Doc

This guy is not alone in his opinions. In fact I occasionally pick up on some of that attitude right here on this forum. It has been going on for quite a while ever since bowhunter success rates have crept upwards. A few published pictures of some dandy wall hangers has suddenly woke up a lot of gun hunters as to the fact that bow hunters do actually harvest deer and sometimes some pretty nice ones. For years, we were not taken very seriously, and so everybody just shrugged their shoulders when additional weeks were added to the bow season. There was a whole lot of "who cares" when we picked up more and more goodies as far as seasons and bag limits. This guy is a jerk, but he is really just putting into public words, the thoughts that more and more gunhunter-only people are thinking. It is occurring to more and more of them that we are not out there with just recurves and longbows any more. Ha-ha.. apparently the DEC is even beginning to buy into some of this attitude as they now think that bowhunters can handle the entire population control in some WMUs ... lol.

It all depends on the weather. I have a lighted 80 yard archery range marked off in 5 yard increments. And a 50 and 100 yard shooting bench for the rifles. But I will not drag my guns out in snow or rain conditions. I also have a 15 yard indoor range in my basement. I no longer belong to any kind of club ranges or indoor shooting facilities. To try to figure out a shooting frequency would be impossible because it winds up to be a frequency based on opportunity.

Actually, the intent of the thread was obvious and even directly stated in bold print: "My question is: What do you think of people that go out and hunt for no other reason than to kill something?" My reply addressed exactly what was being asked. I realize that a lot of people feel uncomfortable about addressing that point, but in spite of the fact that we don't like to talk about that, that is a very common practice and here was a thread that dared to directly ask the question. Woodchucks, rats, crows, carp, etc., are simply killed as living targets with almost nobody even trying to eat them. So instead of shame-facedly running from the question, I chose to address it directly and without apology.

Ok, ya got me. I have to confess to killing rats at the dump and not eating them. I also have shot woodchucks and left them. We used to bowfish for carp and not eat them. I know there are those that hunt crows with no intention of eating them. Out west there are those that actually shoot prairie dogs, and I doubt they are particularly prized for their good table fare. I have trapped all kinds of animals, selling the fur and throwing away the carcasses or in some cases using them for bait. I did kill a coyote with no intentions of eating him. I have called and shot foxes .... again, no intention of eating it. I guess I further have to confess that I did all of that in a cold-blooded way without a shred of remorse. But then, we humans are not the only ones that do that. Back when I was a kid, we lost 22 head of sheep to some local dogs that simply went from one sheep to the next killing them for sport and never eating a one of them. I have seen the same thing with dog-killed deer. Our cat does the same thing with mice only she tortures them to death. Apparently the world is an evil place. Look, hunting is a nasty business anyway you look at it. We have justified it as claiming it is done strictly for meat, as if any of us are reduced to hunting for survival. We talk about hunting to balance animal populations, but I can't remember the last time I heard somebody say, "Well, I'm going to go out and control the deer herd now". There is something in all of us that enjoys the hunt and the kill. We are predators. And by the way, I'm not justifying illegal action as in the case of the pheasants. And I have always eaten every squirrel that I have ever shot if that serves as brownie points for forgiving my other wanton acts of killing. But I am not going to sanitize the act of killing wildlife by conjuring up excuses, and I am not going to try to come up with any kind of justification of shooting those rats at the dump. It I something that my primal ancestry coded into my DNA, and it is what it is.

IT'S NOT FUNNY!!!! ................... Well, maybe it does sometimes make me crack a smile ..........Actually there are times when you just have to sit down and laugh ................... there are other times when it is flat-out hysterical ...

For decades, I had a 2x Leupold topping my Ithaca 12 ga. I believe that I should have had more magnification, but still, I did amazingly well. My .270 has a 3x-9x variable which gives me a much better magnification. It spends most of its time at 9x. That's real crappy for offhand shooting, but when rested on some part of my stand or on my Primos bi-pod, it is deadly.

I can (and have) gotten out of my chair and walked into another room, standing there wondering what in the heck I came in there for. That's sad.

And yet here is crappy old Gander Mountain somehow keeping their doors open. Well anyways, now there are no shortages of big box outdoor stores. The competition is fast and furious and we hunters are the beneficiaries. We do still have crappy old Gander Mountain, and soon a brand new Bass-pro, and the great Field & Stream store, and Dick's now over here in Western NY. Life is good!

Great Video!!!!

