Doc

The bigger the system, the easier it is to abuse the system. And the gun control system is huge, and betting more huge everyday.

There needs to be some punitive legal recourse to such arbitrary and clearly illegal reactions to this lunacy. Perhaps this points out some needed legislation that any of our pro-gun legislators should be urged to write. It is about time that gun owners receive some fundamental legal protection against anti-gun hysteria. I'm serious, this sort of mindless bias is inexcuseable and should be made illegal with penalties that are significant. I wouldn't be surprised if this guy may have a whole list of civil actions against a bunch of individuals involved in that whole incident...... if he has the stones to push it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone is working on new alternative sporting weapons. Take a look at what we hunt with, and even though we may think it is all modern and radical, the same basic principles remain. When I see some of the amazing wizards on U-tube that come up with some of the real radical stuff, it's only a matter of time before somebody takes on the shooting sports industry with some real wild new ways of knocking things down. Look at what they are doing with air-guns, and repeating crossbows. Some of this military crap is going to be finding it's way into sporting arms. Just amazing geniouses out there looking for the next best way to get rich of the sporting arms industry. We can't even imagine what's coming next .... lol.

Well, I have been planning on brushing up on my wing-shooting. Ever since I got rid of my clay bird thrower, I haven't had a chance to get in any practice. How many thousands of dollars does it cost them every time one goes down ...... lol.

I worry too that they might decide to highlight the wounding potential. We all know it happens, but it really doesn't do us a whole lot of good to have that aspect televised to an audience that may be a bit more judgemental about some of our "dirty laundry". I also wonder why they chose suburban hunting as a theme. I hope that they don't get into neighbor/hunter conflicts. I guess the only way to judge this kind of show is to just watch it. The good news is that there is a show on Discovery Channel called the "Yukon Men" that is just about finished up for the season. This show has a very big part of it that involves hunting and trapping. Apparently that has been working out ok, and they have some very graphic trapping scenes that were handled in a way that depicts trapping as simply a cultural reality and they have not gone out of their way to get involved in a lot of editorial bashing or condemnation. Hopefully the History Channel will take the same approach.

This is going to be different from the Saturday morning deer hunting programs on channels where you generally expect to see hunting programs. Programming on the Outdoor Channel is generally watched by hunters. We all have our fun with them, but for the most part, I think they have very little impact on non-hunters. The History Channel on the other hand is watched by the general public and will probably be watched by more non-hunters than hunters. It will be interesting to see just what kind of impression is put forth as to what deer hunting consists of, and what kinds of perceptions of hunting in general are put out there for the public.

I like the pics of Pepe La-pew ..... lol. A sure sign of spring perhaps.

Lol ...... Is that their idea of a background check?

It seems like everybody is into "hobby" syrup making these days. I've been seeing all kinds of collecting equipment hanging off trees in people's yards, all over the place. Back in the early 70s, we had a bunch of trees tapped and boiled it down with an open wood fire and a tub. It came out pretty good. Occasionally we went a bit far and wound up with some rock-candy in the bottoms of some of the jars .... lol. For a very brief time I was considering tapping the trees up the hill. We have a huge number of maples scattered throughout the hill. The cost of what they call a "hobbyist" style of evaporator was relatively cheap. But eventually the thought just passed and we never did anything with it.

I have no particular interest in this industry other than how it may inadvertantly effect the health of wild herds. For example the CWD problems that seem to spring up from areas around domestic herds. As far as any other aspect of the business, as far as I know, it is no different than any other livestock enterprise. I have to admit that I find it an unhappy turn of events that some people feel that they need deer raised for their "hunting", but that does seem to be one direction that hunting is naturally evolving toward. People do what they think they need to do. As far as the regulation of the industry is concerned, it's really none of my business as long as it doesn't impact wild herds.

No. If properly inspired, we could rally a solid block of voters all voting the same way. let's face it, people in general don't vote. Not gun owners and not the rest of the populace. Whoever can conjure up the most emotion, and passion and solidify their base will determine the outcome of the election. Yes, a minority can influence elections when properly motivated and focused. It's time for the NRA and the other gun organizations to work their magic and unify and incite the gun owner voters. They have to be shown that their legislative activities have consequences. This is a whole lot bigger than just the gun issue. It's all about training politicians that they serve us or else. By the way there's nothing wrong with a little court action either .... lol.

Andy showed the world the new way to get stuff past their constituents. It works. He published the blueprint. And I'm afraid that gun owners are so apathetic that the process will be copied all over the place without the appropriate punishments of the politicians that went along with it. They're getting away with it folks and expect the process to be used on all kinds of issues besides guns and ammo.

