Doc

Some of the ugliest snow storms that I can remember have happened in March. And quite often, the quality of the snow is the heaviest, gloppiest, stuff that makes plowing like trying to move tons of soft icecream. I remember one March storm that flopped 3' of the wettest snow that can exist without being water. I had to bring in a payloader to clean out a skinny trail up my 1000' driveway. I believe that was in the 70's. So I never count winter out until after March is dead and gone. I also remember a 6" snowfall in May, but that most likely was a once in a lifetime event. Severe March storms are really almost common.

This is an area of that particular law where I believe they could have used a whole lot more time and thought. It gets into areas of personal lives that can be devastating if the wrong people start passing judgement and if proper safeguards against misuse are not put in place. There's no question that it is an area that needs some serious attention, but it is also an area that is very intrusive and gives enforcement authority to many people that perhaps should not have it. A psychiatrist who is trained to diagnose and treat mental illness is perhaps qualified to act as a "mind cop", but I start getting reservations when it comes to physicians, registered nurses, and social workers. Do they really have reliable credentials when it comes to mental diagnostics? I don't think so. However, all that aside, I'm wondering what stops a psychiatrist, registered nurse, social worker, or physician from calling the cops right now if they find someone who is talking about murder or suicide or some other act against society. I think they all have that right as do we all. What's different about this law is that certain practitioners are being legally compelled to perform as "mental police" simply because of their chosen profession. Should any of these people try to abide by this law and turn out to be mistaken, or if their allegations are not provable, It is very likely that they will be subject to some ruinous law suits and charges of malicious libel and other grounds for severe and costly legal punishments. It's an interesting discussion because it is obvious that there are some crazies that should be watched, treated, and kept from firearms, knives, machetes and fertilizer-and-fuel-oil. It just isn't all that clear that the best mechanism for doing that has been put into this law. There are a lot of questions that had they not been in such a hurry to cash in in the deaths of some children and firemen, perhaps they would have taken the time to consider in a more organized and thoughtful manner.

Ha-ha ... well, you really don't have to. Smart is a relative term, and I suppose until we figure out a way to interview them it is all totally uneducated opinion. I do believe that with enough observation we eventually see enough to show us that we usually underestimate their abilities to figure things out. The deal that I related about the deer's close relative, the goat, shows me that they (goats) at least have the ability to reason and figure out solutions to problems as ours did with the gate hook. So for me it is no great leap to assume deer have the same capabilities. So I have to allow for the very strong possibility that deer do have some level of reasoning, intelligence, "smarts". Does that mean that deer are smart? My guess (and that's all any of us are doing here) is that compared to a lot of other animals, they probably are.

Wow, there is some amazing stuff on that video. I had pictured this action would be coming from a bonifide psychologist only that had the subject as an official patient. Apparently that is not true. A report can be initiated by a psychiatrist, physician, registered nurse or licensed clinical social worker. What the hell, why not let you grocer fill one of these out too .... lol. Turning in one of these reports could result in involuntary transport by police or ambulance to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Man, picture that scenario. I didn't read any requirement of any second opinions when it comes to hauling you away. I didn't take the time to go through all of that video, but apparently we have a government "Office of Mental Health" that would be administering the mental health part of the law ....... bureaucrats. Pretty much as I suspected, the details are out of the hands and definitions of actual law and placed in the hands of bureaucrats for actual interpretation and administration.

I didn't realize that there ever were any "film" cameras used as trail-cams. I would assume that they were all daylight only cams ...... right?

Absolutely, the reaction to an arrow is a instinctual act. Actually it is a reflexive act that occurs way too fast to be anything that is thought about. It all happens much like we flinch at a loud unexpected noise. I don't think anyone is arguing that there are not instinctive and reflexive reactions that play a large part in a deer's life. Right from the day they are born, there are defensive acts that are born in (intinctive) behaviors. However, there are a lot of things already noted in this thread that definitely are "learned" behaviors, and learning does require some rudimentary level of intelligence. It cannot be denied that most animals have the ability to learn (although I have had some pets that made me wonder about that ....lol) and that is something completely apart from instinct. And per the original post on this thread, I have to wonder just how intelligent these critters really are.

This is something that I have wondered about. It seems to me that each season gets quieter and quieter, and the number of cars in the state parking lots and along the road get fewer and fewer. It's just a localized observation, but it does seem to me that opening day primarily consists of "opening morning" as now the afternoon shots seem to trail off to nothing. It also seems that hunters are 1 or 2 day hunters. There eventually comes a time in the season where it seems there are only a few guys in the whole valley. That's not at all what I remember from years ago when guys used to be up on their feet hunting throughout the season. When standing or still hunting got unproductive, the big drives would start. There was always something going on. Now it looks like hunters show up on opening day, plunk their rump somewhere in the woods for the morning, go out for lunch and never come back. The rest of the season for them seems to consist of an occasional Saturday here and there. So it would appear that we are now populated by pretty good hunter numbers, but they are all part-time hunters that don't log a whole lot of hours afield. And of those few hours afield, they don't seem to hunt in a way that moves a whole lot of deer (a lot of sitting). The good news is that even with all this reduced activity, the deer take seems to be as high as ever. So either we are getting a whole lot more efficient or the deer herd is being maintained at an uncontrolled level such that fewer man-hours of hunting are required to harvest the same number of deer. I do realize that these observations are based on a lot of years but a very tiny percentage of the state's hunting lands. Of course people in other areas may be experiencing a whole different scenario, and I am only talking about my own local area. Anyway, I don't know how much these changes in hunter behavior will continue to become more and more exaggerated in 50 years, but it seems there could come a time when hunters actually controlling deer populations comes up far short of being successful. That could wind up kind of interesting.

