Doc

Well look, I have been told there is an ignore button on here. So why don't you go off and check it out. Who the hell needs your whining and random attacks and crying about how you have difficulty in reading. If you have a problem with me then either leave or find that ignore feature because I can assure you, I ain't going nowhere.

Well then here' something that will put you out of your misery. Since everyone's posts make you sick, why don't you do yourself a favor and everyone else too and go somewhere else. Nobody is mandating your presence here.

When did you become the spokesman for the forum? Why don't you just go back to tooting your own horn about how great a world traveled hunter you are and let these threads progress without your disruption. And try not to throw your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back. I might also suggest that you take some remedial reading courses since you seem to have a difficulty in that area. Sorry to have thrown such an overwhelming challenge at you.

Is this something tat Tom King said ..... lol. How many threads do we need running at the same time about deer farms?

If we have reading challenged people that have a problem reading more than some quick one-liners, it is likely that they wouldn't understand what I was trying to say anyway. The fact is that it is not a subject that can be broken down into little tiny sound bytes. Those that find it too challenging are not required to read it. Like I say it would likely go over their head anyway. But it addresses a question that is constantly asked. If no one wants to hear the answer, they never should have asked.

Well then it sounds like it is time to be firing off a few letters to Mr. King expressing some very heavy disappointment with his attitude and leadership. If he insists on being a shill for the anti-gun forces, he is not the person for a leadership position in a pro-gun organization.

I'll be honest about my feelings regarding hunter density. The story is two part. When it comes to gun hunting, I want as many guys out there as possible. My success generally is dependent on hunters, on their feet making deer travel escape routes which my years of experience have helped me locate. That is a deadly combination of pressure and ambush. It works well in gun season because while escape corridors can be way too wide for bowhunting, I have found several pinch points that confine their travel to very good gun range. During gun season, you will often here me whining about the lack of hunters and hunter movement. So far, I have never seen a gun season where I felt there was "too much" pressure. Bow season has always been a whole different kind of thing. Because of the nature of the bow, I cannot have deer running around totally spooked and ignoring all the patterns that I have carefully learned during my scouting activities. I have to know where the deer are likely to be and when. No, there are no guarantees, and some years I do a better job of scouting and interpretation of sign than others, but my success or failure is based solely on my own efforts. I do not expect someone to drive the deer to me. I do not count on random interceptions based completely on luck and the fact that someone or some group has pushed deer in my direction. I try to keep my shots down to a very reliable 25 yards and under. You cannot do that if you are counting on random lucky opportunities. So if the hunter density increases significantly, scouting, patterning, and success goes out the window as conditions start approaching more of the gun season types of scenarios. Now this doesn't mean that I need a huge area exclusively to myself. And it really doesn't mean that an occasional accidental interference from another hunter will never happen. But there is some threshold where the pattern interrupting encounters cross over from the rare and occasional to constant and frequent. The latter is the condition of bow hunting that I would consider excessive density. And that is the condition that I fear with the insertion of crossbows into bow season. I also am guessing that crossbow hunters may be more mobile hunters particularly if they are of heavy gun experience and training. That too would have them doing much more disruption of patterns and more frequent hunt-busting. It could even create premature nocturnal movement in the herd which is death for a bowhunter. Now I'm not sure whether any of this is selfishness or not. I consider it a differentiation between conditions required for bow hunting and conditions required for gun hunting, and I hate to see the two intermixed because I do not believe that the two can successfully coexist and still maintain the bow hunting quality of the hunt. That was the primary reason that I got into bowhunting. It was the one style of hunting where I could successfully use skill and close understanding of local deer movements to apply some intellect to my hunting instead of just the random acts of blind luck of having someone accidently push a deer in front of me as is the case for gun hunting. So I took on the very demanding challenge of learning the use of a very difficult weapon and entered a hunt that was limited in numbers of participants because of the demands of the weapon. The complexity of efficiently using the weapon kept the population of participants in balance with the requirements of the sport. Certainly if that all was frustrated by massive influxes of hunter density in the woods, I would really have no reason to go out bow hunting anymore. It would then be time to confine my hunting to rifle and use a weapon that was truly fitted to the random encounter style of hunting. Holy crap. This thing has turned into a novel. But so many people ask how the insertion of crossbows could possibly impact my hunting, and I thought it was about time to answer that. That is the honest answer as to why I have opposed crossbows in archery season. I do not do the majority of my hunting on property that I can lock up and keep people off if the numbers spike ridiculously high (as I am convinced they eventually will). I do not have 6 million acres of public land that I can bury myself in to escape whatever radical changes that crossbows may cause in hunter density elsewhere. Yeah, technically it could be called selfish but to me it is the attempt to preserve a way of hunting that now runs the risk of being trashed. I suppose it's not really a huge deal for me because I likely don't have that much more time in the sport. But as long as I am participating, I feel the need to protect what has been so central to my life for five decades. Selfish or merely the defense of a cherished style of hunting .... who knows?

