{{featured_button_text}}

I know many of you, like me, are passionate outdoorsmen and women who love to hunt. Deer hunting is a popular pastime with more than 608,000 hunting licenses purchased last year. New female hunters outnumber new male hunters three to one. With this in mind, the Sportsman’s Caucus, a bipartisan group of legislators dedicated to Wisconsin’s outdoor heritage, has been interested in legalizing blaze pink hunting clothing along with blaze orange.

Because safety is the most important concern for hunting clothing, the Caucus decided to meet with a color scientist from the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Human Ecology. Dr. Majid Sarmadi, one of the nation’s leading color experts, conducted a series of experiments to determine if blaze pink was as safe as blaze orange. Dr. Sarmadi spoke with the Sportsman’s Caucus about the biology of deer and human eyes and the science of color. Today, I would like to share this information with you.

Humans have three color cones in their eyes — red, green, and blue — that allow us to see the seven colors of the rainbow. While deer have excellent vision that is substantially better than human vision, deer have just two cones — green and blue — that make it difficult for them to see the “red colors” — orange, red, and pink. Each of these red colors appear to be different shades of gray to deer.

Deer can see blue, green, yellow and UV colors. Orange, being a “red color,” is difficult for deer to see. However, pink is even more difficult for deer to see because it is further from yellow, a color that deer can see, on the color spectrum than orange. Because of this, Dr. Sarmadi’s research shows that blaze pink is actually more difficult for deer to see than blaze orange, making hunters more camouflaged in blaze pink.

Blaze orange is also worn to allow hunters to see each other, a safety measure used to prevent hunting accidents. Dr. Sarmadi completed an analysis of a variety of currently hunting products available in both blaze pink and blaze orange on the human eye and determined that commercially available blaze pink clothing is equally or more visible than blaze orange products. Additionally, because orange is a color found in nature and pink is not, Dr. Sarmadi concluded that blaze pink is actually more visible for hunters.

The next step would be to introduce a bill legalizing the sale of blaze pink hunting gear along with blaze orange. Safety is a crucial factor in this decision, but it appears that blaze pink is more effective than blaze orange against deer and more visible for hunters. If this idea has enough support, you may be seeing blaze pink on hunters in a woods near year.

Be the first to know

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Sen. Terry Moulton (R-Chippewa Falls) represents Wisconsin’s 23rd Senate District. He can be reached at Sen.Moulton@legis.wisconsin.gov or (888) 437-9436.

0
0
0
0
0

(30) comments

Observer the Real

Oh............and by the by............Moulton's business would stand to make quite a bit of money by selling this crap too. Just an observation............

Niceguy2u

You saw that coming too.

pudgeboy

No.....guess I just don't see the world in blurred vision shades like you do NiceGuy. Pessimism make me itch......I prefer the Optimistic view of the World.

Niceguy2u

"Maybe a few female hunters......." Was that the intent of "pink", or your "that's what the little lady would like, kind of a cancer group cult thing?"

pudgeboy

And your point is?

mowboy25

pearllyboy optimistic? Laughable.

pudgeboy

Oh...Come on Observer. Just how does this negatively affect your life? So what if Moulton's attracts a little business. The economic impact of allowing Pink for Deer Hunting will be minimal at best. Of the 600,000+ Deer Hunters in Wisconsin, very few will switch to Pink. Maybe a few female hunters who will prefer Pink to Blaze Orange but not enough to make any sort of major statement. As far as Moulton making a lot of money? Hardly...he'll be in line as a small potato to Wal Mart, Gander Mountain, Scheels, Fleet Farm, Menards, Shopko, Target, every small town Bar, Convenience Store, Super Market, Bait Shop, Resort for a little piece of a very small pie. Even if there was a groundswell movement towards Pink...what do you care? Anybody who can make a little money in these times should be celebrated, not berated. They may create a job or two/

Observer the Real

Didn't say it affected anybody's life except Moulton's did I?

pudgeboy

Precisely my point. What do you care?

mowboy25

Hey pearllyboy, I can see you in pink. Are you getting closer sonny?

pudgeboy

Atta Boy Mowboy! You are hilarious ! Keep 'em comin'....

Visitor33

What a foolish comment observer. First, I've been in. Moultons shop and clothing is a small portion, if any of his business. Second. Orange is already a requirement, there is not a giant pool of women hunters that are out there saying they will hunt, but only if they can wear pink.

