Doc

I only need two deer per year to fill our venison needs anymore, and I really don't care what gender they are. Most years, I get what I need and have a heck of a good time doing it. I'm not as picky anymore because I just don't have the endurance that I once had. Thank God for my ATV ..... lol.

I have to say that I am a bit disappointed when it begins to feel like the DEC can't head to the john without first taking a survey. It's nice that they ask on matters that are not biologically sensitive, but when they begin to appear that they use public opinion to establish major game management decisions that should be scientifically arrived at, then I think somebody is just trying to shirk responsibility and dodging blame for mistakes and wrong decisions. We hire these guys to do a job, not to conduct surveys to let majority opinion of the uneducated dictate management. Are we getting to the point where we might as well abolish the DEC and just hire Cornell to do surveys to handle the management decisions?

I have to believe that there is no difference between 1000 acres fenced and 1000 acres not fenced in terms of challenges and difficulties and an even playing field for the animals involved. In fact the same thing may be true of a 500 acre parcel. I suspect that what most people are having difficulty with is the fact that more and more land is being locked up in this way (the old access problem). Or perhaps it is the idea of the guide services that usually go along with fenced operations (I don't want people doing that part of the hunt for me either). Or maybe it is the food source manipulation, or the stocking aspects of some high fence operations. But on a large enough parcel, I think the fence itself vs. fair-chase is really an over-blown controversy.

I have absolutely no idea why I have never owned a semi-auto anything. It just never got put on my list of criteria for purchasing a new gun. Probably because it is not a feature that I ever thought was worth the extra dollars. I guess there might also be a thought in the back of my head that any additional complications of mechanisms usually eventually results in malfunctions. Those are not really very concrete reasons to exclude things from the selection process, but for some reason, I just never considered buying a semi-auto.

I do remember a bunch of years ago when it appeared that our youngsters in the US vs. foreign future foreign work forces might eventually suffer a disadvantage in matters of technological innovation and advancement, there was a conscious effort talked about and implemented to convert our role models and heroes to technological wizards. It was talked about that our children should be looking up to computer experts and those that are brilliant in the world of technology. There was even talk of establishing a technological Olympics of sorts. Much of that came about. Competitions were established, and TV programs were begun that glorified more mental heroes, and I think that we finally got what we talked about. Kids worshipping technology and those experts in those areas instead of the sports heroes and the Arnold Swartsinegar (spelling???) and such. It was a good direction to be steering the attention of our future grads and probably still is for the good of our financial leadership and national security. But there are some side effects that we are maybe not all that comfortable with. even though that is what we needed and still do, those nasty side effects still come with all of that. Unfortunately the original natural childhood pastimes have become incompatible with the new chosen emphasis. That is just the way life goes, and maybe we just cannot reverse it all. And I imagine that we really don't even want to reverse the new religion of technology if we as a country want to remain competitive with the rest of the world.

I have had a couple of black hunting buddies myself and knew quite a few others that were just as crazy about hunting as I am. I also have met a whole pile of white people who have no use for hunting and some who are openly hostile to the idea. So I'm not so sure that the base premise of this thread is valid. Is there really any purpose of targeting any specific race when it comes to promoting hunting? I don't think so. I don't think there is any natural or cultural bias against hunting centered in any particular race of people.

I am guessing that not all high-fence operations are created the same in terms of fair chase. It is not the height of the fence that makes for a canned hunt, or an unfair advantage, it is more the size of the area inside the fence and the human interfaces with the animals inside. If you're dealing with animals that have had too much contact with the owners and are stocked critters with names, you are probably dealing with a hunt that is not all that "fair chase" in nature. But, if you have a thousand or two acres of wild land and a truly wild population inside, you probably would be surprised how often you will return empty handed. Take away the fence and all is well?? Hardly. There are plenty of ways to condition the prey animals to cooperate for your hunting success without using a fence at all. Animals are a slave to their food sources, and many hunters have the ability to manipulate those food sources without ever using a single piece of fencing. I think the primary purpose of fencing often has as much to do with keeping trespassers out than keeping deer in.

Not for an old goat like me, but I have to say, it looks like a lot of fun.

Yes, it is very sad and perhaps just one of those unfortunate things in life that can happen when you have a critter in the wrong place at the wrong time. No it likely was not the bears fault, and likely will never happen again. But we are the dominant species, and if we feel that some action must take place, I absolutely understand the sentiment. I know what the response would have been if instead of a dog, the victim had been a child.

