Doc

If you think about it, any human attempts at forcing deer populations to be more dependent on the efforts of humans are likely to be creating excessive concentrations of deer populations and populations that exceed natures ability to provide sustenance when the human intervention ends or becomes inadequate for whatever reasons that nature might provide. Wild deer are not livestock or creatures that should be managed via agricultural means. We may modify populations through hunting, but trying to boost those populations beyond what nature automatically can accommodate is likely not something that will in the end benefit the herd.

A few years back, I stepped into the back yard to find our bird feeders destroyed. One that was on a galvanized iron pole was bent down and the feeder was opened like a can of beans. Another plastic niger seed feeder was all chonked up with the seed removed, and I assume consumed. So, my house (a raised ranch) sits at the base of a wooded hill with only a short 30 foot wide back yard. I fastened a pulley and cable arrangement between the upstairs kitchen window and a tree up on hill so that everything winds up approx. 12 feet in the air, and put the feeder out on that rig. It is like the old clothes lines that they used to have in the cities back in the olden days....lol. So, I can pull the feeder to the house, fill it, and then wheel it back out. And so far the bears have not figured a way to get at it.

So, might it help a bit if you were to spray down the camera with some product like Scent-a-way or something? From the video, it looks like it is the scent that is the last straw for them, and what causes them to bolt. I like the idea of mounting the cameras up a little higher. Don't let them get their noses on it. It would also get the camera out of their direct line of sight.

Well, just to play devil's advocate for a minute, I have to wonder if feeding deer might possibly create an unnaturally higher deer density than the already inadequate habitat can support. As horrific as the video is, one has to wonder how getting more deer through a winter that is exposing a situation of excessive numbers of deer already is going to keep from making conditions far worse in subsequent years. What do you think? Would feeding deer every year have an effect of elevating deer density every year to a point where when you do get one of these ugly winters, the numbers collapse catastrophically when the supplemental feeding suddenly becomes insufficient. Here is a scenario that I remember reading about once. This kindly old lady began feeding a couple of deer that hung out in her yard. In almost no time at all, she had dozens of deer showing up. She tried valiantly to keep up with the growing numbers, but they were breaking the bank, and so she had to stop the feeding. So, what do you suppose happened to all those deer that she had saved, and that she had artificially enticed and concentrated in that one small area? Just a few questions to think and talk about.

This is a video that should be made mandatory viewing for all of the anti-hunting activists so they could see one of the alternatives to hunting. Damn, I am not much of a softy, but some of those scenes were very hard to look at. Thanks for the link.

I never was real big on still-hunting with a bow. I just can't do it. Can't get close enough because basically, I'm clumsy. And the older I get, the worse I have gotten. Whatever little amount of "sneak" that I might have ever had, it's gone now. Gun hunting is different, because I don't have to get up on them so close, but with a bow it is strictly stand hunting. And that is done with my Matthews MQ-32.

I don't lose sleep over it ..... I've got my 12 Ga. hanging over my headboard.....lol. I think it's a much better situation to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Oh now see .... there you go confusing the issue with facts. You are not supposed to notice those things. But I'll bet China still has a lower murder rate than those cities .... lol. Well, that's true if you don't pay attention to the murders committed by the Chinese government themselves.

You would assume that he would take your wallet and then wish you and your child a good day as he walked down the street whistling. I'm not sure you can make that assumption these days. I don't know that it is a simple no-brainer kind of choice. But when I think of self defense, I generally am considering home defense. When I am dealing with someone intent on home invasion or worse, I want the maximum force available. That sawed-off shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot kind of comes to mind. Right now I have a 12 gauge pump to handle that duty should the time ever arise. I would imagine that simply hearing that shotgun action racking in the total darkness would likely send any intruder (armed or not) diving through a window (open or not) to get the hell out of there without the need for a shot ever being fired .... lol. To me that is the issue with unimpeded legal choices of gun ownership. I do believe I have the right to save my life and the lives of those under my roof and I don't want that right impinged by someone's emotional idea of what I should own and what I should not. Yes there are already that kind of interference already on the books, but I don't want to see that encroachment added to. It's not necessary. It's not useful. And yes it is something that I feel is worth fighting for.