Yes, I definitely did think that was a strange and aggressive response even for you. A lot of crap over some manufactured issue in your mind that I still don't even understand.

Ha-ha .... It's already been done ..... http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-down/article_017a720a-56ce-11e1-afc4-001871e3ce6c.html

Is it possible that some creative editing was performed in this news article? Could it be some context was sacrificed in the interest of bias?

Unfortunately, the idea of walking miles and miles back to find the land that is too far for the hoards to reach. Doesn't work anymore. The word is out. Too many magazine articles on the subject. In fact you might even find hunter density less next to the state parking lots ..... lol. Seriously, I have a quad trail that takes me most of a mile up a very steep "killer hill" (and I use that term specifically because of a neighbor that was a victim of that hill). The hill is not "hands and knees" steep, but it does feel slightly uncomfortably steep even on an ATV. From the end of that hill climb, I park my ATV and then start walking deeper in until I am well in excess of a mile and a half from the road. Believe it or not after all this ATV and foot travel, when I walked over onto the state land to my stand, I have watched some of these guys huffing and puffing past me sweating like a pig and dragging 5 tons of stands, climbing stix, back pack and all kinds of equipment. Unbelievable! That kind of thing is not really all that rare. The word is out.....climb far enough back in and all the hunters disappear and all the bucks are wall-hangers. Well, sadly that's not really true anymore on either count ..... lol.

First of all let's straighten out the mis-statements about numbers of bow hunters today vs. the number of bowhunters at any time in the past. Bow season participation has never been a declining activity and has been increasing steadily in numbers of bowhunters since it's inception. There was never a time when there were twice as many bowhunters as there are today. I am repeatedly adding emphasis to the "bow" part of hunting because it is strictly a bowhunting issue that we are talking about here, with crossbow introduction having nothing to do with gun hunter stats. So I just wanted to clear that up before anyone took that "twice as many" statement seriously. As relates to the discussions here that stat is irrelevant. Adding crossbows into bow season will have no positive effect on gun season participants. So we will continue to see gun hunter and overall hunting population slides. I think that one issue that keeps this crossbow rift going is this idea that everywhere, there is an unlimited amount of hunting land and absolutely no reason for excess hunter density anywhere during bow season. If I hunted only land that was being way underutilized, or that I could simply keep other people off of by decree and with posted signs, I might have a different opinion on crossbows too. In terms of crossbows adding to the overall hunter numbers, I'll believe that when I see it. Yes I think there will be a significant shift from gun hunter to crossbow hunters. And that's all it will be is a redistribution of season participants. If I am wrong about that, I will be happily surprised and freely admit that I was wrong. But unfortunately I believe I will be proven correct.

Do not confuse the real world with the world of a defeatist. Yes, if they have convinced you that you are beaten before you begin, then I guess you are. Another thing that can send chills down the spine of a politician is even if we come close and they can imagine that given some other circumstances perhaps in the next elections, they will become the anti-gun politician that feels the wrath of the voters in ways that will cost them their jobs. There is something about a dedicated and determined large block of voters that shapes the political attitudes of the future even if they do not lose their election. Also do not ignore the fact that some of these guys have other factions beyond just gun owners that hate their guts over any number of issues. It's not just Cuomo vs gun owners. But on the other hand if we have people preaching doom and gloom here and other places, it quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as more and more gun owners stay away from the polls. Such defeatists attitudes merely do the work of the antis for them.

So your answer is to simply throw in the towel and wait until they come to take the guns? You're absolutely within your rights to do that, but please forgive the rest of us who think gun ownership is worth a bit of a fight.

It's a delicate balance trying to incite an apathetic bunch like gun owners to political action without creating some kind of unruly mob that frightens all onlookers. Absolutely we have some fringe extremists in our ranks and some people that actually scare the rest of us with their rhetoric of hate and violence. We've seen it on these pages. BUT.... advocating silencing and abandoning demonstrations and backing off on our calls to action are not the kinds of answers we need from our leaders. I am happy that he acknowledges that we have some people who go too far. It is good that he is concerned about that and I wish he had ideas on controlling that end of the reactions without declaring retreat. I must say that I am not super impressed with his statements. It is going to take some convincing of gun owners that we have a dedicated movement that they should join. It is necessary that people be convinced that this is a movement that can win and not just an exercise in sticking their necks out and then being abandoned by the leaders of our gun advocacy organizations at the very time when their inspiration is most needed. We have a real serious test of gun owner's rights coming up in a mere 7 months. We have a need for gun owners to come out to the polls as a unified, dedicated, one-issue block of voters. That is unprecedented, and now is not the time for any forms of retreat. What is at stake goes way beyond the Safe Act. We need to send a message to politicians that will last for decades. If we show signs of flagging dedication from our leaders, there is no doubt in my mind that we can look forward to a massive flurry of draconian gun laws that will make the safe act look very mild in comparison. I've said it before. Cuomo has handed us a once in a lifetime rallying point. We cannot afford to squander it. King's remarks have been a giant step towards doing exactly that.

