Bowhunting rule change

[Strutter]

Hi DC. I saw on another site where KDFWR is supposed to be thinking about making a rule change to where bowhunters hunting on WMA's during the statewide gun season or muzzleloader season has to wear hunter orange even if firearms aren't permitted on the WMA. Anything to this?

Thanks,
Strutter

[Bowcrazy]

Anyone from Fish and Wildlife know anything about this?

[CSS archer]

I don't know anything for certain about this. Many proposals get discussed and changed or dropped after being submitted to the Wildlife Commitee before the commisssion meeting.

If it is indeed a proposal, it is probably coming from the Law Enforcement Division.

[Bowcrazy]

Please let us know if this proposal is recommended out of the wildlife committee, so we can provide some input before the commission meeting on March 2nd. This would be a disaster for bowhunters. With our season all cut up, about all the decent November hunting we have left is on the WMA's.

[CSS archer]

I probably won't know anything until the commission meeting myself. I only bowhunt myself bowcrazy, how could having to wear orange be a "disaster"? Seems to me on some smaller wma's it would be common sense to wear it regardless.

I have to wear it bowhunting turkeys during the muzzleloader seasons, seems to me if something like this is being proposed it should include waterfowl hunters as well.

[DC]

First of all let me reiterate that hunting of all kinds whether wearing blazer orange or not is EXTREMELY safe. Hunting accidents are much more rare than the auto accident enroute to the hunting grounds. However, blaze orange is seen as one of those things that has made an already safe sport even more safe.

At the Wildlife Committee meeting Wildlife Division recommended that bowhunters on WMAs where blaze orange during firearms hunting seasons (early muzzl, general firearms, & late mzzl). The rationale has to do with the fact that firearms are being used on the boundaries of WMAs where only archers are hunting. A camo-clad archer on the WMA boundary may not be seen by the orange-clad firearms toter across the fence (many times there isn't even a fence separating private land and the WMA). It is a safety issue.

Frankly, I'm surprised this hasn't come up before.

Of course as CSS stated, most of us don orange when hunting the 3rd and 4th weekend of Oct. (youth gun and early muzzl), many of us choose archery during the general firearms season and wear orange, and of course the same goes for Dec. muzzl.

Like a lot of archers I too am "allergic" to blaze orange but I also know that it doesn't impact my deer hunting with a bow. It's still the movement and scent that alert the deer. When wearing blaze orange while bowhunting I might pay a little more attention to my backdrop and not clear such wide shooting lanes from my stand.

This is a logical proposal.

[Darton73]

I can definitely see the need - especially on areas such as Taylorsville that receive heavy pressure both on the area, and on surrounding farms. I always recommended that the WMA hunters at least wear orange until they got into their stands.

Brian Grossman
Darton73@alltel.net
www.KentuckyHunting.com

[Bowcrazy]

Since the Administrator took the opportunity for a followup, I would like to do likewise before moving this elsewhere.

CSS there are two major differences between your bowhunting of turkeys during the muzzleloader season and what is being proposed for the WMAs. First, you hunt from within a blind as I understand it so this is much different from hunting up in a treestand. I would even guess that camo isn't a necessity in your situation. Second, you're hunting in an area where firearms are LEGAL so it is to be expected that contact with someone who is hunting with a gun can/will occur under LEGAL circumstances. Guns aren't even allowed on WMAs during this time and no one is supposed to be shooting there. I feel much safer on the WMAs during gun season than I do on private land during closed gun season with all the poaching that goes on.

DC You stated sometime back on one of these threads, something to the affect that you didn't believe in passing laws and regulations that punish law abiding citizens for something that dishonest people are doing. Well, that is just exactly what you are proposing here. This proposal restricts and puts requirements on legal bowhunters for something that illegal poachers and lawbreakers might possibly do.

Bowhunters who want to get away from the "sea of orange" already feel like the indians of old. Forced to trek miles to hunt on reservations in order to hunt in the manner we choose to hunt. In what has become a tradition each fall, bowhunters from my area set out on trips to LBL, H and H, and other public lands when gun season comes in to try and find the solitude we need to hunt. (probably following pretty close the route of the trail of tears...there's that old indian analogy again) Now without any apparent reason for doing so, you propose a regulation that would make us trade our camo and wool plaid for big shiney orange jumpsuits and bright orange hats. If you guys don't see this as a disaster for bowhunters then we apparently don't enjoy the same things from the outdoors.

And yes, CSS I don't see how this could possibly be applied to bowhunters and not include waterfowl hunters as well. I think this is the same situation where deer hunters were required to get written permission a few years back and we found out this had to be applied across the board.

As promised, I will take this to another venue.

[DC]

Bowcrazy and others.

