Game and fish; authorize fluorescent pink hunting outer garments
Summary
House Bill 167 amends Georgia’s hunting laws to allow fluorescent pink outer garments to satisfy existing hunter orange safety requirements in several hunting contexts. The bill updates provisions governing hunting feral hogs, bears, and deer so that hunters, and in some cases those accompanying them, may wear at least 500 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange or fluorescent pink material as an outer garment. The clothing must still be worn above the waistline, and may include a head covering.
The measure does not create a new hunting safety requirement so much as it broadens the color options for complying with current blaze-orange rules. It preserves the existing 500-square-inch visibility standard and applies it to the same seasons and species already covered under Georgia law, including firearms deer season and, for bears, firearms and primitive weapons seasons. It also retains the feral hog restrictions tied to permission on private land and posted property, while adding the pink option during firearms deer season.
Impact
HB167 amends Title 27 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, specifically Code Sections 27-3-24, 27-3-25, and 27-3-40, to authorize fluorescent pink as an alternative to fluorescent orange for required hunter outer garments. The practical effect is to expand lawful compliance options for hunters and their companions without changing the underlying visibility standard or the seasons/species to which the rules apply. It affects hunters of feral hogs, bears, and deer, as well as landowners and game-rights lessees insofar as the bill leaves existing permission requirements intact.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House unanimously, 159-0, and the Senate unanimously, 50-0, indicating strong bipartisan agreement. The lack of committee transcript material also suggests there was little recorded debate or opposition in the available record.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available materials. The only policy choice reflected in the bill is whether to permit fluorescent pink in addition to fluorescent orange for hunter safety apparel, and the unanimous votes suggest that lawmakers viewed this as a modest, practical update rather than a disputed change. Any potential concern would likely center on whether pink provides equivalent visibility to orange, but no recorded opposition or committee objections are available here.