Observer the Real

I respect your right to your own opinion, but I don't respect what your opinion is. I've been to Moulton's shop too, but if you don't think that this a self serving piece of "legislation" then you are sorely mistaken.

Visitor33

Instead of just saying this is self serving, why don't you give us some specifics? So he owns an archery shop, however, I don't recall seeing blaze orange in his shop. Clothing isn't advertised on his website. It leads me to believe that clothing is a small portion, if any, of his business. If the legislation mandated the switch from orange to pink, you may have an argument, however, it doesn't. It's an option. The financial impact of this would be minimal for anyone, Mouldy's, fleet farm, wal mart etc. There may be some that will switch just to switch, however, that number will be small and spread thin that no one will see a big impact.
Unfortunately your opinion is based on hatred and not factual information.

CVUSER50

We have a budget crisis, people are going to be paying higher premiums on health insurance because of cuts, people are out of work, our state is divided, the Governor is being questioned , again, for ethics violations, we are in a state of turmoil that needs to get fixed and what does our Representative do to help with these problems? He works on a bill to make pink a color for hunters. Nice job, I'm glad we keep electing people who know the priorities in Wisconsin.

Visitor33

People are paying higher insurance premiums due to ACA, it's happening everywhere. We've debated this before, look at minnesota where this year they have a surplus and rates are rising significantly and they are discussing the elimination of the state run health care because it costs too much.
You may not like that they are addressing "pink," however, if people are bringing it to their legislators, then their legislators are doing their job by addressing the concerns of their constituents.

CVUSER50

Really? That's how you justify this non-issue? If you are right, and the right are so right about ACA being the problem, then fix it. The right whine and whine about how Obamacare and everything else Obama is doing is wrong but they don't fix anything. They control the nation and the state, but the only thing I've seen Walker do is take away. This is a complete non-issue, we have more things to worry about than wearing pink while hunting.

mowboy25

cvuboy I bet you wear pink under your orange. We know you hate Mr Walker.

Visitor33

You can feel it's a non issue, that's your opinion. I respect that. As far as the right not fixing things, they are. Wisconsin is proving that. As far as controlling the country, no, republicans don't have full control. I think it's pretty easy to figure out that even with a republican house and senate anything that gets rid of obamacare will be vetoed by Obama.

CVUSER50

I wear pink under my orange? What is that, an attempt at saying I'm gay? How old are you? Bring some actual substance here. And Visitor, you are right, it will get vetoed. As I aid in the past, I am against Obamacare for the fact that it requires people to get it, but not the substance itself. But that's another story, the issue is spending time working on making pink a legal hunting color instead of fixing so many more problems.

CVCitizen

While I agree there are much more important topics that lawmakers have to tackle as the state's business, there are less important items, such as this that also become the business of the day. The rest of the legislature activity doesn't stop just because there are large issues that require the majority of time.

I would think those horrified at the proposed cuts to the UW system would actually be taking the lawmakers to task because they had to lean on a UW specialist to support their proposal...

"the Caucus decided to meet with a color scientist from the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Human Ecology. Dr. Majid Sarmadi, one of the nation’s leading color experts, conducted a series of experiments to determine if blaze pink was as safe as blaze orange."

Dr. Sarmadi is gainfully employed at a $96,785.00 salary ('13-'14) so it's nice to see he proved his usefulness in helping the state conduct its business.

Visitor33

So if you know that any attempt to change Obamacare for the better by Republicans will get vetoed by the president, why attempt to make a point of saying the right whine about it, but do nothing about it? The entire base of your argument is the right whines and doesn't do anything about it. They are trying, but are getting blocked. So again, they republicans don't have full control, and it's unfortunate as Obamacare is crushing the middle class.
You make it sound as though legislators have spent hours upon hours debating this at the capitol. When the reality is it has never even been brought up for debate. The Sportsman's Caucus had a study done. The results of the study show that pink could actually be a safer color than orange. If it could save one life cvuser, isn't it worth the time and money? I feel like you have said that to me in the past.

garyfdl

One of my (hunting) daughters had this to say:

This is so ridiculous. Apparently these clowns think that what's holding women back is how ugly blaze orange is? Here's a tip, if you want to appeal to a female base, maybe start by respecting them. Believe it or not, women are not simple-minded creatures whose first priority is their clothing.