My cameras are always on daylight savings time so that there is never any confusion, and times of day are always in an "apples-to-apples" kind of comparison. I have done some spreadsheet database kinds of entries on my pictures where sorts can be done based on time of day. If my time entries were always shifting back and forth, they would start losing relevance. So keeping the camera-clocks always on the same time system not only makes records keeping simpler, but also it from becoming one more thing that I have to worry about keeping straight.

You are right on target. Learning and reasoning does not start at a human level. And just because a deer's intelligence does not match humans, doesn't mean that they do not have any intelligence. The real question is just where are the limits of a deer's ability to learn, not whether or not they do have the ability to learn.

I'm simply saying that learned behavior is by definition not instinctive behavior. And yes it does take a certain level of mental processing to equate that hook with freedom. He was not born with the instinct to unhook latches and open gates. But he was born with the ability to learn.

Actually the criteria as far as I could find was a very loosely worded phrase relating to doing harm one's self and/or others. So needless to say, some bureacracy will have to be created or added on to to conjure up the details of what exactly that means, and how the reporting structure is to take place (forms, etc.). Administrative bloat. And similar to all other boondoggles that the government conjures up, there's going to be screw-ups. And then since gun control is a politically sensitive issue, you can rest assured that the fine print finally worked out (and subject to no real legislative over-sight) will be arranged to include as many people as they can possibly sneak in. Do i trust them? ..... hell no. Why would I? Why would anyone but the most naive?

Learned experiences and responses are not instinctive.

And just who is it that passes judgement on the questions you have just raised? I'll bet it's not all spelled out in detail in the law. Although I do believe they put the qualifier on it that the attending psychiatrist or whatever had to judge that the mental impairment had to pose some danger to himself or others. That's still a huge grey area.

I'm hoping that the Safe act goes down. It seems to me as a totally untrained person in matters of law and constitutionality that there are two grounds for declaring the law illegal. At least that's all I have heard so far. One is the impact on the 2nd Amendment. That is a tricky one because there are already a whole lot of accepted and installed laws that in my opinion violate the 2nd Amendment in exactly the same way. And these have been challenged through all the courts amnd upheld. So I am a bit worried about that one. The other basis for over-turning involve the process they used for passing the law with this covert, razzle-dazzle, super speed, without the legally prescribed amount of time for public comment and debate. Well, Cuomo has his (our) battery of lawyers working to know that one down. One thing I am starting to realize is that this is no ordinary scum-bag. He enjoys the fight, and he is very good at it. So, I am taking nothing for granted or getting any sort of positive vibes from any of this yet. And then ...... Even if we do get this thing trashed on some basis, there is nothing keeping them from amending the law slightly to satisfy the court's itches and then re-passing it. That is why we have to keep up the pressure on our reps. If it turns out that the process of passing the law is the illegal part, what keeps them from re-proposing the law and voting it through again only this time with all the t's crossed and i's dotted. Think about that.

Goats understand that the best stuff to eat is outside that fence. It's either that or they just appreciate a good challenge ..... lol. Whatever their reason for wanting to get out, if they can stand there and watch what it takes to unlock and get out of a gate, I find it hard that somebody can't understand that that is "learned" behavior. There is no "instinct" in that. I don't know whether that is assigning human traits to animals or not. I think it is simply understanding that animals can be taught things and have the ability to learn. Personally I only know what I have seen. And to think that a deer does not have the same abilities as a goat to learn things may not be the most correct thinking either.

As long as we've got Cuomo and his cohorts threatening guns and ammo, and Obama flexing his gun-banning muscle, this panic can go on for one heck of a long time. In fact if these gun-grabbing polititians ever understand how they have paralyzed the purchase of ammo, they may develop a policy of proposing some periodic gun and ammo restrictions every so many months just to keep the panic going indefinitely. They have to be having a real belly-laugh over the situation that gun owners are causing each other. It's too bad that we have some in our ranks that are willingly playing into their hands.

That Cuomo is one scarey dude. Not just scarey looking (check out those crazy eyes ....lol), but he has the attitudes and mentality and talent and desire to trash anything in his path to get his way. He has become a master of making the government do his bidding. Just remember, as dangerous as he is as Governor, just imagine what great tricks he can pull as President. I look at how callously he regards such things as the Constitution, and wonder what kinds of damage he can create as President. He's not a guy to be underestimated, trusted or voted for. We've got a bonafide megalo-maniac sitting in the Governor's mansion, and I don't think a lot of people realize it.