I am telling you that you haven't seen anything yet. The more horrific mass killings will be done without the use of any guns at all. It's just a matter of time. You get the right kid(s), with the right mentality, that comes across the right web-site, and you will see a new chapter written in terms of teenage mass murderers. While we are all sitting here anguishing over whether a certain rifle has enough of the nasty-looking appearance features, there will be a news headline that will have us wondering what the heck we were even talking about guns for. It's a gruesome prediction, but one that logic tells us has to come. It will carry extra hurt when we consider that we could have provided the security measure to prevent it, but decided that it just wasn't worth the cost.

Well, there ya go ... lol. Lower gun ownership, lower murder rates. The answer is simple ...right? Get rid of guns, lower the murder rate. Harass the hell out of anyone who wants to own a gun and the murder rate goes down. Prohibitive regulations and laws work great for that ....right? Let's do some more of that! Great argument for outlawing or legally discouraging private ownership of firearms. It all would go great in a handbook for those that want to disarm the U.S. public. You know, I'll bet China probably has a real low murder rate. Why don't we emulate them? Sorry, but that line of argument only shows where gun-law promoters would have us heading.

I'm thinking I am one of those that will never get it. If I had to clear a classroom of life as quickly as possible, I definitely would choose a sawed off semi auto, or even a chopped off double barrel loaded with 00 buck. The area of coverage is greater. Precision of shooting required is minimal and each shot covers a lot wider area than a single projectile with each pull of the trigger. Even if I have to reload more often, the shotgun will paint an entire room much more completely. In fact all this emphasis on shooting speed and volume in a classroom with the shooter standing in the only door, is really not a realistic criteria for maximum damage, when you stop to think about with all the emotion stripped away. Another point is that other than LOOKING very military and scary, there is nothing any more efficient about the AR style rifle than any clip-fed semi auto hunting rifle (which by the way is exactly what the AR style rifle sold to the public is). That phrase assault rifle is something that the anti gun crowd has successfully hung on a gun design that features the appearance but not the true function of the real military style assault rifles used in warfare. It all makes for great anti-gun press but does not reflect reality. Full auto rifles in private hands have been super-heavily controlled for decades.

The NRA came up with a solution that all the anti-gun people poo-poohed because it didn't fit in with their agenda. A security officer added to the staff and stationed at the gate with a lock-out button within easy reach would be a meaningful defense that would protect against any weapon of choice including all versions of guns or any other paraphernalia of destruction. But as it turns out, the gun opponents do have a price-tag that they put on their kids. There is a cost in dollars to child protection that they are unwilling to pay. As far as your so-called solutions, I am assuming that you are talking about solutions that have a chance of working. Solutions aimed at trying to predict what variety, color or nasty look of the gun that might be used, is not a solution at all, but rather a wishful guessing game. And I guess that your reference to the number of years since I have been out of school is to imply that somehow common sense has a shelf-life, and somehow after your kids have graduated that you retire from society and lose contact with what is happening down at that institute that my property tax money helps to support. Well, I can tell you, and hopefully you will eventually learn this, that isn't the case. Is there something that I have missed that excuses today's issue of teenage murders? Did I miss something over the last bunch of decades that would somehow explain why kids are even considering mass murders at school. Is this secret information something that only young parents are privy to? What is this hidden Ah-hah! information that is only available when you have kids going to school? I think that young or old, the issues involving school security are no more obvious whether you have kids at school or not. No, I would hope that there is no age group that has decided that some problems are acceptable simply as collateral losses and that it is good logical thinking to go after a surrogate implement instead of the actual cause or some sound action of real protection. You don't like the appearances of armed and trained security guards safeguarding your kids, well compare that vision to the sight of a section of school building blown to pieces because we decided to save a paltry level of tax money. That's the reality of the future. Those are your real choices. Yes, I say put a barrier between those who would do such horrific acts and the children that we value. Cost be damned. And let's stop trying to decide which semi-auto weapon looks more dangerous or other goofy and arbitrary ideas of flailing around trying to do something meaningful. And by the way, even with protective measures in place, lets ramp up efforts to find out what has caused these thoughts to enter kid's minds. It is much more pervasive than simply calling it mental illness. There is some kind of insidious disease moving through our society. Maybe it's time to look for a cure rather than simply throwing up our hands, banning a bunch of weapons and accessories, and patting ourselves on the back thinking we have actually accomplished something.

