Doc

We have argued the hell out of what belongs in bow season over the past bunch of years, and repeating the same things over and over does not convert an opinion to fact. If this new device turns out to be a viable big-game weapon (this design or the next), the argument will be starting all over again from scratch. And whether limbs and strings are ever even mentioned in the official debate and the end decision we can only guess. I have watched those definitions get twisted beyond recognition, so I am not about to say what new arguments will be brought out by the supporters. I'm sure they would include the aged and the infirm and the new infusion of hunters into our declining numbers and all the other standard emotional leverages. What I will not try to guess is what new bending of definitions that would take place. I am always amazed at how creative people can be. It would be funny if some day it did become an issue. It would be worth it just to watch those that called NYB exclusionary, elite, and selfish, squirm and dance as they find themselves selfishly trying to safeguard their bow season by excluding a new category of hunters and their weapons. That would be funny. I don't think I would even get involved in the debate .... just sit back and watch the hypocracy .... lol. Of course that all assumes that anybody would even care enough to fight the inclusion. Maybe this would be considered "pitting hunter against hunter". That would be the worst kind of action wouldn't it? Can't we all just get along???? ....lol.

C'mon ..... nobody going to brave the winter with their trusty bow and arrow?

I know there may be some extreme cases, but when I get so bad that I can't carry my bow in and out each day, I'll probably be so old and decrepit that I won't be able to pull it back ..... lol. In that case anybody can have it that finds it. No, seriously after having had my camera stolen, I get downright paranoid about leaving anything that I might ever want again behind. Just like I would never walk out of the woods leaving my gun propped up against a tree, I would not leave my bow either.

My deer hunting is over for the year (wimp ... lol), but I know some of you will be participating in the late season. Just curious ..... what will be your weapon of choice?

So how many of you people are going to get out for the late bow season? I'm done for the year, but curious as to how many are the real die-hards.

I do understand what it is that bothers some people about some of the tactics used these days. I might even be a little more hard-core in my judgement of these things than many others. I am even to the point where I wouldn't use a guide because to me he is essentially doing all the hunting and I am doing the shooting. I am also heavily against what I consider a canned hunt. So I am not without my biases. And on occasion, I have let my biases show a little bit .... lol. I generally try not to make a big deal of it, but I will say that when someone fills their den with mounts from a game farm, it does put a bit of a stigma on those kills. It really does cheapen the achievement and in my eyes makes it all kind of a worthless accomplishment that shows nothing other than he has deep pockets and can afford to buy his trophies. I try not to be that close-minded, but I just can't help having those thoughts creep into my mind. The only thing that I find unfortunate is when I hear non-hunters start talking like that sort of stuff is what hunting is all about. That tells me that in a lot of cases I and whatever achievements that I have accomplished are being lumped in with these "short-cutted" versions of hunting. That bothers me a bit.

I'm wondering about porcupines and the salty sweat residue on the hand-grip. I've heard of them chewing up canoe paddles because of that. Yeah, that probably is a bit far-fetched. The areas that I hunt don't have any porkys. However, I know for a fact that there are a few 2-legged critters that have no problem stealing things when they come across them. I am out one $200 camera because I thought it was in a spot where no one would ever go.

As fasteddie always tells us ..... it beats the alternative .... lol.

Well, these guys were far enough away from me that I wasn't really being affected. But it did stir my curiosity. Yeah, if they had been just a couple hundred yards away, I would have had an entirely different attitude. Most likely I would have put some distance between me and them.

Most of my bench-rest shooting is a fascination with how well I can make my gun perform. I do a lot of experimental reloading trying to get little tiny groups. However, in the process, there is an awful lot of things like breath control and surprise triggering and other features of the technical parts of shooting that get to be second nature just through repetition. All practice has value relating to hunting. I also do some occasional off-hand shooting just to try to re-affirm that I ain't worth a damn at it. That too is some good knowledge to gain from target practice. Knowing your short-comings is a good thing, and applying that knowledge to your hunting set-ups can be a great advantage over those that do not do much shooting. I know from actual shooting experience that nothing will ever make these old arms rock steady again. So Through my practice, I have learned what must be done to make a good ethical and humane shot. That is why I never take running shots. That is also why I always use a tree or something to steady myself down when shooting in a hunting situation. Also, on the thread about ground stands, you will notice that the constructions shown in the pictures there generally are built with 360 degrees of horizontal logs to be used as "gun rests" wherever I need one. I usually have everything but the sand-bags .... lol. My bench-rest shooting is a direct contributer to those features in my stands. They are probably something that wouldn't occur to me without my shooting practice and understanding what it takes for me to get the accuracy edge.

