Rant for the day

[brymoore]

Jealous over another hunter? Never once said I was jealous of them I said I was mad they were breaking the law. We found elk in another drainage and he took a very nice bull. I guess people like you don't care if people follow the laws even if it is just about wearing orange.

People like me hike enough miles back from the roads I don't see other people to bitch about.

 

[yacantski]

So you've had many landowners say that happened to them personally on THEIR land? Or that it happened on so and so's land? The landowner I know had it personally happen to him. It wasn't a story making the rounds. It happened.

Yes that's absolutely what I'm saying about a moose. A hunter sees movement, deliberately aims at said movement and pulls the trigger. Chances of it being killed is less than wounded but yea, if a hunter shoots at an object, it's only logical to think that the animal could be killed.

Dick Cheney?

 

[Jamen]

Well Idaho elk hunting is a bit different then ND elk hunting. And bitching about people breaking the law versus seeing people is different. If you actually read my posts you'd know I was not mad they were there nor they harvested the elk we saw. I don't envy anyone who harvests an animal I want to see people be successful especially when they only get one of these tags in their lifetime. I am pissed that they broke the law it's no different if they shot one out the window or were driving in areas closed to vehicles. If people want to defend people who break the law they certainly can by calling people "jealous" that is their choice. I for one don't like seeing people cheat or break the law I had cut ties from family because of reasons very similar to this.

 

[IlliniFIre]

I hate orange in photos. I was unaware people would assume I was not wearing orange since it wasn't in my grip and grin. I even spent more on an orange vest this year than I ever dreamed of to send some money TRCP's way.

I wouldn't assume that. I would assume you were breaking the law though, based on the rules in Illinois. The tag must be applied before moving or dressing the animal, and blaze orange must be worn while dressing and retrieving an animal. So if you wanted a picture without it, you'd have to take it in the truck.

 

[MTGomer]

The statement that orange is not for safety is myopic at best.

If it's for safety why don't bow hunters have to wear it when they're sharing the woods with rifle bear hunters? Only the people with the guns have to wear it.

Goats and sheep... does anybody think that species that you will judge for hours through a spotting scope before even considering chambering a round are going to have humans killed, mistaken for them?

There's nothing wrong with wearing orange. If you think you should wear it, you should wear it regardless of if it's required. Obviously in WI or Ill it sounds like you should probably wear it even if you are getting your mail.

if it was for safety it would be required for anybody on public land during an open rifle season. Since it's only required for the potential shooter, and not the potential victim it defies logic to claim it is for safety.

I lived a real world example today. I went out for a bit this afternoon. The first mile or so is usually full of folks taking selfies in front of the waterfall and smoking pot. Today was no different. I put on my little vest like a good boy, grabbed my gun and proceeded past 10 or so folks. I was the only person I observed was armed. I was also the only one in orange.
Once past the selfie zone a guy can walk for 30 miles to YNP and not see another human.

 

[MTGomer]

Side note on the pot... I brought my dog with me today. He invited himself into their kumbay circle they'd made in the middle of the trail and tipped their bong over with his tail.

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

Side note on the pot... I brought my dog with me today. He invited himself into their kumbay circle they'd made in the middle of the trail and tipped their bong over with his tail.

Sounds like a good dog

 

[Tradewind]

Lots of first world problems need solving.

It's not a perfect world :W:

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Quit crying. You sound like the snowflakes whining about the election. If you see a violation in the field, report it and move on. Complaining about it on a forum is weak sauce.

Orange is ridiculous and if people don't want to wear it in photos, get over it. And if people don't want a tag taped on their animal for photos, it's their business. I certainly don't need someone to tell me what to do for pictures. Who are you to decide if they tagged their animal fast enough? Really? you don't have anything better to do than judge whether someone tagged an animal properly for a photo? If you see a violation just report it instead of this crap.

Do you need someone to follow you around and make sure you wipe fast enough after you make a #2?

 

[Schaaf]

Side note on the pot... I brought my dog with me today. He invited himself into their kumbay circle they'd made in the middle of the trail and tipped their bong over with his tail.

Our next Attorney General would be proud.

 

[shootbrownelk]

In Wyoming, you don't have to apply the notched & signed carcass tag while transporting(moving) the animal. I put mine in my pocket. After you notch your tag, you are no longer hunting so no orange is required. I got that right from a warden in the Snowy range. All I ever wear is an orange hat anyway, easy to remove.

 

[Jamen]

Happy Thanksgiving!!!

 

[Washington Hunter]

Shootbrownelk just said what I was going to say. When you have killed your animal and notched your tag, you're no longer hunting. So you can take the orange off. It's only required when you are hunting.