It seems like you accept an awful lot just based on societal evolution. Don't you ever take that one extra step to question why things are sliding downhill? Perhaps you will still wind up with the defeatist attitude that you have, or perhaps with a little energetic thinking and maybe even a national activity related to investigations of why kids are going berserk might actually be a step toward working on the causes instead of always flailing at a symptom. It's not a case of clinging to old ways, it is a case of not being so beaten down that your first thought is to throw in the towel everytime there is something that really should be faced head on.

Is it really easy for a teen to buy a gun? I mean we keep saying that, but I'm not so sure there isn't already laws or store policies against selling guns to minors. I know last time I bought a rifle (pre-Safe Act) I had to fill out a book's-worth of personal information. They did do a background check (age verification in that also). So what you are talking about already was in place. Trigger locks, I think from an education standpoint everything that can be said about that has been said, so I'm not sure where you go beyond that other than turning it into a law, which you say you are not asking for. The same thing with gun safes. Volumes have already been written about those, so other than writing laws, where do you go with that. So, I guess I'm not missing your point .... apparently you don't have one to miss.

Yeah, there is a way to get very close to 100% reporting. I call it the "1 license issued - 1 report required" concept It applies whether you are successful or not. A computer sort to ensure that if you got a license or permit, there is a report in the database (successful or not). No report will get you a warning and if you still do not comply, it will get you a ticket. So, what if you only get 90%? .... That's likely better than what they are doing now. Plus they get some revenue for those that can't seem to comply. Oh and by the way, all those guys that are running all over the place gathering reporting data can be busy doing something not quite so clerical. They have seen the idea, and don't like change. Their words: "If it ain't broke - don't fix it". That's their attitude, so forget anything new ever being implemented.

Is the number down significantly? I wonder if that is indicating a smaller population, or a retreat in habitat quality, or some other factor?

Well, I'm not sure that the system is working as it has to, but one does not generally expect living conditions to reverse over time. It appears that people can afford more "stuff" these days but way less time to enjoy that "stuff". To me that is a reversal in the quality of life. Somewhere, I got the idea that life was supposed to get better as years and decades and centuries go by. It seems to me that I am seeing a reversal of that in many cases. We worked hard to achieve a 40 hour work week, and it wasn't all that long ago that some companies were experimenting with a 4 day work week. I think that those were moves in a positive direction. Now, 6 day work weeks (and long days at that ) are becoming the norm (sometimes paid, sometimes not). To me that just doesn't seem to be a move in the right direction. That looks like a retreat in the quality of life.

Yeah, I guess it all depends on how you define "living wage". I understand that it is almost written into the Constitution that all U.S. citizens have the right to the TV dish, and their cigarettes, and booze, and twinkies and potato chips. We can come up with all of the excuses and scenarios that we want, but the fact is that you don't do anyone any favors by trashing incentive, keeping them in a dependent state, and performing behavioral modifications in them that make them accept and seek out and require hand-outs. We are taking whole segments of the population and killing them with kindness. I have to ask, what happens when it finally arrives at a situation where the resources simply aren't there to support this burgeoning welfare state? The path we are on, we are certainly rushing headlong towards that scenario. Something other than continuing with increasing the size of the welfare populations and hurrying that day to us, needs to start being considered.