When you justify dogs running loose and running down deer, you are justifying the actions of the owner who lets that happen. They think exactly the way you do. Their attitude is the same as yours .... "big deal". Well, you choose to ignore my descriptions of what the end product of that mentality looks like. I didn't take pictures, because we didn't have a lot of cameras around back when this stuff was going on, so you are just going to have to remain ignorant of what that sort of carnage looks like and continue to wonder why some people get so darned upset about seeing a deer torn apart piece by piece or any animal for that matter. Yes, the problem lies with the owner and his complete disregard for what he has turned loose on his area. There's no question about that. And I do believe that the penalties for not controlling your animals should way, way, more severe than they are. But they aren't. Dogs will be dogs and he damn well knows it. But what the heck .... big deal .... right? So just out of curiosity, what if a coyote were to come into your yard and started chewing on your favorite pet (if you have one). Would you sit back and say ... "Oh well, coyotes will be coyotes, and given the chance they will pull apart a few dogs and cats .... Big deal". I don't know, maybe you would. After all, where is it inscribed in stone that pets are worth more than coyotes.....lol. Look, I am not complaining about the ways of nature, and nature can be mighty cruel in the way wildlife dies. But I think there is definitely something wrong with raising predators to turn loose on the local wildlife and whatever else they happen to run across and then feed, house, and protect them so they can do it the next day or night. I also think there is something definitely wrong with trying to justify that sort of thing also. In fact it can't be justified. We don't house and feed and raise coyotes to turn loose on the local deer population. In fact some of us actually go out there and hunt them and even kill a few. Where's all the whining when we do that? Oh, one of them is wild and the other is not? Well let me tell you, when a dog is on the trail of a deer there isn't one bit of difference between the two. Maybe you haven't seen that, but I have.

My gosh, step away from this forum for a bit and all of a sudden you have some guy calling you a felon ..... lol. I chose my words carefully, and it is purposely left up to you to imagine exactly how I "handled" it. But I'm sure you have heard that old saying about "assuming". Let's just say that I did not allow the situation to continue. If you would have, well that would be a part of your personality that differs seriously from mine. As far as shooting the dogs that were running free and attacking our sheep, I will tell you that we turned the dogs over to the sheriff who thanked us for putting an end to the pack that was destroying flocks within the township and beyond. The dogs were evidence that would have been used against their owners if they had ever been determined (which they were not). There was no felony involved, and the solution was executed in full accordance with the law and fully out in the open. Now if all that offends your sensitivities, you apparently have no clue what damage and suffering stray (uncontrolled) dogs can exact on a flock of sheep and other animals. Ok, in that case, that's simple ignorance and perhaps can be excused. I only wish you could actually witness one of these episodes whether it be sheep or deer, and then you might actually have something that rightfully offends your sensitivities.

That one that is limping is a 3-legged deer. The lower half of its left rear leg is missing.

Each state is competing with the next to have the most draconian and repressive gun laws in the country. They are treating it as a badge of honor. And it remains to be seen whether any of them will pay any kind of political price for their gleeful attacks on the 2nd Amendment. I just hope that the gun owners have the resolve, and the memory to make these people pay at the polls. I fear that when the elections come around, other issues will have grabbed the attention of gun owners and they will forget how their rights have been trampled by these people. One thing that gun organizations have to focus on when election time comes is to educate gun owners about how to identify their legislators, and also publish the voting record on this one specific law (now in both states). I know the NRA has a rating system that shows up around election time. But I want to see them highlight these particular voting records specifically as something specific that has a good chance of standing out in the memories of gun owners. These politicians have to pay!

These are the kinds of people that are passing these laws, and this is the mentality of those people. What I found discouraging was that the entire room didn't break-up with laughter. I was looking at the faces of other members seated at the table and they all had this serious expression on their faces like she was actually making sense.

What a dumb-ass. Most municipalities have leash laws, and the guy had other legal opportunities to handle the problem. Not quite the same as unidentifiable dogs running loose out in the wild, chasing deer or killing livestock. But the beauty of this situation is that he did have the opportunity to place the problem at the doorstep of the dog owner instead of taking it out on the dog and putting himself in legal jeopardy. Whenever you are able to I.D. the dog and handle a problem by making the owner pay, that is the best outcome when dealing with an irresponsible owner. Frankly, I think that there should be much more severe penalties for not controlling and confining dogs. I also think it should be extended to cats. And these penalties should be sufficient for the dog owner to be forced to take them seriously.

