Doc

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.

I never pay a lot of attention to trail cam anomalies. I have seen so many weird defects in trail cam pictures that I am sure mean absolutely nothing. I get all kinds of internal optical reflections and crazy bug patterns, bird fly-bys, and all kinds of stuff. On the other hand UFO does stand for unidentified flying object. So if you see something flying around that you cannot identify, I guess it is a UFO.....lol.

Hell, I don't have any idea what on those things is functional and necessary. I don't even care. My point is that I don't base the safety of a weapon on appearance anymore than when some gal shows up with a pink rifle. That is not a criteria for judging the fitness of a gun and I reject any argument that uses appearance in that way. As far as the DEC and what they want and need for money, keep in mind that they have absolutely no influence on the anti gun crowd or the politicians who really don't care what they ban as long as its a gun. Anyone who takes comfort in hunting as a reason why any gun won't be banned, needs a dose of reality. Those who wish to ban guns have absolutely no concern what the use of the gun is. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit if it turned out that most anti gun folks are also anti hunters as well. Don't ever feel real comfy because you think there is something sacred about hunting firearms.

I think I have found some pictures of them: http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEVyvpP0FTvgIA4nJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0ZG44cmVwBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDMwNF8x?_adv_prop=image&fr=mcafee&va=do+do+bird

Hey, you may very well be right. But if we sit back on the couch and don't try, I guess we know for sure how that will come out. I would rather have tried and lost than sit around and wonder what might have been if we had just got off our rumps and tried to do something about it. I really don't give up very easily and have to actually lose before I give up (and sometimes not even then ......lol). At the very least, I really don't see any percentages in trying to talk others out of putting up a good effort and nothing is really gained by trying to discourage those who do want to fight. I never have seen where that does me or anyone else (other than the antis) any good.

Those piles are still there, but they're going. Things should be in pretty good shape over in Canadice as long as you don't go up too high. I'll be taking a hike up our hill to see what things are like up there, later today. Canadice should be very similar. Looking across the valley here in Bristol, it looks like the top of the far hill is getting real patchy. We may have finally turned the corner. I hope so.

Ha-ha .... plan ahead. Where I am piling up that snow is a good 20' away from the driveway. The only problem that causes is that I will have to rake up all those stones from the gravel, off the yard.....lol. As you can see, I am able to do something that even the big boys with their pick-up trucks can't do. I am actually driving up the snow bank (very carefully) and pushing snow up and over. Another advantage that I have over the pick-up trucks is that down below along the straight section of the driveway, I can actually plow wider than the driveway by driving on top of the snow. Trucks would sink down in and slide down into the ditches if they tried that. So I can actually plow back farther that the trucks.

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. When gun owners start to accept subjective reasons for banning weapons (such as "gee, they look dangerous"), it is only a matter of time before any of our weapons can be deemed "dangerous looking" and be banned. Frankly that style of gun does not appeal to me either, but that really is irrelevant and certainly should not be allowed into the arguments of gun banning criteria. The anti forces must not be allowed to dictate what we buy based on appearance. And we must not be falling for that either.

Ha-ha .... I thought it had something to do with quadrunners. So it is a 6' platform that I assume you can mount a pop-up ground blind on. Sounds kind of neat. Get a look over the brush a bit without being seen. Looks like you got a heck of a deal!

I guess it all depends on how well you like being blind-sided by a law that was written poorly or incompletely. Do you doubt for one minute that you break laws everyday because you don't understand them, they are buried in the unending text of multiple volumes of law books, or are simply left up to the interpretation of judges and lawyers. Do you really think that is fair to those of us that try to abide by the law? Have you seen the pages of confusion and misunderstanding every time we have a discussion on conservation laws here. I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would be in favor of any confusion being purposely added to the laws that we are supposed to live under. Apparently some of you think that confusion and vagueness somehow protects you. I'm afraid that is exactly the opposite case. Remember the saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. It kind of sets you up when the laws are written such that you have no choice but to be ignorant of them.

This last snow storm that we had produced about a foot of the heaviest, wettest, sloppy-gloppy, snow that I have ever encountered. Other than having some problems with the plow shedding the snow, the Yamaha didn't even grunt. That's with no chains, and 9 year old tires. What a beast!

That is kind of where gun control has headed. The failed attempts at logic have now been replaced by appearance and emotional visual effects. Our laws and freedoms are now dictated by how people "feel" about the way guns look. Isn't that nice and fuzzy ..... lol. Function be damned, let's create laws based on how "nasty" a gun looks. I believe that a lot of that emotional crap is gradually being accepted by a lot of gun owners as well.

Quad Pod???? What's that?

Well, we already know of one post on this forum where apparently the shooter was doing exactly that. How many other ones happen without incident? How many others result in mishaps that we no one will admit to? That's why I am saying that the law should simply be finished off with "rest of the story". Why not. There are still a lot of people who regard bows as mere "toys" and will often use them accordingly.

I don't know, that draw length sure does look a whole lot longer. It looks like he almost gets a corner of the mouth anchor out of that, which I have never seen on a horizontal version. It's hard to tell from the shot angles of this video, but there was another picture on another thread that showed a side view. Basically, it looks like it gets as much draw as a regular vertical bow.