A blaze of glory: What legal hunter orange looks like

I agree with Werner on this.... here's the answer I got from a CO when this discussion came up last year.

Hello,

I'm curious about blaze orange requirements when wearing a backpack. Obviously, a backpack will cover up a significant portion of the blaze orange vest. Would you consider this as having less than the required 400 sq inches of visible material? Are there other variables to consider? I suppose a 250 lb man would have more visible blaze than someone who is 150 lb. It came up in a discussion recently and would like to have some clarification.


Thanks,


Greg

Hello,

Thank you for your inquiry. We apologize for the delay in responding to your email.

As long as you are wearing the required 400 square inches there should be no problem. You should remember however that wearing a backpack that covers a large portion of your hunter orange makes you less visible to other hunters. You may choose to purchase an orange backpack or cover your existing backpack with a piece of orange fabric or an orange vest.

We hope you have found this information helpful. If you require further assistance contact the Natural Resources Information Centre toll free at 1-800-667-1940.

Regards,





NRIC web reader - AD
*******************************************
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Natural Resources Information Centre
300 Water Street
Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5
1-800-667-1940
TTY: 1-866-686-6072
Fax: 705-755-1677
[email protected]

I'm sick and tired of it: We spend so much time trying to holistically understand some of the dumbest hunting rules in the world. Long story short wear as much orange as you feel comfortable with: If you wear a hat with some camo on it your not compliant regardless if you were to wear an orange bunny suit. Head to toe blaze-camo is doesn't count, but it's for sure visible unlike a tiny vest and ball cap in the bush.
Next you know the MNR will tell us what knitting pattern we have to use for our gun socks - a discussion for another day!
Nothing is being done about hail marry shooting, ethical hunting etc.
Common sense is difficult to enforce that's why we deserve those BS rules, or is it to keep us in our place feeling guilty as soon as we see a CO that we might have misinterpreted something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

This is almost certainly not Goldsmith's opinion, but the official word from the top levels of the MNR. It would not be surprising if that differs from front-line COs.

Why not publish the opinions of front-line COs? Because they're allowed to talk to the public but they are not allowed to talk to Tom Goldsmith, unless they want to lose their jobs. Nobody in MNR is allowed to talk to any journalist without having their answers vetted by Queens Park.

If MNR tells Goldsmith they consider sandwich vests illegal, and he proceeds to tell his readers that sandwich vests are okay based on his understanding of the law, and a reader gets charged? Not good. He's obligated to report the facts he has, not his opinions.

Instead of crapping all over OOD and Tom Goldsmith for publishing the word from the MNR, folks might consider crapping on the MNR instead.

How do I know this is the word from MNR? Well, I don't -- not for sure. But I do know how these stories get done. I'd be very surprised if Goldsmith's info isn't from a reliable authority.

---

It's nit-picking on the interpretation of the law and it has got a couple of details its nit-picking on dead wrong. If the guy writing the article spent more time in the field, he'd have run into COs and would know that what he was being told by Critchlow was wrong. Why print an article with wrong information?

You're missing my point entirely. If that information is supplied by Critchlow, it is the official word and therefore is not "wrong," even if COs in the field are more lenient. Critchlow's job is to be the Official Word on the regs -- he is the guy who provides the media answers for all questions of what the regs mean.

If I am writing a magazine story, and I get info from some CO in the field, and I go to confirm it with Critchlow and he says otherwise, I have to treat the CO in the field as wrong. To do otherwise would be simply printing my own opinion, which is exactly what you say I shouldn't do.

If you don't like the message, don't shoot the messenger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

You're missing my point entirely. If that information is supplied by Critchlow, it is the official word and therefore is not "wrong," even if COs in the field are more lenient. Critchlow's job is to be the Official Word on the regs -- he is the guy who provides the media answers for all questions of what the regs mean.

If I am writing a magazine story, and I get info from some CO in the field, and I go to confirm it with Critchlow and he says otherwise, I have to treat the CO in the field as wrong. To do otherwise would be simply printing my own opinion, which is exactly what you say I shouldn't do.

If you don't like the message, don't shoot the messenger.

---

What we don't know for sure is whether or not all of what what printed in the article was discussed with Critchlow.

What I do know for sure is that I have encountered CO's in the field around here Peterborough, in the Haliburton area and in Northwestern Ontario on more than a few occasions and never once has a CO had an issue with a backpack covering blaze orange. In every case I was with other hunters and all of us wear a backpack and vest in the same manner. In one particular case, you could tell the CO was having a particularly bad day and would likely have laid a charge for something if he could, yet he did not have an issue with the backpack covering the orange.

I understand your point here Welsh, but this is really not an issue with CO's in the field. All this type of article does is make it harder for newer hunters or excessive worry-warts to get into the field. Put on a blaze hat and vest, put a little more on if it makes you feel safer and go hunting. Use common sense and don't worry about every stupid little minor detail that may or may not get you into trouble if the wrong CO just so happens to run into you on the wrong day.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is an issue with COs in the field, or that the interpretation is right. Some of the things in that article raised my eyebrows, and I would have said they were wrong.

I'm simply saying that it's wrong to assume Goldsmith made this up. We don't know that everything here was discussed with Critchlow, sure. But I've written for outdoor magazines all across North America over the years, and I can't think of one that would allow me to write my unsourced personal opinion on what regulations say. That's strictly amateur hour.

This section is one of those, that are open to a wide range of interpretation. The Act says you have to wear the legislated garments, but it does not say that all or a portion must not be covered up. It's no different than a hunter dressed in proper orange clothing, but sitting in a camo blind. Totally legal to do.

The way I look at it our laws are so gray ....that if you piss a CO off ...they will find a reason to charge you ! BE NICE ! They have a job to do too ! Good luck and play safe !
Glen

How many of us have gone 5km over the limit right by a cop? Doesn't make it legal.

Officer's discretion. If you're trying to comply you're likely ok. Give them attitude or have other legal issues and they might just add another charge.

There is the black and white of the law as it is written. Then there is the interpretation that everyone puts on it, including each and every law enforcement officer who is out there enforcing it. if a charge is laid, and it is taken to court, the J.P. will decide who is right and who is wrong depending on his/her interpretation of the black and white of the written law. At the end of the day, the supreme court will ultimately decide who was right and wrong based on the black and white of the law, assuming it gets that far.

David Critchlow, a senior advisor is still giving his opinion based on his experience, knowledge and interpretation of the law. He is not a judge. He's a pretty smart guy though :)