|
Post by Woody Williams on Aug 13, 2012 9:50:12 GMT -5
I don't see the correlation.. I say any bike rider can go without a helmet if they will sign a waiver that when their head goes bouncing across the highway and they end up a vegetable that we do not have to support him and his family. he enjoyed his freedom" of not wearing a helmet, we should enjoy our "freedom" of not having to pay for his "freedom". Same with seats belts. You think it is just for the occupant and he/she should decide. Wrong. A lot of deaths and injuries are the result of multiple vehicle collisions. If vehicle "A" is hit by vehicle "B" and vehicle "A"s driver/passengers are not wearing a seats belt he/she will be bounced from behind the steering wheel to the passenger side OR the passenger will be bounced into the driver's side. Either way the operator of vehicle "A" will no longer be able to have any control of that vehicle. An out of control vehicle can impact various other vehicles and maybe even pedestrians. Innocents die because of that person thinking they should have the freedom to choose to not wear a seats belt. Im not sure I have ever disagreed with a post more than this one. WOW! That really says something...
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 13, 2012 10:01:17 GMT -5
I too think the new orange on blind law is silly and is a law that we dont need. How many hunters have been shot while hunting out of a pop up blind in the last 10 years or so pop up's have been around? None to my knowledge.
I could understand this law for pop-ups used on public land but to force this law on private land owners is ridicules.
The number one cause of deer hunter accidents is falling out of a treestand so why didnt the DNR come up with a safety belt law for climbing and occupying a teestand while hunting?
This new law is one of those feel good but really does nothing laws that our government is so famous for now days. Lets create a cure for a problem that doesn't exist. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by drs on Aug 13, 2012 10:36:32 GMT -5
[h.h. posted]: I too think the new orange on blind law is silly and is a law that we dont need. How many hunters have been shot while hunting out of a pop up blind in the last 10 years or so pop up's have been around? None to my knowledge. None to my knowledge either. It is a stupid law!! I could understand this law for pop-ups used on public land but to force this law on private land owners is ridicules. Might be correct for public lands, but not lands owned by an individual.The number one cause of deer hunter accidents is falling out of a treestand so why didnt the DNR come up with a safety belt law for climbing and occupying a teestand while hunting? More Hunters fall out of a elevated stands than are accidently shot while occuping a ground blind. Also, accidents happen while carrying a loaded gun up a tree stand.This new law is one of those feel good but really does nothing laws that our government is so famous for now days. Lets create a cure for a problem that doesn't exist. h.h. CORRECT!! ~Another "Feel Good" law that is not needed.
|
|
|
Post by MuzzleLoader on Aug 13, 2012 11:21:19 GMT -5
There will be alot more blinds missing this year because of someone stealing them. You are putting a "here I am, come take me" sign on it.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Aug 13, 2012 11:53:04 GMT -5
Im not sure I have ever disagreed with a post more than this one. WOW! That really says something... lol ... I can usually put myself on whichever side of the fence I choose and picture what someone else is thinking when they say/post something. Many things I disagree with but I can at least see the point ...... Not in this case. I just never have bought into the seat belt or helmet thing ....... kind of rings of the "take everyones guns away to make everyone safer" mindset to me.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Aug 13, 2012 12:35:41 GMT -5
Yeah, the philosophy of it all goes into some pretty dark territory when it's extended towards the logical conclusions.
If we restrict the freedom of the biker to protect the rest of us from having to support his vegetative state, shouldn't we also restrict the dietary habits of the cheesburger fan so we don't have to pay for his coronary bypasses?
And shouldn't we restrict the young couples' decisions on family size, because we'll all be responsible for the education and health care of their children, in addition to the cost of their births?
That line of thought seems to lead to an unending loss of freedoms for us all.
Yet up to a point it seems to make perfectly good sense.
It gets interesting when philosophy meets reality.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Aug 13, 2012 12:41:42 GMT -5
It would never end. If you really want to make our roads safer limit the maximum driving age ..... cant do that though because those folks are a powerful voting lobby.
So we get philosophy, reality .... and politics.
Leave me alone and Ill leave you alone.
|
|
|
Post by tomthreetoes on Aug 13, 2012 16:02:22 GMT -5
Yeah, the philosophy of it all goes into some pretty dark territory when it's extended towards the logical conclusions. If we restrict the freedom of the biker to protect the rest of us from having to support his vegetative state, shouldn't we also restrict the dietary habits of the cheesburger fan so we don't have to pay for his coronary bypasses? And shouldn't we restrict the young couples' decisions on family size, because we'll all be responsible for the education and health care of their children, in addition to the cost of their births? That line of thought seems to lead to an unending loss of freedoms for us all. Yet up to a point it seems to make perfectly good sense. It gets interesting when philosophy meets reality. + 1
|
|
|
Post by daneowner on Aug 13, 2012 16:30:41 GMT -5
Public land, maybe, private land, NO!
