# hunters orange



## thumbgoodfisherman (Dec 6, 2005)

The other night at archery we kinda got into a heated discussion about the wearing of hunters orange deer hunting with a gun. The one guy  says the old red suits are legal without any orange. I thought you atleast need a orange hat or vest. He said that him and his buddy were hunting and was checked by a DNR officer and nothing was said about his buddys red suit with no orange. I need some clarification on this matter. A case of cold ones is riding on this issue. Thanks.


----------



## Salami (Dec 23, 2004)

I think you need 100sq inches of hunter orange,like a cap


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Your buddy is incorrect. A red suit with no orange will get you a ticket. Just because a guy didn't get a ticket because an officer was trying to be a nice guy dosn't make it legal. 100 inches has nothing to do with it.

State Law;

*324.40116 Hunter orange; exceptions; noncompliance not as evidence of contributory negligence.* 
Sec. 40116. (1) A person shall not take game during the established daylight shooting hours from August 15 through April 30 unless the person wears a cap, hat, vest, jacket, or rain gear of the highly visible color commonly referred to as hunter orange. Hunter orange includes blaze orange, flame orange, or fluorescent blaze orange, and camouflage that is not less than 50% hunter orange. The garments that are hunter orange shall be the hunter's outermost garment and shall be visible from all sides of the hunter.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person engaged in the taking of deer with a bow during archery deer season, a person taking bear with a bow, or a person engaged in the taking of turkey or migratory birds other than woodcock.

(3) The failure of a person to comply with this section is not evidence of contributory negligence in a civil action for injury to the person or for the person's wrongful death.


----------



## thumbgoodfisherman (Dec 6, 2005)

Thanks, them beers are goin taste good!!!:evil:


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Any word on any changes likely to occur with regard to orange and predator hunting during daylight hours?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I don't see it happening and when their was a discussion 6 months ago or so which I was part of; the recommendation was no. There has been hunting accidents, including shooter shooting shooter (friends) when in violation of not wearing orange. It was thought at the time of the accident and still believed that orange could have prevented it. Safety plays a big part of the overall picture.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Thanks (even though that wasn't what I wanted to hear).


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

thumbgoodfisherman said:


> The other night at archery we kinda got into a heated discussion about the wearing of hunters orange deer hunting with a gun. The one guy  says the old red suits are legal without any orange. I thought you atleast need a orange hat or vest. He said that him and his buddy were hunting and was checked by a DNR officer and nothing was said about his buddys red suit with no orange. I need some clarification on this matter. A case of cold ones is riding on this issue. Thanks.


Orange required unless this is a trick question. A bow hunter during the archery deer season could wear all red.

*The post indicated "hunting with a gun" You are confusing the issue by stating a situation that does not need addressed! If you have a question start another thread.

boehr*


----------



## eino (Jun 19, 2003)

I don't mean for this to be a dumb ?, but I was wondering about the "visible from all sides" law. When I'm in a tree stand, I don't like to wear alot of orange. If I am wearing orange gloves and have my hands on my lap then they would be pretty much hidden and not visible from all sides. If someone were approaching from behind, they would not see my gloves. Or if I'm wearing a hat the tree trunk would block it from behind. Both objects are solid orange wich would make them visible from all sides, but in the wrong circumstances they would not be seen people from all sides. Could you let me know the law on this please?

Thanks,
Ed


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

eino said:


> I don't mean for this to be a dumb ?, but I was wondering about the "visible from all sides" law. When I'm in a tree stand, I don't like to wear alot of orange. If I am wearing orange gloves and have my hands on my lap then they would be pretty much hidden and not visible from all sides. If someone were approaching from behind, they would not see my gloves. Or if I'm wearing a hat the tree trunk would block it from behind. Both objects are solid orange wich would make them visible from all sides, but in the wrong circumstances they would not be seen people from all sides. Could you let me know the law on this please?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ed


See message #3 from CO Boehringer (gloves don't qualify as part of your required orange for firearms hunting)
"324.40116 Hunter orange; exceptions; noncompliance not as evidence of contributory negligence. 
Sec. 40116. (1) A person shall not take game during the established daylight shooting hours from August 15 through April 30 unless the person wears a cap, hat, vest, jacket, or rain gear of the highly visible color commonly referred to as hunter orange. Hunter orange includes blaze orange, flame orange, or fluorescent blaze orange, and camouflage that is not less than 50% hunter orange. The garments that are hunter orange shall be the hunter's outermost garment and shall be visible from all sides of the hunter."


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

answerguy8 said:


> Sec. 40116. (1) A person shall not take game during the established daylight shooting hours from August 15 through April 30 unless the person wears a cap, hat, vest, jacket, or rain gear of the highly visible color commonly referred to as hunter orange. .


