I understand your point but I do disagree in some situations. Orange can really help identify hunters in the background. I have had a few occasions where I didn't shoot, or asked others not to shoot, because someone wearing orange was in the distance behind the animal. At long distance, it's pretty hard to see a hunter sitting still, especially if you are focused on an animal between you.
it can help. sure. I would think we can all agree on that.
am just saying it can also hurt. I will double down on my above statement .
It is my OPINION it hurts more then it helps.
I see no orange so it must be fine, mentality is out there and there can be no arguing that.
I am not against orange. wear it or don't, I really couldn't care less either way.
truth is it no longer really matters if it hurts or helps. the "was he wearing orange" mentality already
has infected our population. once such happens there can no longer be any rationallity when debating the subject.
orange is here to stay. at least till hunting rights are gone it is.
lack of mandate does NOT place liability on F&G.
responsibility lies squarely on the shooter. makes no difference who was or wasn't wearing orange.
I would also add that it is my OPINION that calling this shooter a murderer is most likely an emotional, overreaction from a distraught, grieving mother.
I seriously doubt the shooter intended to kill this man.
sure, he was negligent and manslaughter could be on the table but murder seems a stretch.
I would refrain from calling it that unless intent were proven.