Doc

Just as the author of this article pointed out, I too have seen the increased movement of deer during a drippy, drizzly light rain. I also have noted that their senses seem to be dulled, almost like they are walking around in a severe funk and extremely miserable which also can be a huge benefit to the hunter. I think also that the scent is knocked down to the ground a bit, and the falling rain screws up their hearing a bit too. All good things. However my most serious hunting is with the bow, and there are a few serious drawbacks to rainy weather hunting too. Hunting with a bow in the rain does not forgive a shot that is not absolutely perfect. I like to wait a bit after even a good shot before trying to take up the blood trail. I have had blood trails that all but vanished in the rain, depending on how heavy the rain is or gets to be. That aspect is not so bad with a gun because a reasonable shot will put the deer down within sight or definitely not too far after the shot. The most obvious drawback is that unless you have a tent-style pop-up blind, the comfort factor for the hunter can be lacking. I have yet to find acceptable rain gear that does not eventually fall prey to leakage or internal condensation.

The value of heavy arrows and heavier broadheads for penetration has been a known benefit for years. However, light weight heads and arrow shafting gained popularity when the search for arrow speed and flat trajectories became the focus of archers. I would imagine that flat trajectory is still an important feature even with crossbows....right? I wish he had included the variations in trajectory due to 7x added weight. It would be interesting to see what the difference in impact point that the additional weight makes. Maybe it isn't all that significant, but it would have been interesting to become part of the test.

Fires are such nasty things that happen all too often. I hope everything works out all right for you. It certainly looks like you dodged the bullet as far as the house is concerned. It could have been much, much worse.

Great Job! You should make up a couple of them and practice with them and then see if you could get a deer with one (any deer). I often thought it would be a great accomplishment to build a longbow and an arrow or two and take a deer with that kind of self-made archery equipment. Imagine how it would feel to take any deer with homemade archery equipment. I think I would be tempted to have even a doe mounted with the home-made bow and arrow hanging directly underneath.

What you could see was a little puff of white dust when the aspirin got hit. He threw them up himself so they weren't very far away from him. But still an amazing feat. This was a great show because I got to see it in person, and not just on TV. It was a long time ago but I believe it was at Creekside Gun Shop near Holcomb, NY. That place has been history now for quite a few years. Some of the things that these guys can (or could) do seem to be super-human. They are all instinctive archers and somehow internally between their brain and arms and fingers could pull off these amazing trick shots. But then think of what a Quarterback in football can do with an awkward shaped thing like a football with his target zig-zagging down the field and a pile of monster coming to destroy him. That's all instinctive too. Throwing a baseball is also instinctive. There are some crazy things that some humans can do without sight pins.

They had to run???? The last time I ran was back in high school. And as I recall that didn't last too long. And I was only carrying my gym shorts and a tee-shirt.

Here are some signs that some of you might find amusing (or useful).

I remember a guy that I saw put on a show with all kinds of primitive weapons (mostly archery). His name was Stacy Groscup. Read that he died in 2005, so the show must have been before that. He was shooting aspirins out of the air and shooting disk out of the air, and shooting his longbow from a prone position, if you can imagine that. He held the bow with his feet and shot flying targets that way. It was just one trick shot after another. He also used a blow-gun, and axes and hatchets, and knives. The guy was phenomenal. Anybody ever hear of that guy?

Now the question is, what would your group have looked like if you had been using a fixed 20 yard sight-pin instead of the EZV sight? Also, were you using that oval shape on the target to set your EZV to determine the yardage? And of course the final question is where will you find a deer with that convenient circle on its side? I know it sounds like I am just being a smart-assed jerk, but these are real life questions that a bowhunter has to ask when using that site under real-life hunting conditions. Is it really good enough to replace a fixed pin site?

I guess deer ticks must not have been all that much of a problem back in the old days. Those guys are getting up close and personal with those deer.

Hunting does kind of indicate that a part of us are in the category of predators doesn't it? That feeling of excitement and anticipation when a deer steps into range isn't quite the same as when I am out in the garden bout to pull a carrot. There definitely is something that mentally goes through our mind when we see fresh deer sign that is not really that different than when a wolf picks up the fresh scent of its prey. The chase is on. There is excitement and anticipation and need to secure that deer for food. It is our predatory instinct that comes from somewhere deep in our genetic make-up. We don't often think of it that way, and perhaps many do not want to admit it exists in humans, but it is something to be learned from the hunting experience.

Yes, something definitely kills them off, because we never see places that have infestations year after year without some eventual die-off. It makes you wonder if there isn't some kind of spray that could be developed to knock those critters down before early infestations get into such a large area.