Is there anybody who really believes that the school mass killings never happened before because firearms were so difficult to obtain? Does anyone believe that no one ever walked into a school years ago and mowed down a bunch of kids because of magazine capacity was too small. Does anyone think that it is because there was no black guns that look nasty that kids-killing-kids has been happening only recently? You know what? It wasn't anything about guns, ammo, or accessories that has made any of these relatively recent atrocities happen. If there were no guns at all, these troubled kids and those of the future will be taking lessons from our terrorist buddies in the news, and will do the job even worse with homemade bombs. And by the way I am guessing that that is going to be the next generation of shock activities that these troubled minds will be soon conjuring up. There comes a time when we have to stop being distracted by means, and start looking more constructively at causes, because those bent on doing evil, will do evil. When you eventually find a method of controlling one weapon, sure as hell, they will up the ante with an even more destructive method. Perhaps it is time to start wondering why those kids a couple of decades ago (and beyond) didn't drag their old squirrel rifle or deer shotgun to school to knock off a bunch of kids. There is something a lot more fundamental than just weaponry at work here and if we don't get a handle on it, things will be happening in our schools that will make the Columbine-style shootings seem miniscule in comparison. And likely, they won't involve guns at all. But all this gun attention is taking the spotlight off the real problems and the politicians and the anti-gun people are likely very content to simply keep picking away at gun rights as their solution, which is basically doing nothing but waiting for the next generation of mayhem.

Do you see where this kind of thinking eventually leads when you take it all to its logical conclusion? Make everything about gun ownership enough pain and anguish and eventually the problem solves itself. Throw enough hoops to jump through, and hurdles to jump over and eventually the guns will simply go away. And none of these harassments on their own, taken just one at a time, seems to be much of an encroachment. But the wise gun opponent knows, when taken together, these things all add up to enough harassment that a large percentage of potential gun owners will simply give up. Make gun ownership painful enough and gun owners go away. None of our gun banning buddies are going for the gold anymore. There is very little talk about simply making all guns illegal anymore. But the mass of little gun ownership harassment proposals and laws will eventually do the same job.

We have created a lifestyle. We have put in place well-intentioned systems to enslave entire segments of our society and turn them into house-pets that the politicians (taxpayers) keep around the house to supply a guaranteed block of voters for perpetuation and growth of this kind of thing. Yes we can get angry at the recipients, but save that anger for the politicians and voters who put these systems in place. We have entire generations who do not know any other life. They are now stringing together several consecutive generations that have all become dependent and expectant of this kind of lifestyle. We did it to them. We continue to do it to them. We have destroyed incentives to get out of that lifestyle. And all the anger in the world will never put a dent in what we have created. The worst thing is that we feel so good everytime we create and implement one of these welfare benefits. It makes us giddy with thoughts of being so magnanimous. Nobody ever does any follow-up thinking to see the results of our cruelty.

It's all a delayed April fools joke. I know that on a couple weather related threads I mentioned the possibility that this could be one of those Spring and Summers where gardens would crap out from cold and wet because of this persistent pattern that we have had all winter. Well, of course I was just "supposing" with no real scientific knowledge. And yet the pattern continues. Now I am starting to wonder.

And having listened closely to all those generations and followed up with personal observations of what is actually going on around us, I have concluded that they have been absolutely correct. The little piece of news about chimps/humans in this article simply puts an exclamation point on all of that. And I am not saying that my generation hasn't been complicit in this evolution of mankind either.

From the above link http://www.dec.ny.go...door/47738.html : "Our system for calculating deer harvests was audited by a private group of professional statisticians in 1990 and was found to be very solid and produce highly reliable harvest estimates. In 2006, approximately 45% of successful deer hunters in New York reported their harvest. While the reporting rate is lower than we would prefer, the combination of harvest reports and more than 15,000 deer checked by DEC staff in the field, yielded a 2006 harvest estimate that was statistically accurate to within ±1.9%. Ten years ago, when reporting rates averaged 60-65%, harvest estimates were accurate to within 1-2%. Our accuracy has not changed, because the methodology and statistics involved are sound." Does that sound like someone saying, "trust me"? .... lol. Exactly how does a "private group of professional statisticians" determine that harvest estimations are accurate within 1-2%. I have no doubt about the accuracy of election statistical predictions, because eventually they do verify those predictions with actual vote counts. But here is a system that has no verification ..... ever. We do not do deer counts or even attempts at deer counts, so there never is any verification .... even periodically. I am not saying that their methods are bogus because that would be just as dumb as saying they are accurate to within 1-2%. I haven't done a deer count either to see how the harvest altered the numbers .... LOL. But it really isn't all that unreasonable to have a few doubts and maybe be a little less confident than the almost bragging style of comments above.