Doc

I saw a bit of scratching the other day when I went up the hill, but haven't heard anything yet. Of course we aren't exactly a hotbed of turkey population where I am. Should go out in the evening and try a few owl hoots and see what happens.

I stand corrected. I didn't really think of it that way. Well anyway boys and girls, that is your English lesson for today .... lol.

"The Justice Department has requested $382.1 million in increased spending for its fiscal year 2014 budget for "gun safety." " You know what that means? ..... They will be using our own tax money to come up with more ways to implement new harassment techniques to destroy our own rights. Isn't it wonderful?

Not to be too picky, but just for clarity, but the phrase is not "a mute point", but rather "a moot point. Not trying to be the grammar police, but just pointing out a common misuse of words. Might as well have something useful come out of this worthless thread. There, now I have done my good deed for the day .... lol.

Generally speaking, I am resigned to losing anything that I leave on state land. I have past experiences that have made this rule a necessary assumption. However, that rule does have exceptions. I have gotten away with setting out cameras in extremely dense areas where I have been able to completely hide the camera in a tree in an spot that was well above the normal line of sight. The tree was a very thick and gnarly old apple tree that was in an area where anyone walking through would normally be forced to walk stooped over, ducking and dodging wild rose and other thorny plants and trees. I have also had luck hiding cameras on the ground, again in places where they are not exactly in the line of normal sight. There is absolutely no way that I would simply strap any camera (cheap or expensive) to a tree in an open woods or field edge. For one thing, that attaching strap sticks out like a sore thumb. It just looks out of place and quickly catches anyone's attention that is walking by. No matter what you do, you are running a huge risk of having the camera stolen, but you can do things to make it not very easy for the filthy, stinking thieves that walk among us.

The point you are missing is that the "guys in the chairs" are the antis. That is something that maybe we could change if guys like you weren't so eager to side with them. Those "guys in the chairs" are only interested in one thing and that is votes. And if we show them a disorganized voting block with gun hunters picking and choosing which guns they are willing to sacrifice, while the antis show them total dedication, and resolve, guess who they listen to and cater to. We can't seem to get past this idea of protecting only those guns that we have in our closet. We never will stop this anti-gun activity as long as we are only interested in looking out for number one all the time. Some guys just can't understand that, or don't want the inconvenience of understanding that.

There really is no end to the accommodations that we can propose is there? If these are the kinds of problems you are trying to eliminate, just do away with all special seasons and hand them a gun..... end of problem!

I said it works quite well, I didn't say it was perfect. And certainly there are improvements needed as I noted in the previous reply. But you don't put out a match with a firehose. A lot of mistaken people have tried that approach over the years and most have resulted in absolute disaster. Certainly we should learn a little bit from history. It is funny to hear people say that since the DEC can't do the job, we should add some more even more difficult management responsibilities to their plate. What sense does that make?

That is not the way of the world right now. There is a love affair that almost approaches a religious level when it comes to technology. A gadget or gizmo is only good until the next one comes out. Hunting is merely a question of what implement can produce the best results, in the shortest time, with the least amount of effort. A modern hunting style that was created for the sake of challenge is now looked down on as a waste of good deer harvest opportunities that is too limited by the very tool that the season was created for. You may not like it, but it is a mentality that you have to accept and live with, and is not going to go away. You would probably be shocked to look into the future and see where all this will eventually lead us.

Whether you are talking bugs or deer, introducing predators usually turns out to be a very bad idea with all kinds of unintended consequences. Now you have another species that you have to manage for controlling the original target species. Personally, I do not have that much faith in the DEC to keep yet another species in check. Also, when you are talking wolves, you become subject to the "big fuzzy doggy" mentality that eventually takes their management out of the hands of the DEC and puts it into the hands of the bunny-huggers. We have a system for deer population control that works rather well .... the permit system. Perhaps rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater, we need to perfect the system we got and have the DEC emphasize a better understanding of local herd sizes. If you don't believe they have the ability to do that, why would anyone think they could handle the management of yet another predator species?

10 years of beating the hell out of it every winter and it still loves shoving that snow around. I thought about getting an old pick-up truck with a plow, but you can't beat the maneuverability of an ATV. I can put snow in places a truck cannot even go. You do have to bundle up because you are exposed to the elements, unlike a truck. I have been forced to go out there in below zero weather with high winds, and that wasn't a lot of fun. Also, when you are down doing the road front, it kind of sucks when the town plow comes blowing by and buried you under a wall of sloppy, salty, snow .... lol. I've had that happen a couple times. As far as power, I have never even made the thing grunt yet. In fact years ago, I used to plow with a two wheel drive Yamaha 285 cc and never ran out of power. I did have occasional traction problems with that one, but things had to be pretty ugly to give me any problems. The only complaint that I have is that I cheaped out on the plow lift system. Instead of going with a winch driven plow lift, I went with the manual. When you get into sopping wet snow like in the picture, the plow will not shed the snow all that well and I wind up lifting the plow and a ton of snow. That can get real ugly, real quick. That kind of takes all the fun out of it.

