Doc

Ok, it's been a year or two since we trotted out this oldie but goodie, and we do have a crap-load of new members, so let's get updated. Why do you hunt?

Ok, I make it an absolute habit to pick up any trash and litter that I find in the woods, shove it in a pocket or my pack and haul it out. But, I will draw the line at picking up a dirty diaper. That just ain't going to happen.

It's pretty much a non-issue for me. Of all the guns that I have, the only one that doesn't have a scope is my Model 94 30-30 Winchester with the top eject. I love scope, and whenever I am costing out a new gun, mounts and scope are all part of the cost. Of course gun manufacturers are not tailoring their gun features after my wants and needs, so I have to assume that my preferences have become the norm. I will say though, by not even having the mounting features for a front sight, you certainly have eliminated the versatility of having iron sights if one has their heart set on that alternative. Why not at least mill in the dovetail so that a front sight could be put on for those that want one?

I'll tell you another form of litter that is getting more and more prevalent with each year. Those stupid mylar party balloons that everyone gets so happy seeing floating off into the wild blue yonder. Where the heck do they think those will wind up. Do they think that just because they can't see them anymore that they evaporated or instantly decomposed. Well, they don't evaporate and they don't decompose. They come down in the woods as litter.

By golly, they are a pretty healthy looking pair. All we have around here are mangy looking things that you wouldn't want to touch even with rubber gloves......lol. I have seen a couple of them that I swear don't have a single hair on their tail. So what do you all think? ...... Are they really a scourge of the turkey population? Do they really actually catch all that many? I know they would likely eat eggs just like about all of the critters out there, but as far as actually snagging down a live turkey, anybody ever see some actual evidence that they are real efficient at doing that?

I think a good guess would be coyotes. They will not hesitate knocking off even a full-grown fox if they get the chance just like they will eat the family pooch. A den of fox pups would be like stopping off at Dunkin Doughnuts for a snack. The lower jaw bones are a bit of a mystery. There's not much real meat on the lower jaw. In fact probably more fur and bone than meat, so I can see it being left behind.

Inside my house is myself and my wife, and in the early years, there were two kids. Those are pretty valuable to me. And then there is the value of an early detection set of devices that brings you out of a relatively helpless state of sleep and allows you a few extra minutes to grab your home defense weapons and perhaps place a call to 911 to put the cavalry in motion for some potential assistance as a last line of defense. I don't doubt the value of such measures, I just have to learn to ditch my procrastinating ways. But I sure do applaud those forward thinking people who take the appropriate steps.

When I was a young-un, I worked at Olympic park at the golf ball driving range. I learned about getting wacked with a golf ball when I tried retrieving some of the balls while we were still open. I would have been a lot happier if they had been knocking out Ping-Pong balls ..... lol. Some of those guys were pretty good at hitting what they aimed at when they had a live moving target out there. I am a quick learner, and never repeated that stunt.

You can watch weeks of work (planting, weeding, thinning and other assorted versions of back-breaking work) destroyed, and removed, whole rows at a time in just a couple nights, courtesy of old Mr. Chuck. You can also see foundations undermined by their digging habits, and if you have a tractor or livestock, the holes in the fields can be murder, including bent up leg-parts if you happen to step into one of their holes. That's why farmers have a constant battle with the prolific fat-ass critters and always welcome you with a big broad smile on their face when you express an interest in shooting them.

Ha-ha-ha...I have no doubt that a lot of muzzleloader deer are taken illegally with other weapons. But don't forget that there are small game hunters out there legally blazing away at bunnies and such. That may give the impression that there is a lot more poaching than is actually the case. As a side question that is asked purely out of ignorance since I do no use a muzzleloader, but, is there any telltale features of a muzzleloader wound that looks any different than a shotgun slug wound, or is that just some wishful thinking? I don't know but I was just wondering if maybe the DEC enforcement guys might get a break in catching some of these poacher-types that may be out there.

Yeah, back when arrow speed became the altar at which archers worshipped, this argument had its heyday. All the armchair physicists came out of the woodwork and began calculations and tests and eventually decided on the archery truth that the heavier arrow penetrated more than the light fast arrow. It's not immediately obvious because speed gets involved too in the energy fomulas. But in spite of that, it is the mass weight that rules the day on impact and penetration. Proven both mathematically and empirically. Of course if you really want to get into it all, there are other factors at work such as broadhead design, bow and arrow tuning, and bow draw weight and other factors. Don't expect the old Browning serpentine broadhead to help out penetration. And don't expect an arrow that enters at an angle to the shot direction to help penetration a bunch. And don't expect a 35# draw weighted bow to deliver as much penetration as a 60 pounder. Ha-ha ..... flu-flu fletching won't max out your penetration either .... lol.

Re-reading the article, I see they are limiting the details of the legal status of the deer strictly to those animals and animal parts that are the subject of a case involving poached animals. My first mistaken take from scanning the article was that the change was a whole lot more broad in interpretation of animal ownership. It does appear to be limited to ownership of "poached" animals. Perhaps it can be argued by some talented lawyer years down the road to have more widespread meaning regarding wildlife ownership .... I don't know. But all I could find in the article and the article linked within, was that it was a very specific case involving a very valuable state record set of poached antlers (worth a pie of money), and the proper way to legally dispose of ownership of those antlers.

