[wiki summary]

There are three bills before the legislature that will affect us as hikers - I think we should speak up.

Here's a way to contact your state legislator: link

HB 1114 "Regarding youth hunting privileges"
This bill would require hunters under age 14 to be accompanied by an adult (the Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends 16, but the bill sets it lower).  Let your legislator know what you think.

SB 5559 - Jeanne Kohl-Welles' bill would require hunters under age 16 to be accompanied by an adult.  Let your legislator know how you feel.

HB 1116 "Requiring visible clothing while recreating"
The bill would require hikers to wear hunter orange whenever there was an open hunting season. Let 'em know.

[kbatku]

House Bill 1116 (requiring visible clothing in certain recreation areas)

Introduced by Rep. Brian Blake, (D-Aberdeen) (D) on January 14, 2009, requires that persons visiting any recreation area during hunting season wear hiker orange clothing and that signs must be posted on all public trail heads during authorized big game hunting seasons. "Hiker orange clothing" is defined as a minimum of four hundred square inches of fluorescent orange exterior clothing worn above the waist and visible from all sides.

( 400 square inches is essentially a vest, but you also need an orange component on your pack so that the orange is visible "from all sides".
So....you will need to sew a band of "hiker orange" onto your pack, or drape it with another vest. An orange strobe light on top of your hat would be a nice touch as well. And don't forget to make noise...lots of noise...so the hunters know that you aren't some mutant orange deer or something.

[Dogpatch]

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it's a red herring. The wording is designed to piss off hikers (since when is it "hiker" orange?). I think it's an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue - the minimum age limit for hunters.

So yeah, let's not let them make us look like pumpkins out on the trail. But don't forget the hunter age limit - it's the real issue.

--------------
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
  Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." – Groucho Marx

[kbatku]

[Tom]

Thanks for the link.  I've contacted my legislators.

[Layback]

[Layback]

What sort of text are folks using to reach out to their legislators?  I could use some help and I'm sure it would help a few others who might be hesitant to try and create something on their own.

[Tom]

Here's the jist of what I wrote:

[Malachai Constant]

I checked out the sponsors web site he is a very pro-hunter type (not that there is anything wrong with that ) Interestingly he sponsored a bill last year which allowed young hunters to defer hunter safety education
"Rep. Brian Blake (D-Aberdeen) pointed to his bill to defer hunter education for young people as an example of good public policy encouraging outdoor activities.

“Getting outside for hunting, fishing, hiking or any other reason is both fun and educational,” said Blake. “We need to encourage more young people to enjoy the outdoors, and deferring hunter education for them is one way to do that.”

Seems his intent is to keep unsupervised kids hunting and blames accidents on stupid hikers.    

BTW not all (D)s are pro hiker or all (R)s anti-hiker definitely will contact my legislators.

Tom the second part of your letter is good but are you aware the bill proposed would not have prevented the Sauk incident as unsupervised 14 year olds are still allowed to hunt under Blakes bill.

--------------
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard
-JFK

[kbatku]

Also discussed here...

[Snowbrushy]

[BigSteve]

Here's a question for any PI or PI defense attorneys out there:

If enacted, would a violation of the law by a victim of a negligent shooting constitute negligence per se to support an affirmative defense of contributory negligence and/or comparative fault?  If not, would evidence of violation of the law be admissible as evidence on the standard of care element on a contrib neg affirmative defense?

If the answer to either question is affirmative, then this bill is really f***ed up.  (Edited to add:  Even if the answer to both questions is "no," the bill is still f***ed up.)

Thanks to anyone who can provide an informed answer.

[Malachai Constant]

I have not practiced PI for a long time but am fairly sure that Washington does not follow a strict per se negligence finding when a statute has been violated contributing to an accident the law was intended to prevent. Washington does however declare that such a violation raises a presumption that the person who violates the statute is at fault. As a practical matter the result is likely the same so if you were shot with 250 sq. inches of "Hiker orange" the guy who shot you would probably not pay much damages.

--------------
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard
-JFK

[JimK]

How about a wiki where each person who sends a message to their legislator adds their name. If we can get 80 people to drive to Kirkland for a social we ought to be able to get 80 to send a short message against this bill. Perhaps when the list of names gets longer folks will take the time to join it. We have the ability to have a voice and this site is the means to organize it. Frankly 100 messages would have an effect on a bill that is not high profile. Even a couple of sentences would be worth the effort.

--------------
Hiking Northwest

[Go Jo]