A blaze of glory: What legal hunter orange looks like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

So why would one not want to wear as much orange a possible while upland hunting? Sure its not the law but isn't just wiser to be as visible as possible. Do we really need another law stating that? Had occasion at Hullet where passed guys in full camo not even an orange cap hunting pheasant. Can honestly say it was hard to see them through the fence rows at distance. Just makes sense to me.

---

Why leave your house? Why not wear orange while archery hunting? Why not wear orange while walking down the street?

I do not wear my full blaze orange hunting gear because it is freaking hot in Oct when I am hunting upland birds, I take precautions but there are never any certainties. If you are archery hunting in full camo for deer during a closed season you may still get shot. Heck, you can get shot by your neighbour when sitting in your living room.

The issue was that the magazine put out an article stating the law and it is not correct based on the wording of the law. The orange requirement shown in the magazine article and the write up about it does not match the wording of the law and that is where the problem is.

Wear as much hunter orange as you want, it is up to you how much you want to wear, just make sure it is at least 400 sq in and visible from all sides and wear a blaze orange hat, that is all that is required.

I wear my orange 95% of the time I have a vest so I can always put it on. If your rabbit hunting you won't see the person next to you if he is more then 20 meters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

The issue was that the magazine put out an article stating the law and it is not correct based on the wording of the law. The orange requirement shown in the magazine article and the write up about it does not match the wording of the law and that is where the problem is.

---

"But, Your Honour!!!... I was doing what some guy who calls himself "Fox" on the Ontario Out of Doors internet forum said to do!!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

The issue was that the magazine put out an article stating the law and it is not correct based on the wording of the law.

---

The most common mistake people make with the law is to believe they can read an act and know the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

The most common mistake people make with the law is to believe they can read an act and know the law.

---

something wrong with that concept: if the average person cannot read and understand a law, they cannot follow it; hence, having such law serves no purpose to the general public
I'm not debating that this is the way lawyers like to see it and justify their ridiculous fees.

I didn't say you can't read and understand a law; I said it is a mistake to read an act and believe you understand the law. The law and the act are not the same thing.

That's because the act contains only the words, but the law is made of the words and their interpretation. Here, you've got an article telling you what the interpretation is. And people are saying it's wrong, based in their reading of the words. The mistake is substituting your own interpretation for the interpretations that count, which are the ones laying and deciding the charge.

Leo's with any amount of experience, also take into consideration past court decisions and interpretations. With experience, they learn how to read and interpret various sections of the Acts, taking into consideration other sections, regulations or definitions in that Act. One section may define an offence, whereas another section may identify certain conditions that render that particular section not applicable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Here, you've got an article telling you what the interpretation is. And people are saying it's wrong, based in their reading of the words. The mistake is substituting your own interpretation for the interpretations that count, which are the ones laying and deciding the charge.

---

clear as mud....haha

Well. The article did clear things up......in a round about way. So I'm glad he wrote it.

Don.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

"But, Your Honour!!!... I was doing what some guy who calls himself "Fox" on the Ontario Out of Doors internet forum said to do!!!"

---

400 sq inches above the waist, written out right there, all you have to do is have that and have it visible from all sides. You must also have a hat. It even states that a hunters vest generally meets this requirement. This is what is written in the regulations, I am not writing anything about what the law is, I am stating the regulations.

Go out and measure your vest and make sure you can see orange from all sides, you do not need to be able to see 400 square inches, you just need to see orange from all sides.

If you meet the requirements of the law then any charges are total BS and would be put in place without just cause.

This reminds me of the BS of someone saying they were charged for not having proper hunter orange while on the ATV. You cannot hunt on an ATV so how can you be charged for not having proper hunter orange (helmet) while on the ATV.

Maybe the sales of orange backpacks are down and the OFAH has one coming up for sale in the next catalog.