As a matter of fact, I have been challenged before by a pair of german shepards, and all I had was my bow. That wasn't too comfortable a situation. We had the growling and the bared teeth and the whole deal. If I had a gun on me, one of them at least would have been dead. I was fortunate to be able to bluff them into eventually reluctantly trotting away. I also want to point out to all those that think it is a wonderful thing to have dogs loose and running deer, that I have seen the end result of that kind of dog play. Perhaps you have heard the saying, "A death of a thousand cuts". That may be the best way to describe what a deer looks like after it has run a considerable distance with a couple of dogs ripping chunks of meat out of their flanks until finally they are so weak that they can't continue. It's not a pretty sight. I also grew up on a sheep farm that was frequently targeted by dogs. It was interesting how they enjoyed going from one sheep to the next killing each one and yet never feeding on any of them, and leaving most of them in a condition where they had to be put down. Talk about thrill killing. We did eventually kill those SOBs, and I felt damned good about it. It took a week of my Dad, brother and myself spending the nights up in the hay-mow, looking out the hay-door that overlooked the barnyard. When those dogs came in, the guns were blazing and not one of the four dogs left the barnyard. Yes, it is unfortunate that the dogs have to pay for the lack of responsibility of their owners. But no dog should ever be allowed to run free chasing deer or whatever. I don't care whether its a family pet or some super expensive hunting dog. Anyone who really gives a damn about there animals would never allow that to happen. There is no excuse for such irresponsibility ..... none.

Oh sure ..... now we'll have a complete reversal and it will be like last year, blowing the blossoms out early and then wacking them with a string of frosts..... lol. But this is always a goofy time of the year. Those of us in the valley are always sweating out the weather changes when it comes to the fruit trees. For us the garden usually doesn't go in until the end of May. We have had early gardens, but it's always a risk.

Well, on the one that is attacking the cow & calf, you are on pretty firm legal ground if you "handle" it. The case of the deer being chased can present a bit of a more difficult "legal" bind if it's in a place where there is even a remote chance of being witnessed and reported. Periodically you read articles about people that wind up in some pretty ugly hot water trying to do the "right thing".

Today is supposed to be just like yesterday ..... BUT....Tomorrow's high is supposed to be 50 degrees, with upper 40's for the rest of the week. Also, the guy on YNN is claiming that the below normal temps are going to be not seen again this season. Now don't ask me how he can make that kind of statement when they can't even get the next day's forcast right. But as a tiny piece of semi-encouragement, that is what I have heard so far.

That's a good deal if you recognize the dogs and assuming that they ever come home where the authorities can apprehend them. And then, I am sure you would encounter the old your word against the owner. But, all of the dogs that I have ever seen chasing deer, I had never seen before or after. The problem is that a dog that's after deer can run a heck of a long ways, and usually are not from the area that you see them in. Also, most of the dogs that I have seen are not the kinds of critters that you want to try to apprehend. Also, whenever I see them it is not really a very handy time to stop whatever you are doing to try to round them up and take them to the authorities. So for the most part, all you can do is curse and watch the action. Plus, has anyone ever tried to call off a strange dog that is intent on chasing a deer? ..... It pretty much cannot be done. That usually gets them running a little faster. So basically, the way the law is set up, they get a free pass as does the dog owner.

So yesterday afternoon as I was sitting watching a movie, I caught a movement out of the corner of my eye. I glanced out the window and saw 7 deer running like crazy out of the front thicket, across my driveway and into the side thicket. That kind of caught my attention so I watched and sure enough I saw a brown and white dog chasing after them. I had to laugh, because he wacked into the old goat fence and bounced back about 5 feet. And then he kept trying to get through. After about 5 tries, he finally realized that if he went about 5' to his left, the fence ended. So after he figured that out he was on his way after the deer. Next came a second dog who proceeded to repeat the same fiasco as the first, bouncing off the fence and then after a half dozen tries finally figured out the fence ended just a short ways away. And so he went on his way. I really had no chance to react and stop what was going on. Back during last hunting season, I had 4 dogs (not the same ones) charging up the hill right toward me just having a great ol' time. They were friendly enough, but I'm sure they were lost (probably from chasing deer). All of this stuff has me wondering just how much of this goes on that I don't get to see. I'm beginning to wonder how many dogs are running around chasing deer and maybe taking down more than any of us realize. I do remember years ago putting an end to an attack on a deer in my front yard (I won't be saying how I put an end to it). The deer was hacked up pretty bad, and I doubt that it made it. The next morning, I checked out the scene and there was blood everywhere in the snow. That one involved two dogs that undoubtedly had run this deer for quite a ways taking a bite out of it every so often. I know we all worry about coyotes taking down deer, but I am wondering if man's best friend may actually be having more of an impact. It sure does irritate the hell out of me when people get these dogs and then don't have enough responsibility to control them.

Generally speaking, what you are saying is true, but party affiliation is not the yardstick to use when placing your vote. The votes on anti-gun legislation are public record. Use those records to guide your vote. If your legislator votes in a way that is contrary to your wishes, That's the one and only reason to vote them out. Not party affilliation, or the fact that they are incumbants or any other reasons of that sort. Make it plain that you are punishing those that ignore your wishes, with a vote for their opponent. And then, follow that up with an e-mail explaining why you voted against them so they know just who it was that defeated them and why.