I think the duck hunter analogy is interesting. No one would suggest the duck hunter wear orange, even when seasons overlap with the firearms deer season. However, birds and mammals have different abilities to detect colors. This is why male birds are brightly colored--because the female reacts to those colors. Mammals detect tone and glare.

You recall accurately your craziness (in jest) that I generally don't much like regulating the masses to corral the few. However, in the case of safety, once this question has been asked, "Is the camo-clad bowhunter endangered next to a firearms hunting area (private land)?" If not then why make the bowhunter wear orange on private land during gun seasons? If you make him do in the latter instance but not the former and an accident occurs, will good ole KDFWR be out $100,000 bucks in liability if someone is shot (the limit by state law).

Of course another solution is to create a buffer zone around the perimeter of a WMA and not permit the non camo-clad hunter (or other user) to get within say 100 yards of the line? I would imagine that the edge of a firearms-closed WMA is a pretty popular place to firearms hunt? Wouldn't this lead to a concentration of gunhunters along the edge?

Your perception is good bowcrazy. The heads up about this issue came from a more highly populated part of Kentucky. But of course you can't have different sets of blaze orange rules in the various regions of the state. Again, the liability issue.

It may be too bad that this question came up. Not making this change could definitely haunt the agency in the future if an accident (or act of carelessness) occurs.

[glenn]

Could the reg simply state that while archery hunting on a WMA and WALKING, or HUNTING FROM THE GROUND the person must be wearing orange. If in a ELEVATED STAND and STATIONARY, the hunter may remove his/her orange and hunt in peace???????

Good Hunting

Glenn

[redbone]

Just curious, what are the stats for the last 5 years relating to injuries suffered by non-blaze orange bowhunters due to firearms hunters? And out of these, how many occured on or near a WMA? And, lastly were there any fatalities involved?

I am not a spectator of nature, but rather a participant; a hunter.

[Multidigits]

Just curious, but I don't see how the Dept. could be held liable for an acident, and made to pay the $100,000.

Question 1 - I thought there was a law on the books releasing the landowner from liability unless he charged a fee for his hunting? Why wouldn't that apply here?

Question 2 - Wouldn't the Dept. be just a liabile if the bowhunter gets shoot with orange on?

Question 3 - Our Club has a $2,000,000 insurance policy that cost about $600 a year. Wouldn't it be cheaper for the Dept. to purchase insurance for the WMA's either as a whole or individually. The rates should be low, based on past injury claims being almost non-exisitant?

[thunderstorm]

This discussion is probably going where it shouldn't in a public setting. I believe the orange rule is more for public perception than safety.
If we really want to go the safety route, should we have a regulation about safety belts while in a tree stand? This is why we have most of our accidents...isn't it?

[DC]

I doubt that any bowhunters have been hurt by a firearms hunter in the past five years. The idea about walking to and from is interesting. Of course terrain differences could present a firearms hunter above a tree stand and looking down, through the hunter into the ground.

Multi,
The State of KY's liability is limited. Recreational land use statutes apply to non-government entities. Let me answer the before and now question this way. Let's say a policeman reports to the town council that an intersection is dangerous and needs a light. The council says no, even though it has similar situations where such safety devices are in place. Then an accident happens at the intersection in question. The litigant gets a hold of the officer's recommendation and the councils decision not to put in the light....

My feelings about this issue aren't even in the same league as some of the issues we've "discussed" on these spidery webs.

[Multidigits]

Looks like a comprimize here would be reasonable.

Require the orange while mobile, both to and from your stand and if hunting from the ground or dressing or dragging a deer. You must have it in your possesion and ready to display if needed while in a tree.
Other than a freak accident, I'd say that would cover most situations.

[DC]

You have to feel sorry for those freaks don't you? No one minds dismissing the accident-prone freak. Just kidding, now.

[Big58cal]

I don't see what the big deal is. I've had deer walk past me at 6 ft. while I've been on the ground during gun seasons with orange on.

I think the issue here is someone on private land, shooting at a deer that is between them and the WMA boundry. If a bowhunter is on/near the boundry, there is a possibility that they could be shot/shot at since the gun hunter didn't see them. If anyone is smart, they WILL wear orange going to and coming from their stands while bowhunting anyway, period. If there is the possibility of someone being around you (and especially if firearms are permitted), there is ALWAYS the possibility of getting shot. Granted, it is slim, but the possibility is still there.

I just think that this is getting blown out of proportion.

[INKYHUNTER]

My observations are the same as Big 58Cal. I shot a doe while on the ground and the other deer walked within 10 yards of me and I looked like a blaze orange billboard. It was as if I was not arround. I don't think they see it as a danger sign. In the case of turkey it is a different story.