I am not trying to cause trouble here but, does anybody know why the about cite says "a person shall not take game..." rather than something that just mentions being afield hunting? I can see no problem if I am not armed but, what if I haven't taken any game? Picky I know but, I just noticed the language and thought that unless addressed somewhere else, it might be a major loophole for somebody that hadn't "taken game". Boehr, please tell me that I am missing something here...


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

lwingwatcher said:


> I am not trying to cause trouble here but, does anybody know why the about cite says "a person shall not take game..." rather than something that just mentions being afield hunting? I can see no problem if I am not armed but, what if I haven't taken any game? Picky I know but, I just noticed the language and thought that unless addressed somewhere else, it might be a major loophole for somebody that hadn't "taken game". Boehr, please tell me that I am missing something here...


I believe it's commonly accepted that it means 'attempting to take game' or in other words hunting. Much like t-shirts are not mentioned as a qualifying garment but a blaze orange t-shirt while pat hunting in September would not get you a ticket.

(BTW- you need to get over to Ebay and bid on more of my stuff):idea:


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

The definition in the law for take is "taking or attempting to take". If you are hunting then you are attempting to take or there would be no need to have a firearm with you under the authority of a hunting license.


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

Lemme get more precise I guess. Is running dogs (with no weapon) on game during season "attempting to take"?


----------



## tdejong302 (Nov 28, 2004)

The more I read this forum the more I learn. I too thought the checkered red/black suits hunting apparel was legal. The more I learn the more I learn how little I know. Thanks


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

lwingwatcher said:


> Lemme get more precise I guess. Is running dogs (with no weapon) on game during season "attempting to take"?


It all depends on what you are talking about when you state "running dogs" If you are running dogs on coyotes during the day and you don't have a firearm but your partner does then you are still participating in the hunt and you must wear orange. If you are out just letting your dogs run coyotes or rabbits or whatever and nobody has a firearm that with be shooting any of the game that is being ran by the dogs then you would not be required to wear orange.

Are you looking for a loophole to not wear orange for predator hunting? There isn't one.:evilsmile


----------



## Salami (Dec 23, 2004)

huhmmmm, where the heck did i get this 100 sq inches thing


----------



## uncletj (Aug 30, 2005)

Salami maybe from hunting another state, Tennessee has a 500 sq. inch minimum.


----------



## Outdoorzman (Jun 5, 2001)

Don't want a reply, Just an observation.



> There has been hunting accidents, including shooter shooting shooter (friends) when in violation of not wearing orange. It was thought at the time of the accident and still believed that orange could have prevented it.


Something that has always puzzled me about the requirements of this law when afield is the fact that there are others in the woods either hiking or biking that are not required to wear orange.
I hate to admit it but years ago in Pinckney I drew a bead on what I thought was a grouse flushing out in the middle of nowhere only to realize immediately it was a mountain bike rider on a trail I hadn't crossed yet. From what I can guess is the tire rubbed on something and caused a sound similar to the flush.
Scary stuff.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I understand and if I was hiking etc., during hunting season I would wear orange same as many people wear some type of reflective gear etc when engaged in that activity alongside a road. The difference is, hunting laws only apply to those hunting, very much the same as the 450 safety zone, it applys to those hunting but does not apply to someone target practicing because target practice is not hunting. How do we even attempt to say to someone that lives in the country surrounded by various hunting lands that they must wear orange to play with the dog in their backyard, or other like activities? Bottom line is their have been hunting accidents with hunters shooting hunters but I do know of any where hunters have accidently shot a jogger or a biker. I would suspect there might have been a few over the last three or four decades but hunting accidents are very low percentage and proven to be very safe (proven even safer after the orange requirement) so in the end it has done nothing but helped hunters and the sport of hunting.


----------



## Outdoorzman (Jun 5, 2001)

Agreed.



> during hunting season I would wear orange same as many people wear some type of reflective gear etc


Ditto.......


----------



## lwingwatcher (Mar 25, 2001)

boehr said:


> Are you looking for a loophole to not wear orange for predator hunting? There isn't one.:evilsmile


No, not really....I just don't want any surprises. I will make sure that whoever is handling the dogs is wearing orange. It is just that we have discussed it before when somebody leashed dogs to go into a section and they weren't carrying a gun--did they have to have orange on? Now, I know the answer to that. 

I don't wear an orange hat until I actually get out of the truck and grab a rifle. Much of my time is spent running the roads, keeping track of things.

On another note...that orange requirement for bikers/hikers or whatever would be a great thing. Especially now that the tracks next to me is going from rails to trails...there are all sorts of folks wandering around in deer season and, it certainly would be nice if they were a little more visible cuz it would be a real shame if a hunter accidently picked off some hiker/biker on a nature tour...I know...it hasn't happened but....there are more and more rails to trails in the works....


----------

