Doc

Ok, I wish I hadn't mentioned that part about the blaze orange. That is a subject for a new thread. I only included that because we know it does happen and relates to the scenarios that I described. What I am trying to stay focused on is that often quoted phrase that leads the list of safety attitudes taught in every hunter safety class, "Be completely sure of your target and what is beyond". It definitely is an important reminder, but how literally can you take that and still be actually hunting? See it is my thinking that the safety curriculum does not take that thought far enough. I think they need to describe logical choices and even have a bit of discussion on just what that phrase really means in the practical world. So I am just trying to find out how hunters interpret that concern about absolute certainty of what is behind the deer. I think it is something that should be discussed. I will say that he blaze orange discussion is always interesting, but that is not the focus of this thread.

Look I said my piece and I'm not going to get into it with you. I'm not into crucifying people or starting some arbitrary daily scrap just for kicks. I didn't join this forum for that purpose.

I generally can tell whether yes or no indicates a change from current status. If I am going to make a mistake, I would rather it be turning something down that can be resurrected in the future rather than creating something that never seems to ever be undone. I liken it to the legislators who voted for the Safe Act, and admitted that they hadn't even had time to read it. Far better if they had simply voted it down for lack of understanding rather than turning it into law which is now nearly impossible to get rid of. I agree that it would be nice if there was adequate advanced notice to get educated on them all. However, I had no idea that there were even 6 proposals, and the ballot was the first indication that I had of the entire listing or existence of all of them. The media always seems to pick one or two to report on and the rest get ignored. So if the ones that weren't prominent in the news weren't stated properly or completely on the ballot they got a no-vote from me. I can't in good conscience do it the other way.

I'm not sure that the super wiggle of high magnification doesn't promote a bit of a gun-version of target panic and boost up the correction and over-correction wobbles. Of course that is just theoretical, but either way, I am now using 9X (for the same reason as you) and I desperately need a shooting rest or I'll never have the confidence to pull the trigger. And for still-hunting, it would be nice to have something portable. On stand I always have something built in for a bench rest. At the very least I can get pretty steady in a sitting position, or even a kneeling position against a tree. But when still hunting, those options aren't always available or practical. I don't know, I am still looking for solutions, but I think one thing that has to be an improvement would be some good shooting sticks.

I don't know about other parts of the state, but I don't see the check stations that much anymore. And the very rare few that I have seen were not mandatorily required to stop in. For the most part they rely on deer processors to gather biological info. And of course they also rely on the flawless honesty and cooperation of hunters to handle reporting..... lol. That coupled with some black magic, hocus-pocus statistical activity.

I am seriously considering buying some shooting sticks. This rifle shooting is a new thing here in Ontario County and there are some new things to consider. I never deer hunted with a rifle before. But the other day, I lifted my .270 with the scope set at 9X, and I swear I never could settle those crosshairs. I used to have a 2-power scope on my shotgun, and it wasn't quite as sensitive. Leaning against a tree didn't send me into all that panic that you get from watching a 9X wobbling all over the place. So, I have to be thinking of better more steady methods of shooting.

I have a rule that I apply to these kinds of propositions. If I don't feel like I have all the info, or am a bit confused, I automatically vote it down. I wish our legislators would apply the same philosophy to bills that they don't have time to read, research and understand.

Wouldn't you expect to see some indication or staining of blood also? I mean it's not like he's going to clean it off by licking the wound. It does all look just a little too perfect.

Actually this is an honest question about how literally people take that phrase "Always be sure of your target and what's beyond". Anytime we have any discussions on hunting safety that phrase always comes up. And I agree with your first reply that if that phrase is taken absolutely literally, there is a strong case for never taking any shot. There has to be some point where that rule of safety is bent a bit and logic and judgment are used or there would be no hunting anywhere but on cleared and groomed organized rifle ranges with earthen backstops. That is something that no safety instructor ever gets into. I was hoping to get some discussion about where people draw the line. In fact, I have a specific case in mind regarding scenario #1. This being my first year with a rifle in Ontario County, I am looking at that field and envisioning a deer standing out there and am questioning whether that really would be a shot that I would take or not. Scenario #2 is just a standard shooting situation that we have all the time in the woods. But still fails the rule of being absolutely sure of the background. If you have a problem with blaze orange, I would appreciate it if you would start your own thread on that instead of trying to hijack this one.

I have to say that there are an awful lot of unpleasant personalities being exposed in this thread. It looks like there are a few that I definitely wouldn't care to meet in person and absolutely couldn't stand to be around for very long. Some of the arrogance and just plain unfriendliness probably is something I could have gone a whole lifetime without encountering. There are way too many self-deluded experts here that are like a bunch of jackals that simply lay in wait for any opportunity to flame any mistake that may occur in a topic. That seems to be their whole reason for belonging to forums. Who the hell needs that? I have to wonder just how much conversation is squelched because of the arrogance of some of these people who truly love to take advantage of someone's bad luck and do their best to make them feel even worse.

The problem here has nothing to do with the penetration. It has more to do with shot selection, or possibly "jumping the string". This result tells you nothing about what kind or quality of bow that was used.