I try real hard not to be lured into taking any "quick shots" or any kind of shots where I feel pressured for time. The scope forces me to do that. Whenever I hear the phrase "quick shot" being used, I think of scenarios of "jump-shooting" deer like rabbits with such speed that things in the background tend not to be looked at with enough scrutiny to ensure safety. Among other undeniable benefits, I see the fact that things are forcibly being slowed down as the biggest benefits in the realm of gun safety. It is just possible that one of the main reasons for the vast improvements in NYS's safety record is the proliferation of scopes in the deer woods. Not only do you automatically slow down the shooting, but you also get a magnified clear view of what's behind the target with the only vision obstruction being the thin crosshairs. I'm a big fan of scopes not only for my use, but also for those around me that are shooting in my vicinity.

Damn! Can you imagine being attacked and killed by coyotes. What a nasty way to go ...... one bite at a time. That' a disgusting thought.

I have never had an accuracy concern with my Ithaca Deerslayer, but that 12 Ga. was never something I would call a pleasure to shoot. By contrast, I spent an hour up on my range "playing" with my .270, just loving every shot and seeing what kinds of tight groups I could get. It was truly recreation, and a familiarization process that I wish more deer hunters could (and would) experience with their deer guns. Compare that with the typical annual 5-shot verification group that I would painfully go through with that old 12 ga. Why 5 shots? ... because beyond that I would begin to bruise. Hopefully at the end of the 5-shot group I would be satisfied with the group, because anything after that involved increasing flinching and I would be in for an ugly re-sighting process that was absolute misery. That 12 ga. has not been out of the closet since they legalized rifles in Ontario County, and I haven't missed it for a moment.

I and several others on this forum have seen a lot of change of this sort, and it is indeed sad. What's even worse is the realization that nothing will ever slow down this hunting land development and "lock-up". It's a process that you can only look at and do nothing about.

I always thought that once these guys were in proper combat gear, they might break a bone or two, but nothing too life-threatening other than an occasional aberration or two. This movie opened up a whole other aspect to the effects of the constant head-pounding that these guys take. Personally, you couldn't pay me enough to take that kind of abuse and potential permanent cranial damage. The movie based on true events showed the extent that the NFL would go to cover up the dangers from the players and the public. However, when it ended, all the findings became public, but there was no indication that anything really changed other than the players understanding that they are playing mental Russian Roulette. But at least they have the knowledge of what is at stake and can make their own minds up about whether they want to take the risks or not. I have no problems with competitive violence and trauma when the facts are all laid out in front of the players. The movie itself was kind of different. It was done in a way that kept you a bit on edge, and contained all the appropriate drama for entertainment. But the introduction of history, facts and figures, kept the integrity of the documentary aspects of it too. Well done, and Will Smith was perfectly cast and brilliant in his performance.

And of course to all this the DEC would say, "Halleluiah, we need more coyotes". And while we are into the "truth uncovering mode", somebody want to redo that silly study that claims that the more coyotes you kill the more they increase. I'm still having a real problem with that one.

Well, I have no doubt that an air-rifle that can take down a water buffalo, probably is powerful enough to do in a deer. But my impression is that there is a wide variety of these things from B-B guns to some beastly thing capable of killing a water buffalo. It sounds like they had better do a damn good job of describing minimum requirements, or there is the possibility that there will be people out there using all kinds of under-powered, unethical weapons. Even with gunpowder powered deer rifles, I don't believe that the DEC did an adequate job of defining minimums. Let's hope they do a better job on air powered rifles.

I just saw the movie "Concussion" yesterday. It kind of gave me quite a different perspective on football. I had no idea what kinds of things those guys put themselves through and what the end-results can turn out to be.

Things have truly gotten out of control. I never do holidays very well with all the damn food and sweets and crap everywhere I turn. And I found out that I actually get more exercise before season with all the scouting and stand building and other hunting related activities. But once the season starts, I walk to the stands, and plunk my rump down and then walk back out. Not exactly what you would call a good cardio-workout. So yes there is a resumption of workouts and diet control coming.