So what's the deal guys. Are you getting this hobby to pay off yet? Any spots on TV? The quality and content are certainly as good as anything I've seen on TV, plus the subject matter being eastern coyotes makes it a very rare critter and surroundings to see on TV and is something I'm sure that a lot of viewers have been looking for. You guys obviously know what the heck you are doing, and I would expect instructional videos would be real popular. We do have some uniqueness here in the northeast that requires different tactics and procedures than those instructional videos from the westerners. Things like scouting, call selection and usage, set-up, all are things that would help out a lot of predator hunters and I'm sure people would pay good money to get that kind of help.

You are right, but acting recklessly is a subjective issue that can only be ascertained by a court usually after a tragedy has occurred. It seems rather easy to take opinion and judgment out of the equation simply by writing the law completely and without loopholes. Write the law correctly and cases become black and white, and can be resolved before something tragic happens. Leave the law in the hands of interpretation, opinion, and judgment, as well as a reliance of two or more interdependent laws, and you have just created an un-necessary problem.

$20 at Bed Bath & Beyond. I had to have it ...... Now I've got it ....lol. I just finished off munching down an apple. The thing works flawlessly.

That is one of the inconveniences of living in among a lot of people. We have accepted that inconvenience when it comes to guns, and there also has to at least be an attempt made to legally control those that would be idiots with their other weapons. If I were king, the law would be amended to add a clause that makes it illegal to shoot at an occupied or occasionally occupied structure or occupied yard within some given distance. For bows, I would think 100 yards would be adequate (not a guarantee, but reasonably safe). I would have that interpreted as: if your back is toward a neighbors house (shooting away from his property line) the entire width of your property would count toward that 100 yard minimum. If your property width is less than 100 yards, you should be looking for a public archery range or some state land or a friends property where those conditions can be met. Let's pretend that you look out your window and find that your neighbor has set up a couple of hay bales the legal 50 yards from your house, or your yard where your kids are playing. Maybe even lined up with the sandbox and swingset. This new setback law as currently understood, would leave you no legal recourse to put a stop to that (until something real ugly happens). Your kids would have to be barred from playing outdoors every time your neighbor decided to shoot his bow. Is that a reasonable situation? Somehow, what is in the background behind the butt, has to be part of the law wording. It never has been, and probably never will be But it should be! To me, I don't care if deer are eating every living piece of vegetation or whatever, having an law that protects unsafe situations to the point where homeowners lose the use of chunks of their property is simply not acceptable.

Ha-ha ..... You call it "bickering", I call it discussion and opinion. Anytime you have someone trying to shove their way into the established domain of others, don't ever expect it to happen quietly. Aggression always results in conflict.

And that is what made you fly off the handle? Gosh you really do seem to live in a spring-loaded, pissed off position all the time don't you. Maybe I might suggest that if you want to conduct a private conversation, use the messaging system. That way you can dictate exactly how you want the conversation to be conducted.

Wow! They did a heck of a job on that mount. I like it!

He was asking about situations and what could be done, and I answered him with the fact that the situation doesn't matter as long as you are not on the neighbor's property and not shooting, and what can be done by the neighbor is basically nothing. I'm not sure why you are getting all screwed into a knot over that. Is there anything there that you disagree with, or are you just intent on arguing over nothing (as usual)? get a grip, and save your random attacks for something worth attacking over....lol.

Good ol' Johnny one-note .... lol. Whenever you're stumped for a response, you keep trotting out the same old word. But actually, what I said was absolutely true and as far as I know is a perfectly legal scenario. I'm simply illustrating that proximity doesn't effect legality until you fire a weapon. Why do you care anyway? You aren't one of those that would actually do that are you?....You aren't, are you?....lol

Actually, as long as the neighbor doesn't own the property, there is nothing he can do about someone sitting in a stand even at 10' away from his house, and even if it overlooks the guy's bedroom. No law is broken unless an arrow or gun is fired. You certainly have to wonder about the mentality of someone that would do that ..... lol. But legally he always could do that with or without the new law.