Scenario #1: You are on the edge of a very long field. About 200 yards across this field, heading from the hill down across this field and into the swamp below, a very nice shootable buck has stopped and is standing. You are bench rested on a fallen log and the shot really isn't all that challenging with your trusty deer rifle. Unfortunately, directly behind and in line with this deer is a rather wide, thick, strip of brush. You carefully scan the brush in the hedge, and don't see any sign of any other hunters. You know the odds of another hunter being exactly in line with this deer is pretty slim. And most guys out there are clad in blaze orange, so anyone standing in there should be visible, but you have seen hunters dressed in full camo before during gun seasons. The odds are heavy that it is a safe shot, but not guaranteed. The words of your hunter safety instructor were pretty clear about guaranteeing the safety of the back-drop behind the target. Would you take the shot? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scenario #2: Three does came storming through the woods at about 100 yards. They no longer got out of sight when a nice buck following pulled up to a standing stop right in a clearing. It is an absolute "can't miss" shot. But behind him is a flat chunk of open woods with no real backstop, in fact, the ground actually drops down a bit and you can't really see what's over the rise. You haven't seen any hunters moving in that area all morning. Is that a safe shot that you would take?

How can anybody go way out on a limb supporting a system that they aren't even a little bit associated with. Are we supposed to just take it for granted that all the proper procedures are being accommodated simply because it is the great Cornell University and it is being supported by our infallible DEC? How is that track record working out for us? I go by results, and over the years, I have not really been all that impressed.

Off-hand shooting? ...... Not me. Can't do it. Too wiggly. Get me to a tree or something I can brace myself against then yeah, I do alright. But I never had the steadiest hand, and old age ain't helping that situation any. I'll be honest, when I set up a deer stand, I create all these nice horizontal log surfaces to bench rest the gun on. Works great. If I'm still hunting, I'm always hoping to have a tree or sapling or something to help steady things down.

I'm ready. I have the .270 zeroed in and ready to do reign hell on those critters that have been making a fool out of me all bow season. I have spent a lot of time shooting, and haven't once thought about flinching from the recoil .... lol. It used to be that if I didn't have that old 12 gauge sighted in within 3 shots, I was in for a long and painful shooting session. No more!

Yes, there definitely was something weird going on there. But imagine what an even more freaked out situation it would have been if the dog had gotten behind the wheel and drove off.

I'm not sure how I feel about birthdays anymore. In the 70s, they almost feel like something that deserves condolences rather than congratulations ...... lol. But anyway, I'll offer congratulations. Still being upright and on the right side of the sod, is an accomplishment for those of us who are heading into old age. It certainly comes with new challenges, but there are also new opportunities as well.

An even more interesting question would be whether anyone here has ever gotten a deer with the bow during gun season. I have had some rare occurrences when I have had them close enough in gun season that if I had a bow, I could have gotten the shot. But that really is a rare situation. To purposely leave the gun at home, I seriously doubt that I would have all that much success or confidence. I suppose it all depends on where you hunt. If you had exclusive use of enough land, you might find some deer that didn't realize that there was a gun season going on .... lol. But really, like others here, there is a time for everything. I am a two-season hunter and I do enjoy hauling out the gun when the time comes to do that. It's kind of my "revenge" weapon for all those deer that thumbed their noses at me during bow season by being just out of bow range ....lol.

Yes, but unfortunately it appears that the current culture of hunting is evolving into something competitive and judgmental and very vocal about it all. At least that is the sense that I get from this forum and some others. Success seems to be measured in numbers. I sometimes wonder how many hunters have been or will be driven from our ranks because of the belittling attitudes of this kind of mentality. Well anyway, this is getting way off topic so I won't go any farther with it.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin

The real problem of this proposal may very well be all the palm-greasing and favoritism that will accompany the location selection process. Could be that Andy's election coffers and those of the NYS Democrat party candidates may have some sudden increases in benefactors as a result.

I don't know, but I have always approached issues in a rather simplistic way. I never went out of my way to make things more complex than it had to be. In my mechanical designs, it was always a given that more parts always resulted in reliability hits. I look at this issue the same way. If I (or the DEC) has a question about who is for AR vs. who is against AR, the most straight forward way to get an answer is to ask the question. No need to turn it into any complex social investigation. The question is simple, and an answer to it shouldn't involve Cornell or any other statistical wizards. We find it so easy to justify taking a simple problem and expanding it into some mass of information collecting and massaging. It really does reek of government methodology. I will say that the more complexity you cloak something in, the easier it is to manipulate the outcome.

My proposal was that the Yes/no question be handled at the time of license purchase. The survey would then become a condition of getting your license. All licensed hunters would take part ..... involuntarily if they wanted to purchase a license. You can't reach all affected parties any more fairly and completely than that. As far as more complicated surveys, an internet survey with a lot of respondents is certainly more accurate than a miniscule random mail survey. Yes a few will be excluded on an internet survey, but surveying a mere 7000 respondents by mail will exclude a lot more than that. Here's the deal, we have this technology called the internet. Let's use it.

And they may shoot your butt off if they can't see you. By golly that happens every year too.

The basic question of the survey and the stated purpose of the survey was simply to take the temperature of hunters regarding the AR controversy. It is indeed a simple yes or no question. This is not a complex social issue except for those that wish to make it so. Apparently you are neck deep in this science and hence your rabid support of it all. And it is not my intention to try to sully or downplay whatever interests you may have in the world of statistics. But I am generally in favor of sizing the solution to the problem and not turning every question that the DEC comes up with into some kind of in-depth study. Plus, I am not in favor of making things so complex that there are ample opportunities for twisting and biasing the results. The first thing that came to mind when I saw the huge volume of touchy-feely questions was that there was enough mud being thrown in to spin whatever outcomes the DEC may want.