Doc

Is your house in an area where it is legal to hunt?

Yeah, as long as you still have farmers. Apparently BKhunter has plenty of real live active farming. Around our area, the situation is reversed. We have lots of heavy thick impenetrable acreage and zero farms. Our needs are reversed from his. Somebody in my area would definitely be considering food plots. But I mentioned the brushlots and browse areas as being something that he may consider adding in order to make his property more complete, diverse and deer-friendly.

Not everything is about food. There is more to suitable deer habitat than simply things to eat. There are situations where good dense cover may be the thing that is lacking on a property. Perhaps that is a more important add than considering food plots where ample food already exists. Heavy dense brush lots can be more important. I'm sure there are some guys that trash good cover just to put in a food plot. There are plenty of browse kinds of plants and bushes that combine food and cover that can be added to unused land. Cover and browse can be established with little cash outlay and a minimum of effort, and it is a habitat improvement that is self-sustaining. So, when looking to make your land more comfortable and appealing to your local deer herd, don't simply lock into creating food alone. There are other things to consider.

I have taken the ultimate precaution. I hunt from the ground .... lol. But in all honesty I have to admit that it really is not due to a fear of falling. I simply have that psychological "heights" thing. Vertigo I believe it is called. However, in the last 20 years or so since I have come down of of the trees, I will say that I haven't missed it a bit. The handicap of facing the critters on the ground, face-to-face really hasn't been all that noticeable. I know a lot of people can't even fathom hunting deer from the ground, but having done both, I will tell you there is no more exciting way to hunt.

What a great post! I hope it hits home with everyone who takes to the trees this year. I have a cousin who is no longer with us because of a treestand fall (dead at a very young age), so you are indeed very lucky. Looking at that picture of your foot, it's hard to use the word "lucky", but I know for a fact just how bad that could have turned out.

It's not too difficult to see how we are all tarred with the same broad-brush when non-hunters read such obscenity performed in the name of hunting. It's kind of like when the media uses the term "hunters" when they are describing acts of poaching ...... guilty by association. It drives me crazy!

Is there any danger in getting permission so far in advance that the landowner forgets that they gave it? It may be important to obtain written permission just to be on the safe side. I would also think that it should be important to discuss rules of use with the landowner. In other words, talk about where it would be appropriate for you to park and any areas that he might want you to stay out of and other things that he might want you to abide by.

Statistically no. But still, don't try to tell that to a family that has just suffered a loss of this sort. My guess is that the danger level is proportional to the level of carelessness involved. Most of us at one time or another encounter a belief in our immortality and invincibility that is when the percentages begin to climb. Beware of becoming too complacent simply because of some national statistics.

It is possible that the theft of my sign was an act of vandalism. Perhaps when the leaves come off in a few weeks, I might find it chucked into the brush down the road. I hate to think that it was stolen by another gun owner that just wanted to put it in his yard .... although anything is possible. On the other hand I think your idea is still a good one. By the way thank you for buying and displaying that sign. These things are popping up all over and are sending a clear message that the rage over the so-called Safe-Act has not died down as some of those guys that signed that law were hoping. It has to be giving these politicians a few nightmares.

13 of 13

This kind of tragedy has touched our family directly, so I know what is going on in the hearts and lives of this guy's family and friends. It's an all too often story that we hear over and over every hunting season.

I'm sure that if they haven't yet, they will soon be proposing a repeal bill for the law. The voting record for that bill will probably seal the fate of those that vote against repeal. It sounds like they have got their stuff in order.....lol.

I have cut way back. There's only the two of us to eat on the critters, and I still really like my beef, pork and chicken. So I try to keep it down to only two. I like to get one with the bow and one with the gun. This year I may back-slide a bit and declare war on our local shrub-eating, fruit-tree butchering, deer herd and give away any that are over our needs.

I have to admit that that article is extremely embarrassing. Publishing to the world, the extent that hunters view hunting as just another technology challenge is really disturbing to me. Hunting has formed the major part of my life, and to me represents an honorable activity of heritage and tradition. Now for many hunters, it is necessary to create our trophies from test-tubes, agriculture and animal husbandry. Sure, we have all followed the lure of technology when it comes to weaponry, but this idea of creating prey is a fairly new development, and it truly crosses the line in terms of anything that I want to even indirectly be associated with. When people think of me as a life-long hunter, these are not the things that I want them remembering me for.

