Doc

I have one hell of a huge collection of his records, tapes, and CDs so Merle will always be alive through his music for me.

Your right. It is time for lunch and I'm gone.

What exactly bothers you about that attitude? Why are you shocked or scared about that kind of attitude toward law enforcement. We hear it almost every day from some individuals on this forum. We have our resident anarchists who would dearly love to topple our government. They live for revolution and they somehow call themselves patriots. You need to pay attention to this forum and understand the mentality that exists in some corners of it. Militias can do no wrong. Never mind what these people would replace it all with or how they would control any transitions. There first desire is to bring it all down and then try to sort it all out later. We have our own homespun jihadists right here and they seem to pretty much get a free pass from some. Yes you are absolutely right to be shocked and scared. Apparently you thought that all threats to our way of life came from abroad. Well, turn around very slowly and look at we have grown while nobody was watching. You've got two fronts coming at us, and unfortunately there may be a lot more allies in there pocket than most of us ever realized.

Those that want to treat militia terror any differently than over seas terror to be exact.

No, some of your asinine statements have gotten me pretty stirred up though and I don't mind telling you so. When I start hearing statements that when discussing U.S. based militias that some how the Oklahoma City bombing is off the table. Then someone is trying to whitewash the actions that militias are capable of doing. And I am here to say that we do have domestic terrorism and they are quite effective. And those that want to stick their head in the sand and pretend that these creeps are a bunch of harmless people that like to play paintball in the woods, had better pull their heads out of the sand or wherever it is stuck and understand that we have terrorism on two fronts. Foreign and domestic. And don't be telling me that the 20 year old bombing that took place doesn't matter, because to me it does matter. We don't need people that will turn their backs on terror that exists openly here inside our borders simply because it is convenient to do so. I will never forget 911, but I also in spite of everyone's wishes will never forget Oklahoma City.

That is simply ridiculous. There is no way that you could possibly in your most wildest imagination come up with anything in this discussion that would even hint that radical Islam is manageable. Now if you want to make sensible arguments, then let's hear them, but that line of illogic is too foolish to even respond to.

Absolutely none of that warrants the hero worship of McVeigh and Nichols, and it makes me sick to even hear such talk. In some of your twisted minds, because we are involved in Islamic terrorists, all home spun terrorism is excusable. I have never heard such crap. I have no idea what warped minds would even try to justify the killing of 168 innocent people and 19 children and then try to say but it's alright because look at what the jihadist are doing. My God... what gets into your minds?

Now wait a minute, where the hell are you getting any of that? I am not excusing any or the far east terrorist activities as you people want to excuse our own home grown terrorists. I HATE (and yes that word is purposefully chosen) all terrorist equally. I hate the demented attitudes that would even hatch up that mindset. And I don't have a whole lot of good feelings toward the apologists of any of them. If you people want to pick and choose which evil you can excuse and which you cannot I will proudly say that I cannot. Evil is evil and I can't condone any of it. Yes I went back 20 years to refresh your minds of the carnage that these militia groups are capable of because apparently a lot of you have selective memories and want to rank your evil according to place of origin. I can't do that, In my book nobody gets a free pass on terrorism. I don't keep score according to body count. That's not the way that I establish the right and the wrong of things.

I am just telling you that those two creeps represent the lowest that America has to offer. As much as may pain you to have me coming down on your baby-killing hero, I am not one to soft soap a filthy situation of evil just to spare the feelings of those that might regard that trash as their hero. And I will say that those characters and others like them have a love of terror and killing and have more in common with the ISIS creeps than they have differences. The numbers of them does not have anything to do with my feelings against any of them. Scum is scum, regardless of where they come from or what their base motivation is. I will further say that all those that have a hero worship thing going for Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols aren't really much of anything worthwhile in my book either. Anyone who can even begin to relate to those baby killers on any level aren't really anyone that I care to converse with and pretty much nauseate me.

As Paul Harvey used to say, "And now the rest of the story". I might be a little more strict as regards the meaning of "physical control" to ensure that they are in immediate positions of physical contact if necessary. I frequently see the lack of obedience to vocal commands between a parent and their child. Voice and sight from a distance, does not really mean physical control. But, that is really nit-picking. That is something I could support, and like I said, I would go even further and remove the minimum age requirement completely with the above mentor requirements.

It is hard to forget that just 20 years ago, a home grown, militia-spawned pair of local terrorists named Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were responsible for 168 deaths of innocent U.S. citizens going about their day's work at the office along with 19 children at a day care center. Their victims were average ordinary everyday American citizens. They had a beef with the U.S. government also and felt that their rights were being violated. Yes I do consider home grown militias to be of the same mindset and the same resulting death and mayhem. Different motives, but still both with a beef against the U.S. government and both willing to accept death of innocents to avenge their perceived wronging's. Yes they both engage in terror and I don't see a lot of difference between the two in terms of their intent. They are both a blight on this earth and the world would be a better place without either groups.

