January 7, 2016

"Would you really be willing to gut (a deer) and … drag it out of the woods just because you can wear pink?"

Said Shotgun Sarah, arguing against a bill in the Wisconsin legislature that would allow hunters to wear fluorescent pink (in addition to what is currently the only color that meets the requirement: blaze orange). The bill was originally proposed as a way to get more women into hunting. But now some of the support is based on the superior visibility of fluorescent pink:
University of Wisconsin-Madison textile expert Majid Sarmadi, who studied fluorescent pink's visibility for the bill's authors, backed up that assertion. He told the committee pink stands out more than orange in a fall landscape. "If pink is more visible, shouldn't it be a good choice? Shouldn't it be allowed to save lives?" Sarmadi said.

29 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Men hunters war against women hunters. They should focus more on the fact that Male Deer are sexist. Then the Pink Ladies will all get their guns and go out into the freezing woods at dawn to shoot the deer with horns...or maybe not.

EDH said...

"Get inside the animal!"

MadisonMan said...

What a waste of time.

Expat(ish) said...

I have a blaze pink woolen cap because it was what was at WalMart when I left my other one at home when it was fricking cold.

As you might imagine, I got a lot of abuse for that when we came out of the woods for breakfast. But one guy did say he'd seen me coming a lot farther away than the other guys I was walking with.

I might buy more of it. Maybe it'll even attract the bucks a bit....

-XC

Todd said...

Sorry but that woman is "stupid". She makes a number of false assertions and some of her logic is bass-ackwards.

She says: a bill that would allow hunters to wear fluorescent pink is sexist and won't make anyone safer in the woods.

No one [at this point] would be required to wear pink, it would just be an additional option. How is adding an option "sexist"?

She also says: "Would you really be willing to gut (a deer) and … drag it out of the woods just because you can wear pink?"

No, the issue is, would you [man or woman] be willing to wear pink while in the woods IF you thought it would make you safer? Does she really think [as did the bill's author (sounds like another stupid individual)] that women will now flock to hunting because they get to wear pink?

There does appear to be some science the florescent pink is more visible than blaze orange. If that is true, and it not being a typical natural color at that time of year, why not allow it?

Sen. Mark Miller told the committee that when he first heard of the proposal he thought it was condescending toward women. But he signed on as a co-sponsor after he became convinced fluorescent pink is safer than blaze orange in the woods.

University of Wisconsin-Madison textile expert Majid Sarmadi, who studied fluorescent pink's visibility for the bill's authors, backed up that assertion. He told the committee pink stands out more than orange in a fall landscape.


"If pink is more visible, shouldn't it be a good choice? Shouldn't it be allowed to save lives?" Sarmadi said.

Ingle disputed that, saying she can see blaze orange from two to three miles away. Tackes told the committee that no one is going to rush out and buy pink hunting gear because it's too expensive.


OK, so (not that they are inflatable) a textile expert was consulted and agreed that florescent pink could be better than blase orange but this woman disputes that assertion because "she can see blaze orange from two to three miles away". Well then, there you have it! Who cares what the science might say. She can see blaze orange a long way off. Case closed.

Browndog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

The real questions is can the deer see pink? They can't distinguish blaze orange ( can see blue however), so don't wear jeans.

tim in vermont said...

Wow. But on the other hand, they would only be saving hunter's lives, so there's that. Next she will be introducing legislation that deer hunters may only wear mousy brown with a white strip up their back and a hat with antlers.

hombre said...

How many lives will be saved by pink?

holdfast said...

Is it at least as safe as the blaze orange? If so, then what's t he harm? I thought we all liked diversity.

Seriously though, while blaze orange does not appear in nature, more muted oranges do appear in fall. Bright pink does not appear in nature at all during hunting season, and so I'd think that would be a good thing.

Original Mike said...

"what a waste of time."

I believe legislators do this kind of crap to avoid having to do meaningful work that may be controversial.