So far, I have successfully used the 150 grain, .270, Winchester Powerpoints on deer. They do the job and group well at 100 yards. However when they are finally shot up, I will not be buying any Winchester ammo again because of a problem that I had with 2 boxes of them. Given that it took them a long time to respond, and it cost me an exorbitant amount of postage to send them to the factory (which was not reimbursed), I won't be doing Winchester ammo again. I don't like surprises when I open the box, and I have absolutely no tolerance for the sloppy quality control that let these visibly messed-up cartridges through to the consumer. I now have a couple hundred bullets all built up that I believe will do the job, and probably better. I am having good results off the bench with these: Hornady 150 grain SST bullets 50.4 grains of Hodgdon H4350 powder Remington 9-1/2 primers I have no doubt that these will do in a deer just fine, and probably over-achieve in terms of destructive power. If I were to do anything different, I might back off a little on powder and bullet size (maybe to 130 gr). There was some loss of meat that probably wasn't necessary. I will say that the two deer that I got with my .270 were not exactly challenging shots. One was at just under 100 yards and the other was at about 15 yards. I honestly believe that in the kind of woods that I hunt, anything over 100 yards is an unlikely shot opportunity. We do not have ag fields or long open areas where you can shoot long distances.

I get these kinds of "visits all the time. We have a long driveway, with an offset down at the beginning so that the house cannot be seen from the highway out front. For some reason a lot of people just can't resist what looks like a single lane country road heading back into the base of the hill, and they just have to drive up to see what's there. I think it is all quite innocent curiosity, but who really knows? It absolutely could be people with some sort of malicious intent. It certainly is not unheard of out this way. I believe that rural crimes will eventually escalate in numbers when the creeps of the world realize just how isolated we rural people really are. I am a good 20 minutes from any law enforcement headquarters. Pretty much, I am my only protection or law enforcement that is available in any practical sense. In our case, we are well armed and quite capable of defending ourselves as long as we are aware of any sort of intrusion attempts, but there definitely is a vulnerability here if careful scouting and execution were to be used for an armed intrusion. I keep saying it over and over and yet keep procrastinating...... I do need a good alarm system.

Ha-ha ..... Kind of like a trip to the meat market. I can dig that.

I once shot a deer that I heard at about 50 to 75 yards. Yes I heard it, because of a very loud wheezing sound that it was making. She was coming through with her head down in very obvious distress. It turned out that the wind-pipe had been severed by a slug without a whole lot of other damage. Obviously a neck shot attempt. Another deer had the lower jaw blown apart and swinging from the deer's head like a dangling piece of hamburg. Another attempted favorite shot, the "head shot" gone astray. I don't understand why people purposely go for these low percentage, limited sized shooting areas. I'm not sure whether it is some belief in their shooting prowess, or some kind of macho thing. But I know people who will pass up broadside shots where that huge heart/lung area is completely exposed, for a risky head or neck shot. Yeah, I know about the "messes up less meat" argument, but when you mess up a deer with high risk shots, you likely will wind up with no meat and an animal condemned to a slow lingering death. Again sorry for taking the thread off topic, but there is a very obscure similarity in that risky shots can also include using calibers that may not be completely satisfactory with similar results to risky shot selection. Ok, rant complete.

It might do the job, but I would first try to drop the weight down on your bow as much as possible and see how that works. You can't beat archery equipment for building back archery muscles. By the way, back those limb bolts out carefully and make sure that you stay within the minimum design draw weight of the bow.

Not to take this thread to far away from its topic, but I do have to point out how much non-lethal area there is in the neck. Don't take my word for it, consult the following link: http://huntingny.com/forums/topic/6770-deer-anatomy/

Grow- You asked the question as to whether the DEC has taken into consideration the ugly winter that just passed or the potential of consecutive ones that may come when they put in motion their grand and glorious deer management manifesto. Well, unless they have a well polished crystal ball, I don't see how they could read future events. Also they seem to have such a panicked fixation on slamming the deer population, that I think they see whatever devastation that might have been caused by local weather impacts as well as the resulting increases in predation as a welcomed bonus. But, in fairness, I will say that they did have the foresight to make some of their policies dependent on the prevailing conditions of the herd and habitat as each hunting season approaches. Do we have confidence in their observations, calculations, conclusions, etc.? Well that's a conversation for another thread. But my understanding is that many of these elements of the deer management plan are contingent on need that they feel exists at the time of the printing of game regulations. So if you have confidence in the principles and science used by the DEC, you have to believe that their efforts to crash the deer herd are warranted and justified. I am not offering my opinions on that here in this thread, but I will say that I generally have a skeptical nature.

