MANDATORY HUNTER ORANGE

The state of Oregon is working on this. I am very against this, it would be for rifle hunters durring rifle season. There are 33 other states that require a certain number of square inchs of hunter orange. This is brought on by the death of a 13 year old boy this last hunting season, he was mistaken for an elk and shot by his uncle. Although this is very sad mandating hunter orange is not the answer. If people would just follow the basic safety rules this could be avoided, like target identification, know your target and what is beyond.
And why would it just be required for rifle hunters? What about bow hunters since bear and cougar season are the same time as bow season and you can hunt them with a rifle? Hikers, Berry pickers, fishermen, basically anyone out of the city limits durring season. I can honestly say that I whear it myself most of the time and it does make me feel safer, but making it the law is stupid, and it singles out people that it shouldn't. The state of Washington requires 40% hunter orange, last year a lady was killed by a a 14 yo kid that should not have been hunting without an adult. She was wearing all black, she was bent over tying her shoe and thought she was a bear. She was not required to wear orange because she was not hunting. If the boy would have identified his target this would not have happened.

So why only hunters?

An average of 1.7 hunters a year are killed a year in Oregon, ODFW say's that if mandating hunter orange will save one life it is worth it, I think that requiring every person to complete a hunter safety class it would be a much better way to make the woods safer.

If they do mandate hunter orange, it needs to be for all people that are out doors out of city limits durring rifle season, private and public land.

I'll accept hunter orange requirements if they also require all upland bird hunters, their dogs, all county, state, and federal employees in the field during hunting seasons, and all non-hunters in the field during hunting seasons to wear it as well!I, as an unethical, uneducated, unsafe rifle hunter (those whom are being singled out) am just as likely to shoot anything(anyone) that moves...not just another hunter packing a rifle.I'll let land owners slide as they have every right to hunt naked on their own land as far as I'm concerned. But if they don't have that right...then I guess all land owners outside their homes, in and around where someone might be hunting should be required to wear it as well.1992-2006 stats show that a good number of the fatal and non-fatal accidents happen with a shotgun (which is close range), and/or happen when the other hunter is "out of sight". Not mistaken for game, but "out of sight". We are talking about 6.4 non-fatal accidents, and 1.7 fatal accidents per year (in Oregon). Throw out 1992, and even much less. Surprisingly, there have been many accidents where the victims were wearing orange or they don't know if they were. If you look at nationwide stats, it's even more surprising.And why shouldn't archers have to wear it? I am an avid archer, obviously, and I know that deer and elk don't see the color spectrum...we can't be hypocrits.You have the choice to wear it now....so wear it if you want! Do you really NEED me to wear it to make YOU a safer hunter? If you can't answer that question, then education is the answer.

If you want to save lives, how about lowering the speed limit on the highway to 45 mph. If it saves one life, (it would save hundreds, actually) it's worth it, right?