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Aug 13, 2012 16:38:07 GMT -5
There will be alot more blinds missing this year because of someone stealing them. You are putting a "here I am, come take me" sign on it. Orange while occupied. Someone is going to try and steal it while your in it? Or did you mean they will stake it out and wait until you leave?
|
|
|
Post by MuzzleLoader on Aug 13, 2012 16:54:55 GMT -5
With the blaze orange on the blinds, everyone can see you in all directions. Unfortunately, others will know exactly where to find your blinds once you vacate them. I have come to learn if you want to keep your stuff, pack it back out with you. It would be interesting if someone tried to steal your blind while in it. lol.
|
|
|
Post by mrfixit on Aug 13, 2012 17:15:26 GMT -5
I don't see the correlation.. I say any bike rider can go without a helmet if they will sign a waiver that when their head goes bouncing across the highway and they end up a vegetable that we do not have to support him and his family. he enjoyed his freedom" of not wearing a helmet, we should enjoy our "freedom" of not having to pay for his "freedom". Same with seats belts. You think it is just for the occupant and he/she should decide. Wrong. A lot of deaths and injuries are the result of multiple vehicle collisions. If vehicle "A" is hit by vehicle "B" and vehicle "A"s driver/passengers are not wearing a seats belt he/she will be bounced from behind the steering wheel to the passenger side OR the passenger will be bounced into the driver's side. Either way the operator of vehicle "A" will no longer be able to have any control of that vehicle. An out of control vehicle can impact various other vehicles and maybe even pedestrians. Innocents die because of that person thinking they should have the freedom to choose to not wear a seats belt. WoW! Never thought something like this would ever be typed by Woody's hand! The amount of money you contribute to take care of someone not wearing a helmet or seat belt who's been in an accident is so minuscule it doesn't even count. We are talking about thousandths of 1 cent per taxpayer. Much, much more of your money is wasted by the Defense Department on projects that never make the cut or become something useful. Or wasted paying for food stamps and welfare for someone fully capable of working. The list could literally go on and on and on. No one ever promised you that freedom was free. It's either gonna cost you money or it's going to cost you blood or perhaps both, but it certainly isn't free. You can have my few thousandth's of 1 cent to take care of folks who made what you believe to be a bad decision. It's but another small price to pay for the freedom of choice. We don't need another nanny law that does little but make a few folks feel good.
|
|
|
Post by mrbuckfly1 on Aug 13, 2012 18:04:28 GMT -5
Got to agree with daneowner on this one.Public property perhaps but private property no.There are usually less hunters on private property and everyone should know where the others are at.Now,with that being said,it is the law and me and other hunters on my property will abide by it.
|
|
|
Post by lugnutz on Aug 13, 2012 19:36:39 GMT -5
I don't see anything wrong with the law. I can't see how it would negatively hurt anything. If you are worried about someone seeing and stealing your blind (most commercial ones takes a whopping 30 sec. to put up) on private property, you have bigger issues than a thief.
Just my, .02
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2012 6:27:44 GMT -5
I'll help Woody out on this one, he's correct expect it's not about individual liberties or rights.
And to start with, yes there have been ground blind incidents, and at least two fatalities in other states, some of which have similar requirements for ground blind markings.
This is about the image of hunting as a whole. If the non-hunting public (not anti-hunters) believe that hunters are NOT a safety minded group, then it hurts us all. Hunters ould/could be shut out to private lands for hunting. In most states, private lands provide more than 90% of the ground we use. So that part is very important to preserve.
To argue over a simple regulation about a few sq. inches of cloth is crazy, when it will have no net effect on the quality of the hunt or your success rate.
One arguement that it will not be needed on private land, while at the same time someone says it will increase ground blind theft. By who.....private land is private right. Well, we know that there are animals out there known as trespassers who might steal your blind OR shoot you while your in it by mistake.
IMO, this could be fixed easily by modifying the existing H.O. requirement to having an X number of inches to be visable in all directions. Period. Then if you get in a blind, you can take off what you have on and post it outside. Not sure if the enforment division would approve, but that should be where the objections should come from, not the hunters.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Aug 14, 2012 7:48:35 GMT -5
2 known accidents out of how many hours afield? I am assuming that the casualty rate is less than the danger of walking down a flight of stairs? Less than using step ladder to change a light bulb? Less than walking down a sidewalk? Less than riding a bicycle?
You say it is crazy to argue over a simple regulation .... I say it is crazy to implement a regulation for a problem that does not exist.
btw - a couple of us werent talking to woody about ground blinds .... we somehow got side tracked into the whole seat belt helmet thing.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Aug 14, 2012 9:51:07 GMT -5
I think Im correct and stand by my statement.
No one in Indiana has been killed or shot by another hunter while in a ground blind to my knowledge and we not talking about other states. A law that cured a problem that doesnt exist.
It really makes no difference what anyone thinks because the law passed. You either follow the law or risk being ticketed. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Aug 14, 2012 12:00:38 GMT -5
Won't make difference? I'm not quite that fatalistic about it.
It won't make an immediate and obvious difference that can be attributed directly to any one person's opinion of the regulation or even to the combined opinions of a majority of us here on this site. However, our opinions have been and are likely in the future to again become known to some in position to influence the regulations. It may not affect this regulation, but it has affected some.
I think it's very much worth discussing here on an open forum and expressing our opinion of any and all regulatory changes. I'm sure it's much more likely to have an effect on them before they are enacted, rather than trying to change them once enacted, but even a few long-standing ones have eventually yielded to popular opinions that they should be changed or dropped.
I'm guilty as anyone else who didn't respond to the questionnaires concerning proposed changes this time.
Wish we'd have had some advance input opportunity on the ridiculous senior lifetime fishing license that is issued on a sheet of computer paper rather than a usable plastic card that could be carried on your wallet, for instance.
Anyway, it feels better to kick it around and let 'em know what we think than to just shut up and accept it when we think it's wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2012 13:59:51 GMT -5
If you really wanted to make a law that had a real impact on hunter safety it would be to make safety harnesses mandatory like seat belts. That would attack a real problem.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Aug 14, 2012 14:51:59 GMT -5
And it would be enforced how?
Thousands of CO's wandering through our hunting spots policing our restraint use?
It would be just another feel-good regulation that would be obeyed only by the willing. A suggestion would be just as effective.
Plenty of unenforcable laws on the books already. akes more than good intentions to make good law.
|
|