 

[plains2pines]

i only wear orange when upland game hunting, or when hunting amongst a lot of people. but generally I get away from the crowds, sometimes I let the crowds do pushing for me if I don't have lots of time. I don't think the original poster is jealous at all and if so I would be too! I'm always jealous when I see someone drop a big animal, but also excited for them and offer help if I'm able. I do understand the frustration though. each state has diff rules. my one time I make sure I do wear orange when big game hunting, even if I'm in no mans land is when packing an animal out. I want people to see me, ive been shot at before by stupid idiots. why there are people that shoot at something they cant see and know for sure what it is is beyond me. these guys need thinned from the gene pool. and that story that was told earlier about the moose behind a bush.... I've heard that as well. its a story that goes around. doesn't mean stuff like that doesn't happen though. I've watched people shoot into bushes cuz they heard something! to bad there isn't a common scene section to hunters safety. my main reason for not wearing orange is so people cant see me when I'm heading to my honey holes. the safety aspect... sure its obviously for safety. however, a solid point was made. why aren't archery hunters in certain states required to wear it during an open season any weapon area? and the tagging thing.... we all know that people are so pumped after dropping a big animal that putting the tag on right away doesn't even cross their minds.

 

[TheJason]

If it's for safety why don't bow hunters have to wear it when they're sharing the woods with rifle bear hunters? Only the people with the guns have to wear it.

Goats and sheep... does anybody think that species that you will judge for hours through a spotting scope before even considering chambering a round are going to have humans killed, mistaken for them?

There's nothing wrong with wearing orange. If you think you should wear it, you should wear it regardless of if it's required. Obviously in WI or Ill it sounds like you should probably wear it even if you are getting your mail.

if it was for safety it would be required for anybody on public land during an open rifle season. Since it's only required for the potential shooter, and not the potential victim it defies logic to claim it is for safety.

I lived a real world example today. I went out for a bit this afternoon. The first mile or so is usually full of folks taking selfies in front of the waterfall and smoking pot. Today was no different. I put on my little vest like a good boy, grabbed my gun and proceeded past 10 or so folks. I was the only person I observed was armed. I was also the only one in orange.
Once past the selfie zone a guy can walk for 30 miles to YNP and not see another human.

It would be virtually impossible to make a safety law for high visibility clothing and implement it in a "logical" fashion. Certainly, there are things about hunter orange that are "illogical". However, how do you propose to design and implement a law that would encompass everyone that is participating in an outdoor activity? What exactly is an outdoor activity? Is it walking your dog? Hiking? Taking a selfie from the road shoulder? FWP does not have regulatory authority over these people. It does have regulatory authority over hunters. Thus, hunters are the ones required to wear orange.

Is it completely logical that the sheep hunter wears orange while the alpine bowhunter doesn't? Nope. So where do you draw the line? Do you dictate in the regs that anyone hunting alpine terrain is exempt from the hunter orange requirement? How about glacial valleys with less than 4' willow cover? Ponderosa overstory with the absence of underbrush? Again, it's folly to begin trying to differentiate between habitat types when you can simply make it a requirement if you are packing a rifle. If you are packing a rifle, others likely are too.

Hunter orange is not just for you to keep you from getting shot, it's for others to be able to see so they aren't being unsafe. On more than one occasion I've been surprised to see an orange shape show up where I didn't expect it. However low the odds are for someone on the back side of the bell curve to mistake you for an animal, I don't see that it's worth the risk. Should everyone wear it? Absolutely. A prime example is the lady in Washington who was shot and killed about 8 years ago by a young hunter who mistook her for a black bear. REI now makes it a point to encourage outdoor enthusiast to wear brighter colors and avoid blacks and browns.

It's not a perfect a logical world.

 

[Bowhunter60]

This year I have seen so many pictures of people who are not wearing the proper clothing for the hunts they are involved in. And that proper tagging is not done. I am not a huge stickler about people who want to take a picture of an animal without a tag but the law here requires it to be tagged immediately. The blaze orange clothing is what really gets me. I have seen a lot of pictures and people posting them online either on social media or on other outdoor sites. How can you take a photo of your deer in the field and not have a thread of orange on?