Coyotes are a lot like the TV ads for medications. Each one comes with a long list of terrifying and life altering side effects. They can solve a problem of over population of deer, and help to bring nature more back in line with a balanced situation. But along with that comes the side effects of turkey predation, livestock and pet predation, and the fact that without adequate control of their own populations, they themselves can become forces that unbalance the natural coexistence of many elements of nature.

If I had no other hunting opportunities, perhaps I would consider it. I watched that program on TV about the urban/suburban bowhunters (Chasing Tail), and frankly, they got involved in some rather ugly problems that I would just as soon not be confronted with. Plus, that sort of "public" hunting lacks a lot of the necessary ingredients of any hunts that I would like to be a part of. Atmosphere, nature, solitude, and all those things of that sort, are essential to the quality of the hunt ..... for me. It's a personal view of hunting that I am not trying to talk anyone into or promote. It's just the way I look at the activity and what I personally need to enjoy it. I will say that it is fortunate for city dwellers that all hunters don't have my attitude toward hunting and the environment that I personally choose in order to enjoy the experience. And I have to admit that it is a good way to fill the freezer. I personally would never try to discourage anyone from that kind of hunt. I believe that it satisfies a need and handles a very difficult management problem for urban/suburban dwellers, and thank heavens there are those that will do it. It just isn't for me.

Pretty nice pictures there that you are painting with your words. Each thing that you mentioned sparked memories of things that I have done or continue to do. Well, perhaps my generation may be a bit before the snowboarding thing, but I do have great memories of a huge old homemade bob-sled that we used to come screaming down through the woods on when I was a kid....lol. You have hit most of those things that have been highlights of my life, and hold a very special place in my life. But I have to include a couple other things. There is that feeling of pride and accomplishment at coming up to a trap-site and finding a fox, mink, muskrat, coon, beaver, and yes even a possum in one of my traps. Those days wallowing through the swamps with the water just inches from the top of my hip boots. Or helping my grandfather (my trapping partner) skin out the day's catch. Just one more set of things to add to my outdoor exploits. Oh yeah, and don't forget those hikes that have very little real purpose other than to explore and see and experience nature at her finest.

I wonder if it smells like old sweaty socks in there.

But bear in mind that this is only good news as long as we keep Republicans in control ...... a condition that could (and likely will) change with future elections. Remember.... this is NYS, and the gun lobby has a very short attention span. My take on it all is that this is a way of sidetracking efforts to make real, more permanent changes to the law.

I suffered with that old shoulder-mangling, 12 gauge Ithaca Deerslayer since 1969 when I bought it new. Never could practice with it. The best I could do was the annual 5 shots off the bench just to check out the scope. If I didn't get the pattern I wanted, that meant I was in for a very ugly day of shoulder abuse, because about that time I would be developing a pretty good flinch.....lol. Today, I can go up to my range up on the hill and shoot tiny little groups until I just get tired of it, and in the last couple of years I have already put way more rounds through that .270 that I ever did with that 12 gauge in 46 years that I owned it. Whatever you get, it should be fun to shoot.

Yup, and that's exactly the way it should be. One hunter - one vote. His vote is as valid and appropriate as mine.

I'm a do-it-yourselfer too. Even our moose trips were done mostly by studying topo maps and planning out our own meals and camping gear. Yes, at the time, Ontario Canada required by law, that you hire an outfitter. And actually that was handy for guaranteeing all the tags that we wanted. But after the first night of arrival at their camp, we headed off on our own with tents and canoes and never saw the outfitter again until we got back, lugging our moose quarters into his walk-in cooler.

I went through this wrestling match a couple of seasons ago when deer hunting with rifles became legal. I wanted a caliber that had sufficient range and energy, but yet could be very comfortable on a bench for an hour of steady shooting (As opposed to that stinking 12 gauge that has me flinching after 5 shots). I settled in on the .270 Darn comfortable round to be shooting and yet enough bite to put the deer down. I could have dropped down to a .243, but the recoil on the .270 was so light that I really didn't have to go any lighter.