It no longer depends on what is self serving or distasteful or whatever. It is becoming a case of using tactics that work. And we are getting our butts kicked by emotion-based presentations of animal rights groups. The animal rights crowd has found what appeals to humans and have found ways to pull huge support and finances out of people's pockets. They use all kinds of emotion-based tactics, fair or foul, truth or fiction, but they are all emotion based and they are all effective. We on the other hand rely on coma-inducing papers and research reports and lines of data that would put any audience under. We might as well save our breath rather than boring people to death and burying them under facts and figures that they won't even remember 5 seconds after they hear it. Send them away raving to their friends and neighbors about the sad image of a fawn starving to death because of a lack of hunting. Give them a jarring image of a staggering and drooling rabid raccoon. Let them choke on the putrid picture of a crusted nearly blinded fox with mange and explain that such animal health problems are exacerbated by todays attitudes toward trapping and hunting. Go for the cultural change through emotional awareness. That's what HSUS and their cohorts have been involved in. That is how they have made their advances. And I believe that it is those kinds of efforts that have changed our culture and is responsible for the constant negative slide of hunter numbers (adults and youngsters).

I guess I am looking for leadership from such sources as the DEC or the NYSCC or some major coalition of sportsmen's groups to spearhead lobbying efforts in the offices of hunting-friendly legislators. The article does not go into the details of how this was put into effect by West Virginia or he other states that have currents legislation pending. But I'm sure it was done on some higher level than just some minor organization of parents. Such an activity would have to have some muscle behind it. Perhaps it is time to call the bluff on some of these legislators who claim to friends of hunters.

As long as the fact that they are taking about heavily supervised and mentored hunting I believe that the minimum age should be abolished. However the idea and definition of supervised and mentored should be the bulk of the law. Words like "under strict control", and explicit definitions of what that means need to be stressed in any law that relaxes the minimum hunting age. Also the definition of the requirements of the mentors needs to be quite strict. If properly defined, the idea of a minimum age should be left up to the discretion of the parents with decisions based on the child's mental and physical preparedness and maturity. I do not want to see unsupervised 12 year olds running around the woods with rifles. This NYSCC proposal seems to be lacking that explicit wording and only casually mentions mentoring in a side comment.

We bicker because we strive for perfection. Anyone who believes that hunters cannot or should not disagree doesn't understand the concept of discussion, negotiation, and eventual resolution. Our methods and attitudes vary as does any other gathering of similar interests, and guess what.......we don't all march in lockstep and refuse to discuss some of the thorny issues that confront us. That wouldn't and shouldn't be human nature. Those whose opinions and passions wave around whichever way the popular wind blows are not doing themselves any good or the sport of hunting any good. And they will be of the least value when it comes to the fight against the anti-hunters. They are the weak-sisters who have no opinions of there own. They are the ones that lack any courage of their convictions. They sit silently and passively never concerning themselves about the issues that confront us. Yes they make for nice cordial and friendly and passive forum members but contribute nothing to the health and defense of hunting or the resolution of issues that confront the future of hunting. I worry more about a hunting community that would simply roll over on every issue in the effort to fake unity and solidarity. Are they people that you could count on as aggressive fighters in defense of hunting? I really don't think so.

I already have admitted that I was on the wrong end of that argument back when the compound bows were first admitted. Yes, I was one of those that thought the compound was a good idea. Only my mistake was that I didn't really recognize it as a precedent that would lead to a continuing evolution of corruption of the sport of bowhunting. Well, unlike many, I do learn from past mistakes. I say a line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. When we start saying that shoulder fired, stabilized, constantly drawn, weapons are the same as bows, it seems to me that we have crossed over that line. When we encounter a weapon that uses none of the shooting forms and disciplines of vertical bows, that is a step too far. Those that shoot bows understand stance, back tension, stable bow arms, consistent grip, follow through, and all the other rigid and unforgiving requirements of shooting any vertical bow. We understand that crossbows have none of that. The methods of holding, firing and the disciplines required for any vertical bow are consistently the same and have absolutely nothing in common with a crossbow which has a shooting form and method that incorporates exactly those of a gun. Ha-ha-ha ...... I just realized that just like this whole thread, has already been argued a few years ago and nobody is listening to each other now just like back then. Just like TV we are involved in re-runs. I believe everything has been said on this subject that can be said..... Seriously, when we start repeating ourselves, perhaps it is becoming obvious that further discussion has no point. Minds are now made up. and the future of bowhunting will be whatever it becomes. Just like those old-timers that argued against compounds years ago and were eventually proven correct about the precedents that are set and it is now too late to effect any change. This new precedent that carries the corruption of bow season one more huge step forward is already set in stone as is the future of bowhunting. We are now just waiting for the next gadget to invade the season and call itself a bow. Or perhaps the whole façade will eventually be dropped, and the whole idea of a special bow season will be recognized as bogus and be dropped entirely.