I don't know if pink is "more" visible than orange, but yeah, you can already see orange a bazillion miles away.

Mark said...

They hold more in depth hearings and take much longer in deliberations with this bill than the ones about open government.

MadisonMan said...

What a waste of time.

To clarify: Why is the State Controlling what color people wear?

Under Wisconsin law, at least half of each article of clothing that gun deer hunters wear above the waist must be blaze orange.

Why? (I realize it's so people are visible, but why is the Legislature, arguably the assemblage of Wisconsinites with the least common sense in the state, legislating common sense?)

Michael said...

I wore a fluorescent pink hat for years when I grouse hunted in NY. Very visible. This was decades ago

Alexander said...

Given that we already have an entire month dedicated into turning men's domains pink, and given that already we have a debate framed as:

Pros - pink will make more women hunt. Because reasons, and because any activity that could in theory have more women but doesn't is BAD (never works other way though).

Cons - this might be condescending towards women.

I'd say we're well within our rights to question whether textile fellow is quoting facts and objective evidence, or quoting an agenda.


"(Hunting's) traditionally been seen as a man's sport," Rep. Nick Milroy, one of the bill's chief Assembly sponsors, told the committee Wednesday. "We hope this is something that will reverse that trend and add to the ranks of hunters in Wisconsin."

Fuck you, Nick Milroy. Both because you find it noxious that something out there is enjoyed overwhelmingly by men, and the idea that making it pink will magically make more women want to do it.

Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, one of the bill's prominent Assembly co-sponsors, said he never thought of the measure as a way of attracting women into the sport.

"We could have done a better job when this first came out (saying) that (wearing pink) was an option and we didn't have any delusions of grandeur that this would bring women into this," he said, adding that he's hunted with Ingle.


Ah, taking after Obama. The ol' "Our only fault is we should have said it in a way that would have made you swallow it quicker."

And also, fuck you lying liars talking about 'choice'. We've been through this whole bally-hoo too many times now in every single area of our lives where progress insists on trampling; in this case it will look like this: pink comes in, another 'study' show it is more effective, crying woman in a tv spot asks why 'unsafe' choice is still available if the 'better' choice could have 'saved a life', orange quietly banned, mandatory pink.

TCom said...

-coughcough-

8% of men are red-green colorblind.


Pink is red + white. Woods are generally green and brown.

Next.

mikee said...

Fluorescent light green or fluorescent bright yellow or fluorescent bright white might be more visible in a fall landscape than pink or orange, depending on the conditions and foliage. Why not legislate that hunters must wear any of all the fluorescent colors that exist over half the area of their upper torso, to be visible to other hunters for safety reasons, and leave it at that?

I, for one, don't shoot anything unless I know what I am shooting, and I, for one, would avoid shooting at an object showing any non-natural color, not just orange.

I have seen cows spray-painted with orange for their safety, but never have I seen a buck deer wear anything other than blood red velvet, and that in spring only.

Original Mike said...

"Fluorescent light green or fluorescent bright yellow or fluorescent bright white might be more visible in a fall landscape than pink or orange, depending on the conditions and foliage."

One word: Snow.

Rusty said...

Blogger mikee said...
Fluorescent light green or fluorescent bright yellow or fluorescent bright white might be more visible in a fall landscape than pink or orange, depending on the conditions and foliage. Why not legislate that hunters must wear any of all the fluorescent colors that exist over half the area of their upper torso, to be visible to other hunters for safety reasons, and leave it at that?

Believe me. Blaze orange is visible even in low light and fog. And right now other hunters have been conditioned to see blaze orange. Even if the riot of fall colors it's easy to distinguish blaze orange.
If you want more women hunting start taking your wives and daughters. However don't expect a lot. Out of all the women in my extended family only one of my nieces is an avid outdoor woman.

Fernandinande said...

"If pink is more visible, shouldn't it be a good choice? Shouldn't it be allowed to save lives?" Sarmadi said.

Of course. Only goofy feminists would claim otherwise.

