Doc

I do have a procedure that I incorporate into my still hunting (gun only) that makes it almost seem like an all day "sitting" hunt. I move very slowly .... I mean very slowly .... for about 15 minutes to a half hour and then sit for about the same time. Always moving into the wind or across the wind. I repeat that over and over throughout the day. It's kind of like an all day moving "sit". It avoids the boredom of watching the same trees and bushes all day and helps to maintain sanity.

Yup .... Some kind of sling or strap or attachment to my back-pack is definitely on the agenda for the near future.

Why do they always look pissed-off?

That's exactly the one that I bought yesterday, except I got the "bipod" version. I spent a lot of time checking out the two side by side. There was a pretty substantial difference in price. But it seemed that the extra leg made a big difference in steadiness. Apparently I am lot more wobbly when it comes to right and left movement ... lol. That "trigger" style adjustment is great. It works real smooth. The bipod is a lot more bulky to carry and that was one of the reasons I spent so much time figuring which one to get. But in the end, I opted for the more steadiness of the extra leg.

It sounds like most of the mid-day sightings are linked to the rut. So far this year, the only big bucks that I have seen are on my camera with pictures that were taken between 9:00 pm and 4:00 am.

No you don't ..... or at least I don't. Tell me, how does stomach contents taste? .... lol. Not everybody considers the same parts of a deer edible as the next guy. Yes we pick and chose. I don't eat kidneys .... some do. Am I wasting venison? Probably so, and to me it's ok. Some guys don't want to pick and pick at the neck until every last piece of meat is gotten, I fully understand that. Somebody doesn't like liver or heart, that's up to them and their likes and dislikes (I happen to like liver and heart).

I like the idea of practical in-the-field demos during hunter safety training classes when this is practical. It can display in understandable terms just what is trying to be put across by the safety rule of verifying the background. It IS a judgment call on almost any shot that we take in the field. And I think it is good to pass along a few visual examples for the students to base that judgment on. That was my concern. Simply stating that hunters should be absolutely sure of their target and what's behind it is really just glossing over a very important point. Their needs to be a few guidelines, a lot of discussion, and some general guidelines that define what is really meant by the "what's behind the target" part of that rule. Obviously we are not talking about earthen backstops with completely cleared foreground and background. The fact is there really is some odds-making going on in the hunter's head with every shot. It is interesting all the different answers that were given for these two scenarios. That's the way it is in real life too. Everyone interprets safety in different ways.

Well, for most of us it will be a new experience, and if some of us are a bit nervous, I think it's understandable. I think those nervous thoughts and feelings will fade with time.

I have done quite a few all-day sits during the prime days of gun season. Other than that it pretty much drives me absolutely berserk to just sit there looking at the same trees hour after hour. I never got into hunting to test my mental endurance .... lol. It is recreation ... right? I usually spend a few hours in the AM, and then a few hours in the PM. In between, I do some scouting to see just where I should have been sitting.

It sounds like there are some private parcels that are more congested than public hunting lands.

When talking about confidence in any of the DEC/Cornell projects, I can only look back historically at the deer management results which provide tangible, credible, observable, evidence of their credibility. So when it comes to my confidence, I have to say that I would be more confident if I saw more reliable and believable results. Looking back on history, I remember the late 80's and early 90's when populations in western NY ran rampant, and the huge yards (one of which I personally observed) and subsequent population controls actually required via starvation. That was one extreme failure of the statistical model. Then it was not too many years ago when the reports from all over the state talked of extreme deer shortages some of which still exist today. And only after several years of massive public outcry of hunters across the state was there a sudden and significant cutback in permits. To me it all looks pretty much like the statistical activities are for show, but the real management technique is more that of reacting to observations or reacting to conditions that are allowed to get so far out of wack that reversal policies have to be put in place. Looking at how the whole system is based on statistical voo-doo based on tiny samplings, and none of it is ever physically verified until the population situations get extremely skewed that they are obvious even to the casual layman on the street, I have to wonder why anybody has any confidence in these systems. So now they want to apply the same techniques toward an AR decision. Why should I have any confidence in it regardless of what outfit does the numbers. You ask what I would have more confidence in and my answer is neither of the choices that you offered. I would have more confidence in a result arrived at by a near 100% survey of affected people. And there have been numerous posts here on this thread that describe viable ways of doing exactly that.

Anybody here ever hear that buzzing sound of a slug going overhead? It does make you a bit more sensitive to such things ..... lol.

My 1969 Ithaca Deerslayer has gotten more deer than I can remember. It certainly is a very capable gun. possibly the old critter deserves a nice comfortable retirement in the gun cabinet. But absolutely not because it is not up to the job. However, to put in any decent amount of practice with the old guy always turns out to be one hell of a punishing shooting session. My new .270 can be shot all day without any accumulating muscle crushing. I don't really expect to use the long range capability of the new gun even though that capability will always be available should the occasion arise. But there is no question that the accuracy of the weapon is superior to that shoulder mangling 12 gauge. There is an additional level of confidence available knowing that I have shot a few hundred rounds through the .270. As an aside, there is also the benefit of being able to reload ammo.

Thankfully, this thread is taking a different turn .... lol. regarding the ethics of shooting something that is not consumed, I hate to hang the requirement of consumption on legitimizing hunting because before you know it people are claiming that the only justification for hunting is as a food harvest. That of course would eliminate varmint hunting, and shooting rats at the dump, and crow hunting, etc., etc. I am not going to feel pressured to eat the next fox or coyote I get. I would just as soon not even start going down that path.

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.