It is just more of the same thing that is happening in every level of activity today. The continued dumbing down to accommodate some base level of competency. Its more of this idea that everybody deserves to be a winner regardless of effort. You know .... a trophy for everybody. It is the only fair way to do things......lol. Even hunting methods are entering into this new way of thinking. It won't stop at crossbows either. In fact it already has progressed beyond crossbows.

I'm not sure what is being gained by the continued arguing that a crossbow is a piece of crap weapon for hunting. But I think there is sufficient evidence and a sufficient number of people that openly agree that a crossbow is a superior weapon to a compound bow and has many features (including the ability to steady it) that assist anyone who has any rifle experience and even total beginners to become near instant hunting-ready marksmen in a very short time ..... I really don't think that is arguable. Even the proponents of crossbows universally admit and applaud that the crossbow is a superior deer hunting weapon.

You can advocate for whatever you want, but the reality of the situation and modern-day hunter mentality says that it is inevitable that it is only a matter of time before it all becomes a one season free-for-all. It may be years, it may be decades, but all signs and the sport's own evolution, point toward the elimination of special seasons or changes so dramatic that the original seasons won't even be recognizable. Some of that already exists and the DEC and various manufacturing and sales entities are pushing for more movement toward that end.

That is why we need some form of official early intervention in the schools by responsible agencies to offset those notions.

Lol ...... Some would probably shove the kid to the ground and take the shot themselves. Well, what the hell, then the kid would learn what hunting in that family was really like. Who knows that same dad would probably yank the gun out of the youngster's hands and shoot the deer even during the youth season ..... ha-ha-ha. No seriously, I think that all these ideas are predicated on the fact that the mentors are basically decent people who are interested in getting the kid into hunting. If they are not, any mentored program will fail. The problem is that we seem to be trying to scam kids into hunting. We give them an unrealistic idea of what conditions and situations are in the hope that when they really do start hunting they won't notice that it can get damned cold out there. And I do think that introduction opportunities are being lost when hunting friends and relatives and the social aspects of hunting are excluded from that introduction.

No, the real reason there is more pressure to keep adding more and more unsuitable weapons into bow season is the fact that today everybody wants the time slot that used to be allocated to bows. As someone put it here, they simply want technology to make their hunting easier. I saw how serious the DEC really was about taking more deer when they totally ignored the gun season and instead went after the bowhunters to balance the deer population. The fact is that bow season was never intended by anybody to be a population-cutting hunting method. Even with crossbows, we will never rival the gun season for deer cutting efficiency. And that is because that is not what bowhunting is all about and it never was, and it never will be. So this story about how the DEC will continue to beat on bowhunters until it no longer is a bowseason has nothing to do with population control. It is simply a designed attempt at reshaping what their vision of that timeslot should look like. It is an attempt to turn bowseason into an extension of gun season. And we have the hunter mentality now to go along with that philosophy

I came down out of the trees years ago....lol. But I will say that back in the days when I did rely on treestands, I still was pretty crappy at offhand shooting (regardless of the amount of practice), and I did find ways of avoiding shooting that way. And a lot of that involved getting very resourceful at clamping rests to the stand. What I realized was that a rested gun was a whole lot more accurate than off-hand regardless of what the circumstances and hours of practice were. And amazingly enough, the crossbow is enough like a rifle that that same principle applies. Now, I will admit that with my vertical bow, I am stuck. There is no way of bracing that. But that is one of the major reasons so many people want to use a crossbow. Just like a rifle you don't have to put up with that wiggling and waving. The geometry of the weapon lends itself to bipods and other stationary rests just like a rifle.

Almost all of my hunting is on very high pressured state land.

They have emotion on their side. That makes it easier to get emotion-based support and more dollars. Some day we will learn to use that super effective tactic and begin to tug at people's heartstrings with stories and pictures of starving and diseased animals that are suffering from over population. We talk ourselves blue in the face offering up all kinds of dry, lengthy, scientific factual research and then try to resuscitate those that have slipped into a coma part way through the arguments. Meanwhile the HSUS people are winning ground from people with tears running down their faces from the tear-jerking Bambi style tales of suffering and death of the furry little woodland creatures. Their audiences are captured with the emotionality of the presentation. People hearing all sobbing just simply throw their money at these organizations. We've got to get on the emotional side of deer-yarding stories and the rabies and distemper and mange tear-jerking stories of the poor little woodland creatures that suffer inhumane ravages of over-population. Personalize it. Use the humanizing tactics that put the listener in the place of these poor forgotten animals. Never mind the facts and figures and stats and data. Those data-blizzards simply paralyze people into open-eyed unconsciousness. One of the most powerful images that I have ever seen was a video post on here that showed a weakened deer that was in obvious anguish hardly able to keep its head up for more that a couple of seconds at a time. We need more of that shown and explained to the public!