This Sept I was helping my cousin with his ND elk tag. We got to a spot where I know elk to be and there were two other trucks there. No big deal there are many places to go in this area. Anyway we spotted a really nice bull who ended up scoring in the 360's. We were making a plan on how to get to him when the other hunters came out of a draw and started off towards the bull. Disappointed yes but that is hunting but what really pissed me off they didn't have one thread of orange on them. I watched them for a long time in the spotter had pictures of them also had their plate numbers from where we parked incase issues were to come about. Later I had seen a picture of the bull with the hunters in it I recognized them right away based on what they were wearing and the pictures I had through my spotter. I am not one to cause problems so I never confronted nor contacted the warden about it. it just sucks having someone not follow the rules and then so boldly and blast it everywhere. No hard feelings we got my cousin a real nice 6x6 anyways.

That is my rant for the day

Hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving!!

Jamen,

I absolutely feel ya on this one. The more important issue are those "hunters" who have an open disregard for regulations. They give all of us a black-eye that's hard to defend against. This past fall, I was on a Mule Deer hunt. I had taken my nephew, who had never been hunting before. So, wanting to teach him properly, we made out for camp 5 days before season opener. Having never shot a bow before, we spent five days in camp practicing with countless arrows. I told him, until I was sure he could put the arrow where it needed to go, we would not hunt. I held to this on opening morning as I didn't think he was quite ready and wanted him to get some more time on targets.

Finally, day two of the season we set out, after six full days of him practicing and becoming quite good. That morning, we were traveling to our hunt location when I spotted three very nice bucks about 75 yards off the road and traveling parallel to the road. I had him get ready and we drove a couple hundred yards up the road, out of sight of the deer. I then pointed out a stand of trees about 100 yards off road and told him to go sit at that location and wait. I drove up the road another couple of hundred yards where I would not be in view of the deer when they came to his location.

After waiting for several minutes, nothing showed up. I knew they had to have veered off up into the timber. So, I went back down the road an what did I find, a truck stopped right where the deer were. I talked with the guys in the truck who told me they had just arrowed a buck FROM THE ROAD!

 

[idelkslayer]

I'm with Mtgomer on the way that the hunter orange laws are splitting hairs by requiring rifle hunters to wear wear it but not bowhunters who may be in the woods at the same time.

Idaho does not require orange but I wear it because there are too many idiots out there. I still wear it even if I am packed in several miles and have every reason to believe that there are no other hunters around.

Just a couple years ago in western Idaho a bowhunter was accidentally shot by another bowhunter during elk season. So the idiocy extends across weapons choices too. That hunter was lucky, the arrow only grazed his scalp, leaving two nice cuts on the top of his head. The shooter? He ran off before he could be identified, I don't know if they ever found out who it was.

If a state is going to have a hunter orange requirement then it should extend to anyone that will be in the woods during the hunting seasons. Many of the people killed accidentally by hunters are joggers or dog walkers.

When it comes to tagging. Idaho requires that the tag be notched immediately and attached to the largest portion of the carcass. Even so you often see Idaho bucks with the tag attached to the antlers. The way I understand it if you are taking the animal out whole you can attach to antlers. If you are quartering and packing the largest portion is usually a hind quarter and that is where the tag should be attached.

In clarifications on the Idaho Fish and Game website I have read that you are not required to cut and attach your tag until you recover the animal.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

In Wisconsin anytime there is a rifle season going on ALL hunters must wear blaze orange, including bow hunters. The only exception is waterfowl hunting.

 

[Big Sky Dreamin]

In Wisconsin anytime there is a rifle season going on ALL hunters must wear blaze orange, including bow hunters. The only exception is waterfowl hunting.

Minnesota is pretty much the same except that waterfowlers are to wear orange when moving to and from a blind.

 

[Laelkhunter]

I always take orange off for pics, it just detracts too much from the photo.

As for tagging... Colorado, for example, specifically forbids a tag from being attached to an antler... "You must attach a carcass tag to animals you kill per instructions on tag. Tags must be immediately signed, dated, detached from the license and attached to the carcass of the animal — not to detached hides, horns, antlers or carried separately."

There are just far too many variables for any judgement to be made about the hunt from only one snapshot in time. Just my opinion.

Grizzly,
I have read and re-read the "Carcass Tags" section of the Colorado Regs, and it doesn't seem crystal clear. I have always attached the tag to the antlers at time of kill and then transporting, but later after quartering and skinning (back at the shop) I remove the tag from the antlers, and attach it to one of the hocks on the hindquarter.
The way I read and interpret it, it says not to attach the tag to DETACHED horns, antlers, or hides. As long as the antlers are still attached to the carcass, then attaching the tag to the antlers is legal??? It is easier to keep the tag intact while transporting if attached to the antlers instead of the leg, etc. When we skin and quarter the Elk, the tag would come off anyway, and have to be reattached somewhere.
I might be reading too much into it, but I think it is legal to attach the tag to the antlers, until you remove the head, then it has to be attached to the carcass.