That's why I posed the question. I was responding to what he said about his estimate of his reloading rate which was: "i doubt i will reload over 100 rounds per yr per guy unless we buy or find some more brass, we are not big shooters just mostly hunters... (between us all this yr we used about 20 rounds of ammo, mostly me missing deer lol)". 100 rounds per year is 5 boxes. At that rate, and granting that it may very well take 33 boxes to break even, we're talking about more than 6 years just to break even, and that is assuming that there is no value to be placed on his time. And then the follow-up comment about only using 20 rounds of ammo all this year, the amount of payback time at that kind of rate would be unbelieveable at that rate of consumption. That's why I mentioned that making money at reloading is really a function of normal ammo consumption. A lot of us also reload to maximize accuracy by finding loads and components that work well through an individual gun. I find myself getting absolutely anal about consistancy and accuracy in weights and measures and procedures just to take out any loading errors. For me it is all pretty painstaking activity that burns up a lot of time. If I ever added up all the time that it takes to produce each box of ammo, and paid myself even sub-minimum wages, they still would be very expensive rounds .... lol. So anyway, that is why I mentioned the cost factor. I know a lot of people have this subconscious vision of reloading as free ammo. It's always good to realize that if you shoot very little, reloading can be a very expensive proposition compared to just walking into the store once a year or so and buying factory ammo.

Usually, if the deer is running, I wait until he stops or slows almost to a stop. If he keeps on running, I just let him go. I'm not a big fan of running shots. If they are walking, I will look ahead for the nearest opening and find him in the scope there.

I would be willing to bet what you heard was a thing that beavers do with their tail. In fact I'm almost positive from the description you gave that that's what it was. When they get scared or just plain irritated, they slam that tail on the surface of the water and make a heck of a rackett. I don't know exactly why they do that unless it's supposed to be a warning to other beavers of the colony.

Ice? .... Ice? ...... I seem to remember something that used to cover our local lakes that people referred to as ice. That was a long time ago.

I hear what you are saying, but I remember when inclusion of a crossbow in bowseason was unthinkable as well, or to a lesser extent, the compound bow. I mean really adamantly unthinkable. I truly hope you are absolutely right. But I have watched a lot of decades of evolution of bow hunting and the attitude changes that have occured toward bowhunting, and I am not ready to say that anything is impossible. From the time when I first got into bowhunting (early 1960's), I have to say that most of the equipment has absolutely no similarity to what was originally considered to be archery equipment. I don't expect those kinds of radical changes to all of a sudden stop. I know we all think we have firm control and limits on these things, but history has shown that we really don't. It is all a slowly evolving activity with evergreen rules and restrictions.

How about 10 in the clip and one in the magazine? That's kind of what it all sounded like. A lot of times there were only 10 shots, but occasionally there would be 11. Never was more than 11 with each group of shots.

Yeah, like I said, I guess the deer in my area are just a tad smarter than some in other areas.

Here's a thought. Don't access the thread....lol. Seriously ..... we all have our own view of what is fair in hunting. We all have picked that up from friends, relatives, magazine articles, TV programs, etc. These views are personal and usually deeply entrenched. Some kinds of hunting are downright repugnant and none of us have any problems with speaking out against them. Some go against our versions of hunting so bad that we feel ashamed to be lumped in with those that participate in them for fear of guilt by association. We feel that some tactics present a poor P.R. image for hunters and hunting. So, I am not really surprised that it has gone on for many pages, and I won't be surprised if it continues for many more. It's not a problem.

I hope no one is terribly disappointed if others use different definitions of what is appropriate in bow seasons than we do. This has all the same appeal that the crossbow has, and all it takes is for a movement to start that wants to define archery as involving the "arrow". Or maybe definitions aimed at effective range, etc. Yes, all the concerns about aging and infirm hunters can be brought into play. The disabled argument can be pressed into action again. The same "selfish" and "elitist" arguments can be applied to those that oppose it. The campaigns to villify any organization that backs exclusion can occur. And the same arguments about how it would all increase hunter numbers and the inclusion of youngsters and ladies all apply. We've heard it all before haven't we? The only thing that is different is that now we want to use our own new definitions of what belongs in bow season. Hmmmm where have I heard that before. The fact is that our personal definitions mean nothing once manufacturers and their monied campaigns get involved. Or if enough people decide that this supplies an easy way into the prized and envied bow season. We can talk about bending limbs, strings, and such as being necessary components, but understand that all that stuff means nothing if enough people get behind this device and decide they want it in bow season. The fact is that we are not masters of our own destiny. We do not have a majority position here, and if a big enough movement gets established to include these things in bow season, it will happen. And with so many people now eyeballing bow seasons and with the desire to remove the challenges of archery in order to participate, I would not be shocked to see a movement to include these things as well. Sure there will be years of fighting, and a whole lot of name-calling, and all of the other tactics that we have come to expect, but the results will be the same regardless of how long it takes. It's funny .... now even before the inclusion of crossbows in bow season has been completed, we have those same people now looking to become exclusionary themselves. I sense selfish and elitist and exclusionary attitudes as the shoe slips onto the other foot ... lol. I am not saying that support for inclusion of this abomination into bow seasons is inevitable, but I am saying that I would not be terribly shocked if it did develop. Or maybe some other kind of ridiculous technological advancement will come out of the wood-work. It would be foolish in this age of tech-worship to think that will never happen, but who knows? I do know that our own personal little "self definitions" of what constitutes archery will hold nothing but a delaying force if enough people decide they want it. The saving grace from my standpoint is that I am of the age where it pretty much doesn't matter. It's time to adopt the attitude that the next generation has to make their own decisions on such matters .... lol.