DavidD said...

Are the men to be forced to wear pink now because it's supposed to be more visible than orange?

Livermoron said...

There is strong historical evidence that Celtic warriors wore pink as battle garb.

Aside from the issue with snow, fluorescent white gives off a spectrum that is visible to deer. Not useful for a hunter.

Those of you upset at the idea of wearing pink while killing animals...what are you afraid of?

What a stupid issue.

Alexander said...

"Is it at least as safe as the blaze orange? If so, then what's t he harm? I thought we all liked diversity."

I don't.

Quaestor said...

Livermoron wrote: There is strong historical evidence that Celtic warriors wore pink as battle garb.

All naked Irishmen look pink to me, especially after attempting to get a tan.

John said...

I have seen lots of boaters wear flourescent pink caps. Fall over in the ocean and it is damned hard to see you even in the best of circumstances. In the Navy, in Gitmo, we threw a dummy in a bright orange life jacket over the side in a man overboard drill.

Took us more than an hour to find it. That is on a calm sunny day with 50-100 people looking.

If I am going into the wood during hunting season, I want all the brightness I can muster.

I don't want to be one of the two game wardens, seven hunters and a cow.

John Henry

Grundoon said...

I think it is odd that a textile expert is quoted on the eye's response to color. I think that knowledge is found in a different field.

I also think it is odd that there was no mention of color blindness. I don't see all the variety of colors that other people see. I have no idea how many people can't distinguish fluorescent pink but it should be considered.

I am a member of minority groups that get me no victim cred--lefthanded, O negative blood, and color blind. Even my status as a descendent of immigrants gets me nothing since the last one arrived about 140 years ago. The only thing I can do is get a job and pay taxes. Life is so unfair.

Rusty said...

DavidD said...
Are the men to be forced to wear pink now because it's supposed to be more visible than orange?


I'd like to see the study. Hunting hours here are from a half hour before sunrise and a half hour after sunset. And then you have to walk through the pitch black woods. As the day goes towards full dark blaze orange tends to look more bright white or light yellow. Still easy to spot in the half light. I'd like to see what blaze pink looks like under those conditions. Even in the fall woods in bright daylight nothing else looks like blaze orange.

Bruce Hayden said...

Men hunters war against women hunters. They should focus more on the fact that Male Deer are sexist. Then the Pink Ladies will all get their guns and go out into the freezing woods at dawn to shoot the deer with horns...or maybe not.

What was interesting to me in the part of NW MT where we spend half the year, is that hunting there is an equal opportunity activity. Most there seem to augment their yearly diets with deer and elk meat. It is apparently fairly easy to get a tag for one of each. Definitely, the deer, which are like vermin. And, with the elk, you can often get permits if they come across your property and cause damage. IN any case, having a wife often means having twice as many tags for the family. So, the wife of a friend of mine typically takes her elk from her kitchen. He, of course, has to go out and field dress it, etc. So, not too long before we headed south this year, he told me that she was on him to remove the screen from her kitchen window. (While we have more deer problems closer to town, they have much worse elk problems, as they inevitably go for the winter feed for the horses, tearing down fence, barn doors, etc.)

Bruce Hayden said...

Not quite the same thing here, but something that has popped up in rural America in the last year or so is Muddy Girl Camo Muddy Girl Camo (also see Muddy Girl Country). I first noticed it maybe a year ago at one of the local stores that, among other things, sells guns. You have been able to buy guns for awhile that were in some camouflage coloring. But, all of a sudden, this last year, some of the camo guns were now sporting pink replacing the more standard green and brown in the camo coloring. Manager of the store told me that the thing that her daughter wanted most for her 18th birthday was a Muddy Girl Camo hunting rifle. And, about that time Sara Tipton at The Truth About Guns started showing off Muddy Girl Camo firearms and clothing. That manager just explained it as a country thing, but mid summer last year, probably a quarter of the long guns for sale there (as well as some of the handguns) wore Muddy Girl Camo.