Violation Yes or No?

[ShortAction]

Should you have to have a hunting license in order to accompany another person while they are hunting? Of course not. Therefore, if you don't need a license, you are not hunting, and do not need to wear hunter orange per regulation or statute unless it specifically requires it. In reality, probably every person in the outdoors in the fall should be wearing high visibility colors, but to my knowledge there is not a single state that requires it. A little common sense and following the rules of firearms safety pretty much render this entire conversation a moot point.

Virginia requires everyone that accompanies a hunter who is required to wear orange to also wear orange...generally speaking during firearms deer season.
As far as common sense goes, its not all that common anymore.

 

[JLS]

Virginia requires everyone that accompanies a hunter who is required to wear orange to also wear orange...generally speaking during firearms deer season.

Every hunter (see exceptions below), or persons accompanying a hunter, shall wear a solid blaze colored (blaze orange or blaze pink) hat or solid blaze colored upper body clothing that is visible from 360 degrees or display at least 100 square inches of solid blaze colored material at shoulder level within body reach and visible from 360 degrees.

This is exactly the caveat I was referring to here:

Therefore, if you don't need a license, you are not hunting, and do not need to wear hunter orange per regulation or statute unless it specifically requires it.

In contrast, Wyoming law specifically refers to the hunter. This language is taken directly from the WYGF website:

While wearing fluorescent orange or fluorescent pink is not required for friends or family accompanying a hunter, we highly recommended that these people wear one visible item for safety.

Montana only requires the accompanying person to wear it if they are acting as an outfitter/guide:

1) Except as provided in subsection (3), a person may not hunt any big game animals in this state or accompany any hunter as an outfitter or guide under any of the provisions of the laws of this state without wearing as exterior garments above the waist a total of not less than 400 square inches of hunter orange material visible at all times while hunting.

There is no lumen requirement in Montana. If there was, it would need to be specified in the MCA.

 

[JM77]

Many western states have no hunter orange requirement and I have been told hunting related accidents are no higher in these states than those with the requirement.

The no orange states include Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Alaska & California.

 

[Dakotakid]

Montana requires-
"hunter orange" means a daylight fluorescent orange color. That is in the Montana statute.

The International Hunters Education Association and numerous States define- Daylight florescent as- Hunter Orange should have a dominant wavelength between 595 and 605 nanometers, a luminance factor of not less than 40%, and an excitation purity of not less than 85%.

May be semantics over a $20 ticket but people argue about everything.

87-6-414. Failure to wear hunter orange while big game hunting. (1) Except as provided in subsection (3), a person may not hunt any big game animals in this state or accompany any hunter as an outfitter or guide under any of the provisions of the laws of this state without wearing as exterior garments above the waist a total of not less than 400 square inches of hunter orange material visible at all times while hunting.

(2) As used in this section, "hunter orange" means a daylight fluorescent orange color.

(3) This section does not apply to a person hunting:

(a) with a bow and arrow during the special archery season; or

(b) wolves outside the general deer and elk season as authorized by commission rules.

(4) The department shall make rules to implement this section.

(5) A person convicted of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $10 or more than $20.

 

[JLS]

Daylight florescent as- Hunter Orange should have a dominant wavelength between 595 and 605 nanometers, a luminance factor of not less than 40%, and an excitation purity of not less than 85%.

Key phrase there. If it was an absolute requirement it would say "shall have". If someone got a ticket, it was because the stuff flat wasn't orange and not because of any measurable luminance.

 

[Dakotakid]

Key phrase there. If it was an absolute requirement it would say "shall have". If someone got a ticket, it was because the stuff flat wasn't orange and not because of any measurable luminance.

Montana requires florescent orange. The definition of fluorescent orange is listed by the IHEA.
I can give you the name of the warden that issues those citations if you like.

 

[JLS]

Montana requires florescent orange. The definition of fluorescent orange is listed by the IHEA.
I can give you the name of the warden that issues those citations if you like.

