC number quoted means they are saying based on that code you are required to do so. Not what only the pamphlet states. Please get me inform me what I am missing.

@bigtex What is your take on this.  I would think the WAC would supercede WDFW pamphlet states.

WACs for many of the changes in the pamphlet haven't been updated yet: seasons, 1x scopes, hunter orange, etc. I suspect it is a matter of timing and they wanted the regulations out as soon as possible.

My take is the WAC definitely supersedes the pamphlet. Without question. Especially when the WAC is quoted as the code being followed. The explanation of the changes not being made yet is understandable. I have not looked into any of the other changes to verify. I work in the electrical field and we are governed first by the NEC and secondly by the WAC. The WAC supersedes the NEC. There is no doubt in my mind the WAC takes precedent in this situation. However if they have not been updated yet then I am premature. Is there a link to where/when the change was made. In a brief google search I was unable to find anything.

[ghosthunter]

Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.

I am not saying hunters could claim that.

I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.

And what actual civil right would be violated?

being told what to wear seems a bit tyrannical?

In court when someone says something violates their constitutional or civil rights they actually have to show what civil/constitutional right is being violated. Simply not liking a law doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or would violate their civil rights. Civil rights in the US prohibit discrimination based on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, and sex, so tell me, where does requiring the wearing of hunter orange by hikers on public lands violate their civil rights?

https://www.paulksicinskilaw.com/blog/2015/01/can-the-government-tell-me-what-i-can-or-cannot-wear/

[Scruffy]

You all are missing the point here.  This has absolutely nothing to do with safety of hunters.  Look around how many bear hunter you see out in the woods, and only probably 10% of the number of bear hunters go hunt cougar.  Like wearing orange is necessary......  Remember our dear friend Lorna wanted to reduce bears season and limits.  Cougar season is still hanging in her hands.  This is only to inconvenience hunters because she couldn't get her way.  If she can make even 10% to say "well if I have to wear orange I won't hunt" then she wins.  There is no data backing a move for enacting mandatory orange.  Those of you who say " I am fine with this new rule" well you're part of the problem by allowing them to chisel away at any of our hunting privilege's.  That is death by 1000 cuts We all should be up in arms for every little take away from our loved sport.  If hunt orange is so important for hunter to wear then I fully support everyone in the woods and game lands to wear orange.  Not for fear of getting shot but personal safety.  The hikers and bikers are the ones getting lost, hurt, or blisters on their feet and need to be rescued.  It would make their rescue much easier if they had some high vis on.  They don't have to put the reason on hunting.

[JakeLand]

Wearing hunter orange is complete BS and we know the reason why now we need to work on getting it dropped off

[trophyhunt]

Oh please! Unconstitutional? Really? Where in the constitution does it say anything about only wearing subdued colors? Your honor, my rights have been violated because I had to wear orange after Labor day. If it's really unconstitutional to require 400 sq. inches of bright colored clothing during hunting season, why hasn't someone challenged it? If the washington state fish and game actually cared and believed that wearing bright colors saved lives, they'd convince any state agency to require bright colored clothing after a certain date. For that matter, if it was really all that important, the governor could mandate all agencies that control land use, to make it mandatory that all state employees, all visitors, all hunters will wear bright colors when in the field.

I am not saying hunters could claim that.

I am saying non hunting public could possibly claim it violated their civil rights.

And what actual civil right would be violated?

being told what to wear seems a bit tyrannical?

In court when someone says something violates their constitutional or civil rights they actually have to show what civil/constitutional right is being violated. Simply not liking a law doesn't mean it is unconstitutional or would violate their civil rights. Civil rights in the US prohibit discrimination based on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, religion, and sex, so tell me, where does requiring the wearing of hunter orange by hikers on public lands violate their civil rights?

I guess it's up to each person on how they see it, what if they made you wear a mask on your face? Some think that was ok, I didn't see it that way.