This weekend I found myself in an interesting discussion concerning hunting. One of the topics that came up had to do with the new laws in California outlawing the use of lead in hunting ammunition. The use of lead for hunting within the State of California was banned on July 1, 2019. Recalling the great uproar over the law prior to its implementation, I was curious about the actual impacts of that change to the sport of hunting. It is my understanding that many hunters stocked up on lead bullets and shells ahead of the new law to make sure they would have sufficient reserves to allow them to ignore the law. There was a great hullaballoo about ammunition no longer being available in California, rants about the laws impinging upon their second amendment rights, government taking away freedoms, and more.
Being the curious type, I asked how the switch to non-toxic ammunition had impacted my friend’s hunting experiences. His answers surprised me. According to him, it is all good. The ammunition is available, about the same price as lead ammunition, shots as well (or better) than lead with regard to distance, accuracy and “killing power.” Not only that, but when it hits the target it is much less likely to splinter into pieces in the meat, and does much less damage to the meat so less is lost. He was also much happier to know that he wasn’t poisoning his family or wildlife.
So after the uproar about loss of ammunition, loss of 2nd amendment rights, loss of “freedom” – it appears to be a non-issue. However, I also found out that the ban on lead ammunition does not extend to Colorado where he had gone hunting. Because lead was not illegal there, he switched back to using lead ammunition – even though he had the non-toxic variety with him. I didn’t get a reason why he did that, other than the vague idea that since it was legal to use he did. Perhaps he was just trying to use up some of his stocks of lead ammunition. I wonder, but didn’t ask, how many rounds he uses on a hunting trip to Colorado. He didn’t get a deer, I assume meaning he didn’t shoot at one. So maybe he didn’t use any. Perhaps he missed a lot and shot a few rounds (perhaps up to 10?). In any case, it doesn’t seem like the financial “savings” amounted to much.
My guess is that something besides saving money, or a desire to negatively impact the environment, is in action here. I am not sure what it is – but am curious.
During the same discussion the topic of camo gear came up as a topic. I brought it up because I had just read a book that discussed the effectiveness of camo clothing to “hide” from deer. The book said that because a deer’s eyes work in a slightly different part of the visual spectrum than human’s eyes, the “brightness” (and hence obviousness) of various colors is different from ours. Apparently washing clothes in laundry detergent that has “whiteners” (whiter-than-white) does just that for deer. To a deer, the clothes because “florescent” and appear to glow bright white even though they appear to be camouflaged to us. Perhaps it doesn’t have exactly the intended function of “hiding” from the deer. The book went on to point out that “safety orange” as in used in high visibility vests is almost invisible to deer. They just see something close to dull black; it is far from the florescent orange that we perceive.
The result is that safety orange is a much better choice because it is safer, and it is far less obvious to deer. My friend said that he had heard about this previously, but still wears camo clothing because it is a “fashion” statement. I wonder about that. Is it simply a fashion statement, or is it more important than that? Perhaps it is something closer to a “tribal” identification. Maybe it is something closer to gang colors with the Bloods being red and the Crips being blue. It feels like that to me. When I am around a bunch of guys (or gals) wearing camo clothing it seems clear that they are “in the same group” and I am not because I don’t have that “code” on my clothes. The use of clothing and accessories to self-identify as belong to a group (or tribe) is extremely common throughout human history. It seems to be “wired” into how we interact with each other.
If it is true that camo clothing is used as a marker/code identifier as belonging to a group or “tribe”, then it isn’t just a “fashion statement” – and it isn’t meaningless or insignificant. I mentioned this to another hunter friend of mine and he chuckled about my thoughts on the topic. He said he had been hunting, shooting, practicing and partying with a local group of hunters for several years when one day he decided to perform a little “experiment” concerning the importance of his clothing choice. His experiment was to join the group at a local bar and grill that they frequented, but this time wearing “civilian” clothing (meaning no camo). Almost immediately people in the group started to tease him about no longer being one of them. That teasing continued and increased in intensity as the evening went along, verging upon hostile bullying (he felt like he was being attacked) – even though he normally considered them good friends and part of his “group”. He finally became uncomfortable enough without wearing the “code” that he left.
This sounds like a lot more than “a fashion statement,” it sounds more like a means to self-identify far more than merely being a “hunter” – it sounds like it shows alignment with an entire way of life and a view of the world. I don’t consider this kind of self-identification to be good or bad, it just is – and I find that interesting. It means that if I need to interact with someone wearing camo (perhaps pants, or maybe just a hat), I should be prepared for a specific point of view and a specific attitude about many topics ranging far beyond merely being a person that hunts to obtain meat for their family. They are doing more than “shopping” – perhaps they are playing a much larger role.