I make it a point never to mock a male hunter for wearing pink, particularly if he is locked and loaded.
That we should even be holding this discussion is rather ludicrous. We all know there are other more pressing topics demanding our legislators’ attention. But whether states should allow hunters to trade in their blaze orange hats, jackets and vests, or simply access neon pink apparel from their wives’ walk-in closets apparently IS a thing. In fact, it is already the law of the land in 14 states.
Minnesota allows it, as do Oregon and Washington state. Most of the “pinky promise” states are liberal bastions like New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Colorado. Some are borderline, purple states including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maine. But you’ll even find deep red states like Louisiana and Alabama climbing on board the shocking, pastel bandwagon.
Those who have field tested the controversial new hue are largely favorable, claiming advantages like improved visibility and safety in the field, being less likely to be detected by their prey, and the durability of their pink vestments, which they say are less likely to fade over time than traditional orange ones.
The debate prompted readers at N.R.A. Women dot com to weigh in on this tempest in a teapot.
A huntsman from North Carolina claimed he had grabbed his wife’s pink vest by mistake (our eyebrows are raised in skepticism) and then he bagged his limit of woodcock in record time.
A more traditional hunter from the Lone Star state feared that he might get shot if he tried that in Texas.
And our favorite comment came from the bravest man of the bunch, an Arkansas firefighter who said he would wear any color hunting outfit if it keeps him safe and ups his game, even if it is a “hot pink thong.”
At last check, there was no suggestion that our he-male hunters should trade in their hiking boots for high heels.
We’ll keep you posted.
