Originally Posted by
welsh
Why yes, as a matter of fact, I do.
After making blaze orange mandatory, Utah saw a 47% decrease in overall hunting accidents and a 38% decline in fatalities; Washington, a 37% decline in accidents and a 47% decline in fatalities; North Dakota, an 82% decline in fatalities but only a 4% decline in overall incidents. The aggregate result in states that require blaze orange and have reported their results is a 22% decline in overall incidents, and a 40% decline in fatalities.
After introducing mandatory blaze orange in York Co., Maine, the county's contribution to hunting accidents where the victim was mistaken for game or not seen by the shooter declined from 41% to 23%.
In the four years prior to blaze orange being made mandatory in North Carolina, there were 12 fatal hunting accidents in which the victim was unseen or mistaken for game; in the four years following, there were only two.
In New York, between 1989 and 1995, 94% of killed and injured hunters who were unseen or mistaken for game were not wearing blaze orange.
I think that'll do for now.
It isn't across all of North America because making laws is a political activity. Some people don't want blaze orange to be law, and so it is a political fight.
As to why people are still shot in Ontario, let's keep those goal posts right where they are, shall we? I didn't say blaze orange would magically prevent all accidents. I said it reduced them. And the fact is, it does.