No need to bother. I'm not arguing someone got a ticket. However, in a courtroom, there is a marked difference between the phrases "should have" and "shall have".

How many game wardens have the tools to measure the wavelength, luminance and excitation purity? I'd wager a bet most couldn't even define those terms.

 

[Dakotakid]

No need to bother. I'm not arguing someone got a ticket. However, in a courtroom, there is a marked difference between the phrases "should have" and "shall have".

How many game wardens have the tools to measure the wavelength, luminance and excitation purity? I'd wager a bet most couldn't even define those terms.

I would wager in a courtroom a 12 year old girl who has finished hunters education would be readily able to tell the difference between florescent orange and a washed out orange, as would each juror.

 

[JLS]

I would wager in a courtroom a 12 year old girl who has finished hunters education would be readily able to tell the difference between florescent orange and a washed out orange, as would each juror.

LOL carry on bro.

 

[mtmuley]

https://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/feb/03/pink-may-be-next-hot-color-montana-hunters/ mtmuley

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I can give you the name of the warden that issues those citations if you like.

I'll call your bluff, name and region, por favor. I would be happy to post what they say.

I would imagine as long as it's not egregiously ridiculous they don't care.

Sitka, Kuiu, and First lite all make blaze, that blaze is a very different shade/luminosity than your standard IHEA vest. I highly doubt these companies would produce blaze vests that were illegal in MT, WY, and CO.

Given the number of blaze violations out there for people wearing nothing, I don't see any warden writing a citation for "dingy". Dollars to donuts, the people that got busted for these blaze violations were doing something that got them cited other than blaze.

This is probably how that interaction went down.

Warden spots two dudes without blaze on walking down a ridge. He drives up to the parking lot, they spot him on their way down and pull out their vests.

"Gentleman hows it going today? I see that you were hunting but didn't have blaze on"

"Nope we have vests on your blind"

"Ok, well you didn't have them on earlier, I just want to let you know it's Montana law and a safety thing"

"We had them on I don't know what your talking about pine pig"

"Hmmm, let me see that vest.... yea now that I'm up close looks like it's very faded and isn't fluorescent blaze orange any more, here's a ticket."

Dudes at the bar later... that Warden xyz is such a jerk, he wrote us a ticket for having faded blaze on.

 

[Dakotakid]

I'll call your bluff, name and region, por favor. I would be happy to post what they say.

I would imagine as long as it's not egregiously ridiculous they don't care.

Sitka, Kuiu, and First lite all make blaze, that blaze is a very different shade/luminosity than your standard IHEA vest. I highly doubt these companies would produce blaze vests that were illegal in MT, WY, and CO.

Given the number of blaze violations out there for people wearing nothing, I don't see any warden writing a citation for "dingy". Dollars to donuts, the people that got busted for these blaze violations were doing something that got them cited other than blaze.

This is probably how that interaction went down.

Warden spots two dudes without blaze on walking down a ridge. He drives up to the parking lot, they spot him on their way down and pull out their vests.

"Gentleman hows it going today? I see that you were hunting but didn't have blaze on"

"Nope we have vests on your blind"

"Ok, well you didn't have them on earlier, I just want to let you know it's Montana law and a safety thing"

"We had them on I don't know what your talking about pine pig"

"Hmmm, let me see that vest.... yea now that I'm up close looks like it's very faded and isn't fluorescent blaze orange any more, here's a ticket."

Dudes at the bar later... that Warden xyz is such a jerk, he wrote us a ticket for having faded blaze on.

Lee Burroughs region 4. He is now the investigator.
People often wear orange sweatshirts and claim they are blaze orange.
I don’t remember if there were other citations. I just remember that one.

 

[Dakotakid]

Lee Burroughs region 4. He is now the investigator.
People often wear orange sweatshirts and claim they are blaze orange.
I don’t remember if there were other citations. I just remember that one.

He was actually region 5 but now as investigator covers multi I imagine.