Reasons why women should take hunter's safety courses/hunt:
Learn how to safely handle guns (keeping them safely stored, check to see if they're loaded, etc)
Empowerment: It is super empowering to know how to shoot a gun
Challenging: It's not easy to hit a moving target
Nature: Experiencing the calmness, learning about conservation, naps in the woods are the best naps ever!
Bonding with family: Hunting is frequently passed down from generation to generation. I hunted with my dad and his cousins.

garyfdl

Continued:

I took hunter's safety as a young teen (preteen, I can't exactly remember?). At a time when I felt awkward and weird, I really truly felt empowered by learning about guns, how to handle them safely and respecting their power. I got to spend a ton of time with my dad, during classes, on the field day, and then prepping for and then hunting. I got to know him better and it helped me form an opinion on what boys and men should be like and how they should treat women. At deer camp, I drove for the first time, drank under supervision and got to spend time getting to know my extended family.
I was only able to go hunting a few times, and not because I couldn't find anything to wear. As I got older I got busier with school and work and couldn't fit it into my schedule.
If Wisconsin wants to encourage females to hunt, MAYBE THEY SHOULD TALK TO FEMALE HUNTERS about how to promote it. Dad-daughter days, gun safety, etc. Not dismiss women as shallow ninnies.

Julius

Requiring women to wear pink in the woods would be a better idea. And less than the standard 50% coverage. Then you'd see more of our finer class of men heading into the woods, thereby purchasing more guns, gun cases, scopes, ammo, licenses, 4-wheelers, tree stands, salt licks, bags of corn, handwarmers, thermal hats, mittens, and hardy boots.

THENEWS

"... Members of the legislature recently formed the Wisconsin Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, a new chapter under the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses.

Some of the goals of the Caucus include ensuring that Wisconsin sportsmen and women have reasonable access to public lands, supporting efforts to enhance multiple use habitat management for wildlife and fisheries, and recognizing the importance of outdoor industries and activities to our state’s economy and heritage. ..."

"...The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation(CSF) is a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization founded in 1989. Originally name the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Foundation, ... The foundation mainly focuses on supporting open space wildlife conservation, open space and hunting. It releases an annual report on the economic benefits of hunting...."

"...For over two decades, Moulton has owned and operated Mouldy's Archery and Tackle in Lake Hallie. ... "

THENEWS

"... Despite its low profile, the foundation has close ties to members of Congress, allowing its donors, who give as much as $100,000 a year, to mix with lawmakers at shooting contests, banquets and wine tastings. ...
Its charitable purpose, according to tax records, is to “provide scientific research, wildlife management, public education and conservation information.” It says it does this by giving nonpartisan “advice, support and information” to the sportsmen’s caucus and elected state officials. ...
The foundation is blunt in its appeal to donors. Its Web site says that “no organization has access to so many elected officials,” ...
Contributions ballooned from $434,000 in 2001 to more than $2 million in 2011, with its top-tier donors including firearms makers and retailers ...
The N.R.A. declined to comment on its relationship with the caucus and foundation...."

Joseshot

THENEWS You sure are good at cutting and pasting any original thoughts?

THENEWS

2013
"The United Sportsmen of Wisconsin Foundation was the only applicant for a newly-created grant to promote hunting, fishing, and trapping in the state, despite the organization having no record in outdoors training. The grant was slipped into the budget bill by Suder ..."

"... Citizens for a Strong America in 2011 gave $235,000 to United Sportsmen of Wisconsin, a group with close Republican ties that won and then lost a $500,000 taxpayer grant to promote hunting in the state, despite little experience with such activities. ..."

" In Wisconsin, the Legislature makes most of the decisions about what should be included in the budget, ..." http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/budget-toolkit/the-wisconsin-budget-process

Joseshot

My Daughter completed hunters safety 2 years ago and around 80% of the youths in class were girls and that is not exaggerating. Some did have pink themed firearms with them at class so give them a choice. The big problem here is that no matter what a Republican does in this state the Democrats are going to whine about it that is just how petty they are. If a Democrat proposed this it would be the greatest thing for woman's rights ever done .I see the color they chose to represent breast cancer is pink.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.