Doc

What do you mean? What is the general reaction there?

Yeah, it wouldn't have taken a whole lot to make it crystal clear. You know for people with tons of legal education and lawyers that are supposed to be great word-smiths, these guys that actually compose laws sure do get it wrong an awful lot of the time.

You know there is hardly a law that you can look at where you don't come away shaking your head with a whole bunch of brand new questions in your head. What they need is a few more whereas's and therefore's and hence-forths, and thereby's .....lol.

Political power is a numbers game. The more potential voting hunters that a politician has in his district, the more he is likely to vote favorably to issues friendly to that demographic. And then there is the benefit of maintaining license purchasers simply from the aspect of greater DEC resources. Other than those two factors, I probably fall into that attitude of "who need them?"....lol. But those are two very powerful factors that makes their continued participation important to me.

Ok, forget that stupid caption. How about the picture itself? I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a few minutes to clean things up and make the picture just a bit more artistic and presentable. However, I do have to admit to having taken a few careless pictures over the years that weren't exactly posed in the most tasteful situation. My bad! But a major difference is that I do not publicly post those pictures and actually no one other than myself ever gets to see those pictures. As much as I may prize the kill, if the picture does not reflect that pride of accomplishment, it isn't worth showing.

That may be, but I hate to see them hurried out the door. Sometimes the longer you can keep one of these fence-sitters around the more opportunities that have to get re-motivated by friends and other hunters or other life circumstances.

And again, there are ways to handle those considerations, none of which should involve the kinds of tactics being used here. If there is a legitimate case of animal abuse (and I did purposefully use the term "if"), there are legitimate ways of going after those abuses. This idea of accepting internet campaigns that ignore legal avenues is really a Pandora's box that we may some day find ourselves on the wrong side of.

Here's the problem ..... The people responding to this thread are members of a hunting forum, and probably more into hunting than a lot of people that are not here to respond. Those are people that may just vote their displeasure with what they may consider to be over-regulation, by bailing out of the sport. Yes, some people will say so-what, but a little thought will answer that question.

What the heck is the point? What is going through a guy's head that makes him think that sort of thing is acceptable or funny. Like any group of individuals, we do have our share of strange personalities. And like it or not, these kinds of shock pictures with asinine comments attached do reflect on us all. It's just irresponsible, totally unnecessary and acts to make hunters and hunting look pretty ugly.

Is it therefore inhumane to keep cheetahs, lions, tigers, bears, primates, etc. in cages in a zoo? Are we prone to pick and choose what critters we get all teary-eyed over just because of their public relations benefactors have been more successful in building sympathy. I mean, we have been sold on the intellect of these things to the point where we think they are almost human in emotions and thought processes. I guess there are no people romanticizing the intellect of other animals. Look, I am not supporting animal cruelty, but we have laws and organizations to watch-dog over those situations. If laws need changing, let's do that by all means. But to start up an internet campaign against third-party individuals and groups conducting their craft is in my opinion a tactic commonly used by animal rights groups, and a tactic that I personally don't like to see them having successes with. It lends legitimacy to these kinds of tactics, and we should not be surprised if our support of that sort of thing some day comes back to bite us in the behind.

I have a Bushnell that does exactly the same thing.

Ok, I am curious what the purpose of a "rest-period" would be. What is the hoped-for result? I view anything that pushes seasons farther out into the year as being a bad thing. As has already been mentioned, the later parts of the year, bucks are starting to drop their antlers, and in many cases, later hunting seasons promote mistakenly shooting bucks that are thought to be simply antlerless targets. So all that aside, can anyone explain what the purpose of the "intermission" would be?

First off, the wacko comment is about any of the animal rights groups, and I will not apologize for that opinion of those people. I have zero tolerance for any of their views. Secondly, While a lot of people write these people off as ineffective and a joke, I do see them making headway with the public, and anytime I see things of this nature, yes, it does concern me. And so, not being able to find details behind this story I thought that maybe somebody here may have run into what all the hub-bub was all about. It sounds like there are not a whole lot of people that know much more about it than me. I'm always keeping an eye on these animal rights activities because I think they are worthy of keeping an eye on. And, I really do not change my views based on species.

Of course I tried, but the news stories that I read said nothing about any lawsuits or shady dealings and talked only about the internet campaign coercing singers to cancel their performances. The only reasons given was a reaction to this movie entitled "Blackfish" that implied animal abuse relative to the performing whales. Apparently you have seen something that the several sites that I consulted did not have. And that is the reason I asked. Sorry if I inconvenienced you in some way.