We have a chunk of state land that I hunt that is constantly being used as a shooting range. Unfortunately, there are no designated areas or back-stops or anything that makes it safe. And also unfortunately I have seen guys set up arbitrarily with no consideration about what is behind where they are shooting. I have even seen them shooting into areas that have switch back public access trails that run a few yards beyond where these guys had set up their targets. So there is the problem with being so damn confusing and secretive about the rules of target shooting on state lands. Unless posted in big obvious letters, people will use state land as unofficial shooting ranges. The free access, and ready access will always make them preferred places to shoot. The DEC should stop pussy-footing around the issue and take a bulldozer in each parcel and bulldoze up proper backstops and cleared out areas to serve as safe places to shoot and make any target activity confined officially to those spots. It becomes a win-win situation for everyone, and all the confusion goes away.

I don't think there really is any significant opposition to using a crossbow as a hunting weapon. I think the controversy comes into what seasons they are allowed to be used. And that is a controversy that will likely still be here long after I am gone. There are still those that think that compounds should never have been allowed into bow seasons. When I consider the element of legal precedents and how that single inclusion has the potential to tear down all limits to what is included in bow seasons, there are times when I agree with them ..... lol. I remember the objections to compounds back in the day when they were being pushed, and the "precedent" argument was the primary crux of the opposition. Yes, I was one of those young whipper-snappers who mocked and ridiculed those crazy-sounding predictions and grabbed up one of those miracle "pulley-bow" machines for myself. Standing here today and looking back, it appears that those old-timers were probably right after all. Even the idea of having firearms deer hunting during an active bow season (which used to be an absolute no-no) seems to not be as absolute and concrete as it once was, as inroads are being explored and implemented there as well. It's all about sport evolution and precedents begetting more precedents. Times, they are a-changing as they say, as bowhunting continues to lose it identity. Nobody wants it to be about the weapon anymore as hunting emphasis continues to march toward less challenge and more instant gratification. You cannot go against a cultural or attitudinal evolution that values ever-changing motives and goals. Likely we should simply eliminate all special seasons and lump all weapons together and save decades of arguing and painfully slow evolution toward exactly the same result.

So many of the weasel cousins have that same body shape. Size is one thing that varies quite a bit from species to species, but there is nothing in the picture to gauge the size. But even though weasels themselves have many color variations, that solid brown color especially at the belly makes me think that it is not a weasel. The face shape seems all wrong for a fisher. I'm pretty sure it is a mink.

Ha-ha ..... none of the guns, bows, crossbows, knives, or any of the weapons look or perform at all like they did back when they were first invented. It's even a stretch to call any of them the same weapons as what we use today. I think the old, "which one was invented first" argument is kind of irrelevant to anything.

Another thought..... If ownership of wildlife was changed to the landowner, then hunters trespassing and taking game of your property, posted or not could be charged additionally with theft as well as trespassing ..... right?

I have always accepted the notion that wild game is a public resource unless reduced to possession through legal hunting means. It would be interesting to see a debate on the concept though. Ha-ha ..... if it was changed to individual ownership, could a farmer video deer or bear coming off your property and then damaging his crops, then submit a bill for damages to you? Or maybe when the deer passes through the hedgerow, he now becomes the property of the farmer. If we can just find people with firm opinions on the subject, this will be an interesting discussion.

Outdoor alarm systems would be great at our place. especially if the sensors were down at the entrance to our 1000' driveway. Since the driveway is the only dry way in or out from the road (because of the swampy area), any incoming (or out-going) activity has to be on the driveway at some point in time. However, I have to wonder about constantly being driven crazy by critter traffic. That whole area in front of the house is infested with deer, and I have to believe that an alarm system that monitors the driveway would be a sure-fired pain-in-the-neck real quickly.

Way back in the olden days when I was still working to save Xerox, we used to go up to Webster Park this time of year and fish off the pier. Had to throw everything back because they wouldn't have taken kindly to us dragging fish into work ..... lol. No, we didn't get fish on every cast, but we did have some pretty good days. I loved hooking some of those pigs in open lake water where you could have a little tussle. Used to use a blue and silver Little Cleo. Used to feed the lake bottom a lot of Little Cleos too with those spoon eating boulders at the bottom. But anyway there is a spot if you live anywhere's near there. And then, if you know anyone with a boat, the warm water out-flow of the nuke plant was one heck of a great trout & salmon fishery. The warm water would draw in the bait fish and the trout & salmon would be in there feeding like crazy things. And the fish didn't glow too much .... lol. They hardly would make a geiger counter tick very much at all.

Two Feet of Snow

None of these are from this year, but are the results of similar winters. And then there is this one that is just plain weird

Any good site addresses on this subject would be greatly appreciated. It would be nice to be able to find one iron-clad answer that is not subject to some kind of interpretation. Something that I could run a copy of and have around the house when that subject comes up. I haven't been able to find any such thing on the net.

If you can learn to shoot your bow with it on, a ghillie suit is about as effective a set of camo as you'll ever find. Works great with a shotgun, but you did mention archery, so there is that concern about shooting a bow without getting interference.