It's a 2004 Kodiak 400 4WD

I was just about to ask what that middle picture was supposed to be when I spotted the critter back in the background. It looks like that camera has some pretty good distance of motion sensing.

My point exactly.

Who knows what the future will bring. If you mistakenly think that the anti-gun people think that far ahead you are sadly mistaken. They are now focused like a laser on elimination of private ownership of all firearms. They really are not taking the time to worry about unintended consequences. My gosh, are you really looking for anything that they do to actually make sense or follow any form of logic? It's an emotional issue that doesn't require any logic or future planning. Have you ever talked to any of these people? They do not recognize the firearm as playing a legitimate role in conservation. The anti-gun and the anti-hunter people are joined at the hip in terms of what they want. They also have the resources to keep pecking away and convincing politicians that they have the votes to make it worthwhile to champion their causes. Gun-owners on the other hand couldn't organize a picnic without having it break down in arguments. As far as the hunter's cash, I can tell you that they understand that obtaining funds is no real problem for a proper liberal. It's as easy as simply demanding it from taxpayers. The only government agency that worries about the hunter's money is the DEC, and they have absolutely nothing to say about gun laws one way or the other.

That kind of sums it all up doesn't it? As long as you've got yours, the hell with anyone else. Well, I would suggest that you look at the prime thrust of the so-called safe act and other gun laws past, present and proposed, and understand the fact that their attacks on the AR style rifles was really only part of it. The rest of it was intended to make the use of any weapon or ammunition in private hands more expensive and more difficult to obtain. If you think for one minute that the constant march of gun and ammunition laws are only aimed at the specific guns that terrify you so much, you are one very deluded individual. Gun control advocates have but one goal which is the complete elimination of all guns in the hands of private citizens. They are very focused on that goal and making annual progress each year and are beginning to get support from those who believe that none of that could ever possibly happen to them and their guns.

That fur went on in 1972 and stayed on there ever since. Even I can't remember what was under there .... lol. It's all part of my camouflage except it doesn't work all that well anymore now that it's turning white.

Nope, broken down old croak on the wrong side of 70 ..... lol. Oh yeah, I don't do "run", unless I'm being chased. Never did. Most of the bulk that you see there is a winter coat inside of insulated coveralls. That's not to say that my doctor wouldn't like me to drop a bunch of weight, but I'm only about 180 underneath all that stuff.....ha-ha.

I got out yesterday and climbed up "Cardiac Hill". What a great day! I cleaned up the branches on the ATV trail along the way. No sheds, and didn't spot any critters. But then I was making way too much noise with the branches. Not all the snow is gone at the top of the hill, but it's down to just patches that can easily be walked around.

That is why when I went looking for a deer rifle, recoil was a prime factor in my choice. I always hated the fact that my old Ithaca 12 gauge beat me up so bad that I only took about 5 shots a year off the bench just to ensure it was still sighted in. Really, I think a person should shoot fairly regularly with their deer gun and have complete familiarity with it. Recoil will definitely make a difference in shooting frequency. Now, I actually drag my .270 out a lot ..... just for fun.

In answer to your question in the title, it doesn't make me feel too good. It's a forced confrontation to the uglier side of what we do. It also makes me feel that anyone who could kill that many coyotes must be living in an area where the population has a huge need for thinning for the benefit of their species as well as other species that have to coexist with them. That is what makes my first comment easier to accept.

As a matter of fact, I do have a choice of which state to live in ..... A choice made every day. And here I am in good old NYS. There are all kinds of reasons for that choice, and some of them are simply because I don't feel like undergoing the hassle of moving. Other things are the comfort of familiarity. Family location is another one. It certainly is not the political climate here .... lol. But then that is just one small aspect of the choice. My entire lifestyle has been built around this place, and in this late stage of my life, it doesn't seem to make sense to uproot myself and start rebuilding what I've already got. This is where I have been for most of my life and it seems fitting to finish it off here.

Yes, if only people would always do what must be done to coexist with each other, rules, regulations and laws would be unnecessary. It would be a great world, and I'm sure we could find some real useful productive work for all those judges and lawyers and cops to actually do. But unhappily, it turns out that we do need a legal system. And if we need laws, they should probably be written in such a way that lawyers can't twist them around to nail us when we don't deserve nailing. It would also be nice if they were written so that those of us that have to live under them actually could find them and understand them. Put everything pertaining to an illegal act in one law. That's all I am saying. I am not advocating writing laws that aren't necessary, but once it has been determined that a law is necessary, consolidate all aspects and descriptions of that criminal act into one law and don't put pieces of it here and other pieces of it there. That is not a recommendation to make it easier to enforce. That is a recommendation to make it easier to abide by making enforcement unnecessary. If I want to make it illegal to shoot closer than a certain distance to a house and also control what is in the line of fire, the new law should simply say that. I should not put part of that in conservation law books and put the other half in penal code law books. In my muddled up mind, that seems to make some sense to me.

Lol....

Our turkeys are still sitting around trying to figure out what that last snow storm was all about ... lol.