Internet Explorer 11 is experiencing the same problem for the past several days. No ability to paste anything to this site at all. Also possibly related, I no longer have the ability to upload pictures. Everything goes through the process just as it always has except when I hit the attach button. The site is ignoring that button. Also, when attempting to change font color, I highlight what I want to change, click the text color icon, and the highlighting goes away. I have not tried changing fonts or text size, but I would imagine the same thing will happen with that too. It really doesn't like any actions to highlighted text. These are all problems that have begun approximately a week ago.

Anybody have any idea what this fiasco at the Florida Sea World is all about? I keep getting some very vague news reports about some kind of animal rights campaign that has some fairly high-powered singers cowering after being coerced to cancel performances at sea world. Apparently somewhere involved in the middle of all this is some movie entitled "Black Fish" that chronicles the death of a whale trainer at Sea World, with what looks like a whole lot of animal rights editorializing included. It sounds like there has been an internet campaign begun to sign petitions and apply pressure to performers that has caused them to cancel engagements there. Like I say, it is a bit confusing because news coverage focuses more on the entertainers than it does on the events leading up to this internet pressure campaign. My primary interest, given my slight understanding of the situation, is that it appears to be a large victory for the animal rights crowd that has brought one of their causes into the public, and it has found resonance with a large chunk of the people. And of course as a hunter, I do get a bit concerned when these wackos start making headway with the general public on anything. So I just thought that maybe somebody here has a better grasp of the details of the situation.

As a take it or leave it, all or none package, I would be against it. The answer is "NO". That's not to say that there aren't some things that I like listed there.

Well done Grizz. Was that a NY deer?

Most likely, the only thing that force me to quit is when I can't climb that stinking killer hill behind the house anymore. However, I believe the "one buck rule" would maybe drop out some hunters that are already looking for an excuse to quit. I don't think there are that many people that would actually be affected by that change. I also believe that the requirement to take your kill to a check station would be unenforceable. People that hunt their own land, and butcher their own deer, probably are not going to be too likely to hoist a deer up onto their car to drive a bunch of miles to a check station. The result? .... Even fewer deer being reported. Also, don't be looking for any instant resources being given to the DEC to man all the check-stations. That ain't happening.

Of course that doesn't mean that your neighbor won't slap a lawsuit on you when you back into his Japanese maple does it or run over his pooch while you are trying to be a good neighbor?

So, what kinds of liability are you getting yourself into when you plow out other people's driveways? If you tear up their curb-stones, or landscaping are you legally obligated to repair or replace the damaged features?

That's the problem. When you start as just a favor, the first thing you know it becomes an obligation and you start hearing things like, "When are you coming over to do my driveway?" or, "geeze don't ya think the snow is getting a bit deep in my driveway?" People don't realize that snow removal equipment is only good for "X" number of years and if you use it two or three times more than you would for just your own needs, you have just cut the time before you need new stuff accordingly. I own a 4-wheel drive ATV almost exclusively for the purpose of snow removal, but I will say that plowing all winter long with one of those little guys is bordering on abuse. I would really like not to have to buy too many more of those things over what's left of my life .... lol. They ain't cheap!

Yeah, I guess I'll be doing some Christmas shopping for myself too this year. I'll head out town one of these days and see what Tractor supply has got on their shelves. I know exactly what I'm looking for (but I'll be looking close at the tread. That's one step ahead already. I should look into those snow/ice grippers. They just might save me from winding up in a snow drift, head down with feet sticking out....lol.

I hope these guys know what they are doing and are not issuing this hog protection law based on some goofy un-proven theory. I have to also wonder if in this age of tight budgets, the DEC will ever really spend the time and resources to actually try to trap them. Because if they don't, and don't do it vigorously, with this new hog protection law, nothing will be being done to stem the spread of these critters.

To be honest, I really haven't see that kind of boot in any of the stores since I bought those. They come up to just below my knees, They have rubber bottoms up to just above the ankles and then some kind of a water-resistant canvas top. Inside is a full length felt liner that has never broken down like other felt liners I have had in the past. They lace up at the bottom, and have a draw-string tie at the top. Weirdest looking things that I've ever seen. I got them at Central Tractor (Tractor Supply). And they had tags on them indicating they were designed as a "snowmobile boot". The only problem is that they were a bit skimpy on the aggressiveness of the tread, and they have worn down so far that they're getting a bit treacherous for these steep snow-covered hills. My concern is that I will never be able to find replacements that will be as good. But I'm afraid that I'm going to have to try, or risk breaking my neck now that the old ones have turned into "skis".