Doc

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.

Next time, here are few questions that you should try to figure out the answers to: 1 What was the color and consistency of the blood on the arrow? 2 Was there any green foul smelling material on the arrow? 3 was there any hair exactly at the spot the deer was standing? 4 If so what color was it? 5 Exactly where did the deer go? ... Where was it the last time you saw it? This can help find the first blood. That white hair on the broadhead is never a good sign. Were you in a treestand shooting down at the deer or on the ground shooting relatively level? What type of search pattern did you use? That is, was it ever-increasing concentric circles, or some form of grid pattern? It is important that you keep any blind searching as organized as possible. The amount of arrow that went into the deer sounds kind of lethal. The bent broadhead tip sounds like a bone deflection. These things sound like you should have been able to have found him on the property somewhere. But he white hair on the other hand adds some doubt. Also a 2.5 hour search that night and a 3 hour search the next day with no blood spotted really makes you wonder. Normally that much searching without finding any blood means that the hit was not mortal. Hopefully this unfortunate experience will not sour you on bowhunting. Sometimes things just don't always work out well.

Oh crap ..... The kids this .... The kids that. Look, there is no hurry to shoving a gun in the hands of kids, crossing your fingers and turning them loose in the woods. Let them mature at least a little bit for crying out loud. There are those that would eliminate age requirements completely. Well, if you don't give a damn about the kid's safety at least have some consideration for the safety of the rest of us out there. I don't want a bunch of 7 year olds out there shooting up the woods just because their idiot parents don't give a damn. I don't know if the state has it right or not, but I sure don't want the age lowered any more. You want the kid to go hunting, take them with you. They don't have to have a gun in their hands to learn an appreciation for hunting and outdoor activities Can you tell that I'm a bit grumpy this morning? Well the wind is howling out there and it's pouring out there and the damned bow season is marching right along without any venison in the freezer! ..... CRAP!!

Now seriously ..... If you had a buck acting like that would you really try to walk up to it. Just when I think that I really understand how stupid people can be, I see something like this that shows that I have absolutely no idea what the limits of human stupidity really are.

So what the heck is this fascination with hiding from other hunters? If a deer runs (or walks) between me and someone else, I damn-sure want them to plainly see me, and I don't care if I am on the ground, in a tree or hiding in a ditch. And I sure as hell will not be just wearing a hat. If I could get my blaze orange to flash I would be wearing that (exaggeration there....lol). People seem to have damn little respect for their own lives and safety. Maybe they need to see what a 12 gauge slug can do to human flesh. Years ago when I took my hunter-safety course and people weren't so sensitive, we were all shown slides of shotgun wounds. It was pretty gross and definitely left a lasting impression. They even had a picture of a guy hanging from a fence where he tried climbing over it with a loaded gun. Yep that was sickening. But it also made me very aware that we aren't just playing games out there. Blaze orange and lots of it is a good way to put the odds in your favor that you will not become a casualty of blending in behind a deer that someone is about to unload on. And by the way, that is true whether you are on public or private land.

I will shoot no deer before it's time because I am a hunter extraordinaire. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. So if I bomb out this year it is because I am holding out for a deer worthy of my prowess. I like that..... it has a nice ring to it. And what a great excuse for coming up empty if that should happen.....lol.

Ha-ha .... 100 years from now there likely won't even be any hunting. But if there is, with all the mentality of worshipping at the alter of technology that is being shoved into hunting, your example will probably be absolutely correct. The only difference is that the weapons will be operated through the internet remotely from your computer cubicle in your home. Maybe people will read about the loser-shmucks who used to actually put up with a bit of challenge in their hunting.

I had to laugh yesterday when I followed a guy who had a little spike buck on a carrier attached to the bumper of his truck. I was just thinking that this poor guy was in for a whole rash of grief from his fellow hunters for shooting a deer "before it's time". And then, I'll be darned if he didn't pull into a rod & gun club to proudly show his kill to all his buddies. I would love to have heard how those conversations went. Did the guy leave with his head bowed and feeling like a baby killer, maybe to hang up his gun forever, or is perhaps this AR crap just an important issue on hunting forums? I'll never know how that all turned out. I hope the jerks just kept their damned mouths shut and congratulated him on a fine kill and showed him the respect deserving of a fellow successful hunter.