Same here, and the reason is that it is a small chunk of land that is already filled up. We are able to get the number of hunters on the land because we all get together and discuss where we are going to be standing to ensure that no one is cutting another off, and that all hunting set-ups are safe and spaced far enough apart. I cannot deal with organizing the hunting on my land beyond that, and I don't want to deal with the conflicts and potential hazards of just opening it up further and losing all control entirely. I have a feeling that a lot of landowners are in the same boat. I have horror stories from both my father's experiences and my own where a simple act or two of generosity spun out of control to the point where my Dad's driveway began to look like a parking lot with all the hunters being friends and relatives of "friends and relatives of the couple co-workers that he originally gave hunting access to. He didn't know the names of a single one. Finally a chain had to go across the driveway and the people were told to leave and not to come back when they came to the door. I had a similar experience when I looked out the front window of our raised ranch set behind a 1000' deep thicket and watched a drive of 8 redcoats being set up in front of the house. I hot-footed it down and grabbed the ring-leader who turned out to be the brother-in-law of a guy I worked with some 6 years prior. I kind of lost it and left no doubt in their minds that they were to leave immediately and not ever come back. The next weekend was when the posted signs first went up and have remained ever since.

I don't understand what the thrill is to be trying to kill game with the least effective equipment, but there seems to be some reason why people want to try it. The .22 hornet is a legal deer caliber in areas of NYS where rifles are legal. I'm waiting for someone to try to rationalize using it for deer hunting. Of course, given perfect circumstances, the hornet will kill a deer, but what would even make anyone try?

At last, finally we are getting to a few real numbers in some of these videos and web-sites. Still a bit light on trajectory and range info, but little by little there is some actual penetration examples, animal sizes, and a little speed and projectile data. So far I have seen the performance at distance data but I did note in one of the videos that the hunter with the Benjamin .357 Rogue felt that his setup on a hartebeest was 50 yards maximum. While I was looking at some of the web-sites, I started to get the idea that the expensive rifle itself was only part of the cost. There seems to be tanks and all kinds of other pneumatic accessories that have to be bought also. I didn't find where they really got into that stuff but some of the tank costs looked a little huge to me. Also no mention of how many shots per tank, so I have no idea what the real cost per shot is. And hopefully that $1295 compressor or the $3000 one are not essential accessories .... lol. It's all interesting stuff, but still a lot of performance numbers missing. And some of what I saw on these sites and in the videos still has me wondering why anyone would think that these things are safe to use in urban and suburban scenarios where other rifles have been outlawed for deer hunting. Apparently certain chosen models equipped in certain ways are capable of taking down a water buffalo. That model at least probably wouldn't really be suitable for inner city deer hunting ..... lol. But I will say that it is an interesting subject.

I am just curious. Have you found that the .270 has been having difficulties coping with the brush. I know that the light higher speed bullets deflect and even disintegrate when they hit obstructions like branches saplings and twigs, and I am assuming that is why you want to switch to slugs, but have you actually had a problem with the .270 in this regard? I just recently switched from a 12 gauge to a .270, so I am curious as to what kinds of problems you may have actually encountered. I have many really tight thickets that I wouldn't take my .270 into, but the fact is that I wouldn't expect my old 12 gauge to plow through that stuff either. Anyway, I am just curious as to how big a problem you have been having and whether I should be concerned or not.

Actually, sitting around the campfire with your hunting clothes on might be a great way to get the smoke stink into them. I know anytime I sit around the fire the wind direction instantly changes to blow the smoke right at me. It must be some law of physics or something.....lol. I don't know, I am almost leaning towards giving it a try myself. If it's good enough for the Indians, why not give it a try.

I was hoping that this discussion would answer the question as to whether I should be for them or against them as a deer hunting weapon, not some kind of bogus comparison between air rifles and bows. So far the real subject of performance as a deer hunting weapon has been left out of the discussion. Real numbers regarding terminal energies at various distances, realistic trajectories at longer distances, or even empirical data of actual use on big game at various distances. What I have learned from this discussion still leaves me wondering if we are trying to kill deer with a pellet gun or some super efficient gun that has the killing power of conventional deer rifles. I know that when it comes to firearms, a lot of print has been used on what calibers and what loads are really adequate to kill a deer. I would expect that same scrutiny and discussion to take place before anyone gets all fanatical about these air guns and offers or withholds support for these weapons to be used on big game. All this peripheral drummed-up theory and comparisons to bows or whatever is really just diversion from the central question of, "Does the air rifle belong among the conventional calibers of firearms or not as a deer hunting weapon". Well that is still a question that apparently no one really wants to answer.

I have also heard of this idea being used by the Indians, but never had a chance to try it. Your experiment will be interesting. Was there any things so far that made you think it worked or didn't? I know these things are hard to prove or disprove because you don't always get to witness the effects. Also it is difficult to prove that the effects were due to the experiment. But at least it would be interesting to note the reactions (or lack thereof) of the deer to the intense smoke scent.