I wonder how this record safety number stacks up as a percent of hunters and current actual hunting hours. The hunting safety numbers seem to improve as each year goes on, but then so does the decrease in hunter numbers. I'm sure no one has really done that kind of study, but I suppose before we start patting ourselves on the back because of our safety record, we really should know the rate at which hunters have declined. Each season I also keep wondering about actual hunting hours spent during the seasons. When it comes to deer hunting, it seems to me that each successive season (including opening weekend) seems to be getting quieter and quieter. Also after opening weekend, it seems like hunting activity drops off dramatically. A lot of the more popular days also seem to be getting to be 1/2 day events for many hunters. So it would be interesting to see if there is any correlation between improving safety records and diminishing numbers of hunters and hours afield. The above thoughts are assumptions and are only based on my own personal observations in my own limited hunting area and are not based on any official studies or statistics. Also, I don't believe there are any official studies or stats regarding this kind of hunter activity versus season safety numbers. So it is still just an opinion (and you know what they say about opinions....lol). But I just thought I would throw a little twist on how to view these record safety numbers that we are all so impressed with. What do you all think? What do your observations tell you?

Years ago, our club (Avon Bowmen) Had a club event at a place called Horse shoe ponds. We all had a blast. It took a while to figure out exactly where to aim, but I caught on after a few misses. I don't know why, but I never went again, but we had a ball. My two sons were member at the time and they had a blast too.

The interesting thing is that he really doesn't need to say HOW is is going to do these things. All he has to do is sometime through the campaign just say that he will. We learned from his first term that when he says he is going to do something, he does it. That was the novel thing about his presidency. He actually at least makes an effort to do what he promised as opposed to the Biden trojan horse.

I have not figured out whether the moths "move on" or just die off from disease or starvation. Does anyone know what causes the population to eventually collapse?

All these wildly different looking guns all basically function the same. But as you go down through them all, you can quickly figure out which ones the gun-banners would target first. Their thinking is 100% based on appearance with no real logic being applied at all.

Just throw it into the bow season. That's a good catch-all place to throw weapons that don't fit any existing definitions.

Long, but very interesting video. That guy seems to really know his stuff.

Yeah I guess that's probably right. I guess the problem is that I just don't understand the system that they use. I do understand the importance of the DEC recognizing the seriousness of the hunter decline. The whole management system of wildlife depends on always having an adequate number of hunters. You have to wonder if that will always be the case, if the numbers keep going in the direction that they are going.

Do they count every license purchased as being a different hunter? I actually have a whole bunch of licenses all by myself. Am I being counted as a whole bunch of hunters. My personal observations over the years From the time I used to stand out by the road waiting for the school bus, to today, I think I have seen an absolutely huge drop in the hunter activity. Does anybody ever make an attempt at calculating how many hunters there really are left? Has anyone plotted the decline over the decades? Is anyone trying to predict how long it will be before hunting is not an effective wildlife population control? It seems there are places where that is already the case. Is anyone looking down the road to figure out what to do when hunting can no longer keep wildlife numbers under control? They'll always be able to manipulate season lengths and bag limits, but there may come a time when even those measures are not enough. So, how good of a handle does the DEC actually have on the dwindling number of hunters, and what are they trying to do about it? Anybody have any insight into this subject?

The Kansas Department of Parks and Wildlife consists of just 7 people and can pass such things all by themselves? ......Seven people???? And the reasons behind it were just about as stupid as anything I've ever heard. They are worried about privacy issues on public lands? What nonsense! Sounds like something that might come to NYS.....lol.

Yeah, this is what I was afraid of. It is something from a forum that has very small distribution, and we are expanding the ideas stated in that opinion piece for them. Certainly we have to keep an eye on such nonsense, but we really do not have to give it further credibility and coverage by repeating it. That is how a lot of these things gain momentum and become a real live issue. If these ideas are going to get picked up and begin to gather some kind of momentum among people of authority who can actually make such nonsense become law, let's not be the ones that help it all gain public conversation. At least that's the way I see it. Let it fade back into oblivion where it started.

Yeah but I would like to know where the article came from. Do we know anything about the credentials of the author? Is it a person of any authority or just a letter to the editor from some PETA person. Is it some article off somebody's website? Or is it something from a high ranking Dec official? It makes a big difference as to how seriously anyone should take the contents of the article. One thing you want to be very careful about is to not elevate some random comment from some "nobody" and creating an issue out of something that nobody else would ever otherwise read. I'm not saying that it is not interesting and useful to keep an eye on what the opposition is thinking. Just be careful about elevating a single isolated random set of thoughts into a forum for spreading the idea.