Even if you ignore a person's right to privacy (which you shouldn't), what do you do about a legal requirement that in effect would keep those that are dangerously mentally ill from ever seeking medication and treatment for their condition. Don't you eventually wind up with more seriously unmedicated looneys on the street. It is one heck of a balancing act that needs a whole lot more thought than those Albany freaks gave it. The idea of taking their time and getting medical professionals involved for assistance in making the right choices is a step in logic that they apparently are not capable of. They were in such a hurry to strike and make the most of the dead children and firemen that they had no interest in figuring out whether what they were doing was the right thing or not. They didn't even care. They were just so giddy over having a properly worked public over some tragedies that they couldn't help themselves. That's Cuomo's new montra ...... "Never waste a good tragedy".

I don't care what you call it, it still comes out pretty darn smart....lol. Running away would be more of an instinctual reaction. To me, it looked like a learned and reasoned out act. She saw the danger and figured out that letting the hunter pass was a way to safety. It wasn't like she was frozen in fear. She was really quite deliberate in the way she laid down inside of adequate cover. She had it figured out that if she laid down and sat tight, the danger would pass. As it turned out, it was a pretty darn smart way to escape the hunter. I'll tell you something that I learned about other critters that are very similar to deer. We used to have a couple of goats. They were fenced into a pasture that had a door-like gate for an entrance. It wasn't too long before I found the goats wandering around the yard. I put them back, and before I got up to the house, the gate was open and they were heading for one of our prized shrubs. So, I locked them back up and watched how they were getting out. The next thing I knew, one of the goats reared up on his hind legs and planted her front legs against the gate while she picked at the hook until she got it unlatched. That goofey goat had watched me everytime I went in and out and realized that the hook on the gate was the thing she had to work to get it open. She not only figured that out, but realized exactly what motion the hook had to go through to come loose from the fence staple that the hook worked with. There was no instinct involved there. That was 100% learned behavior. I'll bet there's probably not a lot of difference in intelligence between a goat and a deer. They both are capable of learning what works.

From the article: "Several veterans and their advocates say it would deter many from seeking counseling and medications to deal with post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychological issues. Veterans fear their rights would be taken away." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That was the first thought that popped into my mind. We may have a whole bunch of mentally disturbed people not being treated because of this "tattle-tale" portion of the law. This may actually make matters even worse by increasing the number untreated people on the streets. I understand the intent of that provision, but like so many things that are so well intentioned, not enough thought is given to the resulting unintended consequences.

This guy is really getting out of control. He is taking on the Justice Branch of the government now. Watch him closely. You may be looking at the kind of president he will be if he should be elected to that office. This guy is scarey.

Whenever the discussion of deer intelligence comes up, I am reminded of back when I was a new hunter, hunting on my uncle's place. I had an elevated position that looked down on a swamp. I saw a big doe that was not a legal shooter at the time. She was standing up looking intently at an approaching hunter. She laid down in the cat-tails, and let this guy pass within 15 or 20 feet of her. Once he was out of sight, she slowly walked off in the other direction. I believe that this tactic is used a lot more than we know, and may well explain why after opening day, all the deer seem to disappear. Pretty darned smart.

Bow. When I get too old and feeble to use my bow, and assuming I am still fit enought to climb our "killer hill", the shotgun or rifle will do just fine. If I can't lift my rifle or climb the hill, then probably it is time to quit .... lol. Pretty simple for me.

Speaking of changes in hunting over long periods, I was reading an artical in the American Hunter yesterday that was about how state lands have changed over the years since they were first purchased. The article was about publically owned lands across the country and not just NYS. However, I can see what they were saying even here in our own state. The article was pointing out how states take mostly a hands-off policy regarding maintenance of public lands. And so over the decades from the time they were mostly farming lands, they have matured and moved through the transitional habitat that most wildlife requires, into heavy over-story kinds of lands that are very unfriendly to deer, rabbits, grouse, etc., and are moving toward a sterile kind of habitat that cannot support a whole lot of wild critters. With only a few rare exceptions there really has not been any kind of habitat management to create the diversity needed to support a diverse population of critters. They didn't mention it, but I have seen the same thing happening in private forests as well. As the nation's lands keep getting divided up and then divided up again, over and over, the new generations of landowner think there is something good in keeping habitat forever wild. The idea of logging state forests doesn't seem to be a very popular one within the general (uneducated in the ways and needs of wildlife) public, and so the management agencies are reluctant to do what they know should be done. Also shrinking budgets eliminate a lot of the options for changing the situation. So anyway, perhaps we will see hunting impacted by this unwise neglect of habitat. It may actually turn out that even small game hunting will be impacted, and we may find severe shortages of things to hunt because of it.

People react to these gun control threats in a lot of peculiar ways. Most of the time the reactions aren't the slightest bit rational. A few decades from now, there will be a lot of people with some old green ammo kicking around from closet to closet ..... lol.