I think that anyone who believes in such a plan should feel free to exercise their rights as a citizen to take their beliefs as far as they are willing or able to go. Such a change would have a much greater chance of being tirned into law if you could get the backing of the NYSCC (New York State Conservation Council) or some other organization that regularly deals with legislative matters.

There may be more to this story than what we are aware of. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Ha .... I tried getting out today (Friday) and got pretty soaked up inside of a couple hours. Even rain gear has limits. So it's not just the weekend forecast that sucks. Add the last friday to that as well.

I think this is a fantastic idea. One of the reasons why my property is posted today is because those that I granted permission to decided that they were within their rights to invite their friends and relatives to hunt my property. And that situation grew to the point where the original ones that I granted permission to were no longer around, but all these strangers felt some sort of implied permission. Eventually I had to shut it all down and post the place up tighter than a drum. If there had been a "written permission" law in effect, those people would have had to come to me, and it would never have gotten out of control as it did. Also a written permission law would stop all the bogus verbal claims of permission. It does happen that people just plain lie about having received permission to trespass, and unless you are the actual landowner, you pretty much have to accept their word for it. Also, trespass would have to be an even more willful act if the trespasser knew he didn't have the proper documentation.

Ok, I always get this knee-jerk reaction when I read about these kinds of hunts. It's kind of disgusting what is being done in the name of hunting these days. Always people looking for short-cuts to impress their peers with their hunting prowess. They want to take the credit and claim achievements without all the handicaps and features that level the playing field somewhat for the prey. We really don't liek that mentality, or at least so we tell ourselves. However, once I get over that initial rant, I begin to think about what it is that is so maddening about these kinds of hunts. Why the heck do I take these things so personal? Well, it seems that these so-called hunters are trying to make themselves appear to be great hunters by taking advantage of animals that have been "created" through agricultural methods of animal husbandry. These animals are no longer truely wild, but basically dumb semi-domestic farm animals. There are tactics and techniques that place the advantages squarely in the favor of the hunters through technology and human manipulation to the point where the prey almost has no chance of survival. The element of challenge has been compromised and pretty much eliminated. The quality of the deer have been artificially maneuvered and manipulated through careful habitat manicuring such that they do not represent the natural fetures o the species. But then, isn't this sort of thing just the natural extension of every deer hunting evolution of techniques over the decades that we are now all accepting as standard hunting activities these days? It's all the same thing except that hunting preserve owners have taken it all to its natural conclusion. Consider the efforts that we all go through to equip ourselves with the latest technolgy in our hunting. Look at the weapons we use today. Some of them bear no resemblance to weapons of years ago. That too is a form of trying to erase the challenge, and a pursuit of gadgets and gimmicks to put the advantages in our favor to a greater and greater extent. We haven't found any limit yet that I can see as we continue the march toward space age weapons. Whatever technology can come up with is readily accepted by hunters and eventually by conservation law. Look at how many would like to have the advantage of baiting legalized. Look at how we devote hundreds, sometimes thousands of dollars on food plots to improve the herd and antler size. Many of the things we do on a regular basis are activities aimed at coming up with as close to a guaranteed result in our hunts as we can possibly arrange. Most of what we see on hunter's wish lists involves changes that would eliminate other layers of challenge. No we haven't taken it all to the extent of these pay-to-hunt game farms (yet), but it all points toward the same thing. The difference only lies in extent. So maybe these game farm hunts shouldn't really irritate me so. Those people have merely moved the line a little farther out than we are willing to accept today. It may very well simply be a peek at what future hunting will evolve into. In many ways, we have pushed hunting and everything relating to hunting in the direction of guarantees. Maybe these hunting preserves are just a little ahead of their time. Having the advantage of a 69 year perspective sometimes gives us a good look at the indicators that point out the future and provides us with something to think about.

I am seriously wondering whether it even makes sense for you to get involved in reloading at all, given the small amount of shooting that you do. Using 20 rounds per year probably does not really warrant the expense and time and effort. For one thing, reloading does not save the amount of money that a lot of people imagine. The costs of cases, primers, bullets and powder and other consumables are really getting very expensive. Most people reload to achieve the most accurate and high-performing ammo possible matched to their individual guns, and those are usually paper shooters that burn up a lot of ammo in experimentation and target practice. Take a little time, and rough out the costs per box of your reloads vs. factory ammo, and then apply the estimated quantity of ammo that you expect to shoot. You may be a bit surprised at how close the costs compare to store bought ammo. And do not under-estimate the amount of time involved. It makes a great winter pastime when there is little else to do. But if you place high value on your time, the savings from reloading drops to zero. I'm not trying to discourage you .... just giving you another viewpoint to consider. As far as the kit you are looking at, it does look very complete and the price is great deal. I think if I were starting out these days, I would probably be looking at one of those deals. It's hard to imagine how much stuff they offer at such a low price. And by the way Hornady is a good name and I would not hesitate to buy anything that they market. It's a pretty quality oriented company.