I'm not sure what the big appeal is to all this "gotcha" kind of flaming. It is obvious that there are a lot of people who incorrectly think that baiting only applies to hunting situations, because every so many weeks we have to go through these kinds of flame-fests. It would seem to me that a proper response when an illegal act is spotted would be to simply state that the act is illegal and let it go at that. Kind of like hunters educating hunters. The appropriate reply to that would be, "Ok, I didn't know that and it will not happen again". Why this is always handled with sarcasm and accusations and counter-accusations, I'll never figure out. To me it is obvious that the original poster never realized that he had just posted a picture of an illegal act. I will say that any of us that thinks we know all of the conservation laws is very mistaken. Even the game-cops don't always know it all.

Something I have been taking note of lately is the number of chunks of broken branches that I have found stuck into the ground. I'm talking about chunks of tree-branch that are 2' or longer, about 3 inches or bigger in diameter and are stuck into the ground about 6" or more. Imagine getting hit by one of those. It would have to penetrate a skull or other body part. I maintain a series of ATV trails up the hill and I seem to be constantly tugging these things out of the ground. I don't know where they develop such a force (whether its wind or just gravity), but I sure wouldn't want to be standing there when they land.

I would suggest that you send an e-mail to your regional DEC office. I say e-mail because that way you will get back a written reply that you can keep on file in case some over-zealous conservation officer comes up with a different opinion.

Yes, but what is that statement based on? I don't know anybody here that is qualified enough to be able to make that statement in a credible way. For example, is there some study or special circumstance that has given you a view of every hunter in every state in terms of how lazy they are? My "guess" (and that's all it is), is that hunters are the same no matter what state they are from.

There's another aspect to legal problems faced by landowners when inviting people to use his land. Quite simply, being sued whether the suit is successful or not will cost the landowner some cash. Just being named in a suit will cause you to obtain the services of a lawyer. Should the suit go to trial, even if the landowner wins, he will have expenses that he wouldn't have faced if he had simply denied permission. And then of course there is always the possibility that the plaintiff will have hired a very slick lawyer, and they win the case. In that case the costs could be astronomical. It's so much easier for him to simply say "No." That's probably why so many landowners are shutting the door in hunter's faces. You can show them any piece of paper you want, but the fear of the unknown, or the possibility that they simply are not interpreting what they are reading properly can convince them to take the "safe" road and simply deny permission.

Ha-ha .... As a matter of fact, that is usually what gets me up. Like I say, I am a creature of habit.

Wow! this is a well re-cycled thread. It was started back in August of 2011 ..... lol.

I'm sure my .223 would handle what ever coyote opportunities that come along ..... Long or short shots. And it shouldn't tear up the hide too much either.

Ha-ha .... there is a problem I will worry about if or when it actually happens.

My strategy will be to initially focus on the apples. That is a food source that will not be around indefinitely. Right now the deer are hammering the apples and I believe that will be a consistent draw when the season first opens. We do not have the agriculture that other areas have as a food magnet. Also, it doesn't look like the acorn crop is going to be all that great for us. What attraction that the few bearing oaks will be supplying (and I already have those located for later use) will be more obvious later in the season as the apples get policed up. But right now, there is no question that the wild apple crop is huge and drawing deer in from all over.

Very interesting article. However the section on the government needs for ammo did a very good job of enumerating the crazy quantities of ammo that they consume, but failed to indicate whether there has been any kind of increase in that consumption. One would think that the numbers that they were talking should have been very consistent over time, and yet the shortage is a fairly recent happening. So, the question that naturally comes to mind is, "have those allocations taken any kind of severe change over the past year"? They didn't address that. So even though the government uses an unbelievable amount of ammo, that still doesn't say that they haven't dramatically ramped up those allocations. As far as the private hoarding that's going on, I think we all knew that was going on already. There appears to be no end to it. But the point there is, unless it is all being shot up, one would expect the pipeline would be filled by now as people understand that they already have more than they can shoot up. And yet, the return of supplies is happening at a barely imperceptible rate (Particularly ammo components). So anyway, great article, but they could have gone a lot farther. I am particular curious about whether or not the government ammo supplies have changed significantly.