Doc

What on earth was he trying to do? Was that actually "playing"? That's not something that I ever thought turkeys do. Funny to watch, but that is some behavior that I never would have expected from a turkey.

Memorial day is a good rule of thumb.

Well actually, this thread sounds no different than some of the deer population threads we periodically see. I have no doubt that just like deer, the state has areas of plenty and areas of scarcity. And as is human nature everywhere, we tend to project whatever we see in our individual hunting areas to everywhere across the state. Yes you can make judgements about what you see in your area, but when you start to roll out those conclusions to apply everywhere, you start losing the real picture. I'm sure that there are stats that show what is happening statewide. If the population is in a serious decline in NYS, I'm sure the DEC is well aware of that. Harvest results should tell that story very reliably. You want the real state-wide scoop, give the DEC a call. Frankly, our area has been a bit light on turkey populations for quite a few years. But a mere 12 miles south, my son annually has great luck with harvesting and seeing birds. Also a couple of weeks back, I saw a flock of 50 or 60 birds just 16 miles north of me. Apparently no problem there .... lol.

Lol .... well, he did get his answer, almost immediately, didn't he? Seems to me I remember that FastEddie came up with a link to a .pdf file that could be downloaded and copied as many times as required (just as requested). Pretty quick and thorough service I would say.

I must say that if anyone comes around asking permission to hunt and then tries to drag me off to get some form notarized and witnessed, I'm afraid that I will simply find it a lot eaier to just say "NO". By the way, all that legalese in that document would put me straight into a coma before I got 1/4 of the way through it. I think if I didn't have any liability concerns before attempting to read that, I probably would begin to develop some pretty paranoid ideas about what someone was trying to sign me up for. When I suggested that a description of legal protections should accompany or be built into any permission slips, I was speaking of a short, simple, in-plain-english, very, very brief synopsis.

That's the beauty of these forums ..... one topic can spawn all sorts of side avenues. Everything that happens here is a potential conversation starter. That's not amazing, that's simply the nature of conversation. By the way, in the process, you also got the info you asked about. Isn't that great?

Actually, when trying to open up some access for hunting, the reality about liability is no where near as important as the landowner perceptions. My thought is that if there is a law that eliminates landowner liabilities, something is going to have to be done by the one requesting access to present the landowner with convincing paperwork. I'm pretty convinced that most landowners have this liability thing in their mind when they deny access. Combining a presentation of the law on the same paper that the permission request is printed on would be a heck of a good idea.

Not that funny.....especially if you have ever been sued. It gets real serious, real quick.

What I am not quite understanding is what does it really mean that he is "protected"? Does that mean that there is nothing that he can be sued for? What is the extent of this protection? Here's an example: A salesman steps up on your porch and a floorboard breaks and he falls through and breaks his leg. I would expect that I might be hearing from his attorney. Now if the guy is a hunter instead of a salesman is he automatically shut out from bringing a lawsuit. Ok, don't like that one, try this: Suppose you have an old hunting camp in the middle of the woods and some kind of mishap happens there when a hunter steps inside. Does the new law keep him from sueing? How about if I have built and old treestand and have abandoned it. A hunter comes along and the whole thing comes ripping out of the tree. Can he sue me or not? See, I don't know the answers to those kinds of questions. So when someone says I am protected, I have to know how and to what extent. I don't know what this new law says specifically, and I don't know how long it is or how much ridiculous legalese is written into it, but for those who run into a "hard-sell" landowner, it just might be useful to carry along a copy of this law if it really does offer iron-cladprotection for him. It just might open a few doors that otherwise would stay closed. You know, it just might be a good idea if the DEC would write up some short understandable version of the law and incorporate it into a permission slip and offer it to sportsmen. They claim to be working on opening up private land to hunting. What a great way to assist hunters in gaining access to some of that private land. It wouldn't cost that much and just might allay some of the concerns of landowners like myself. Have a stack of them available at license issuing locations.

Imagine being required to pack a shovel when you go out hunting ..... lol. I already carry too darn much crap.

It's probably the paranoia showing through ... lol, but I always think in terms of what could some shyster lawyer do with a situation like that? And as in so many other cases, releases of responsibility sometimes are not worth the paper they are written on. I just get a bit nervous whenever I hear someone saying "aw, don't worry about it, we've got you covered". When it comes to the security of my financial future, I kind of like to be sure or opt to simply keep people off my land. I'm sure that a lot of other landowners feel the same way.

I do understand the gym scenarios, and understand the importance of proper stretching and prep activities before engaging in heavy weight work. However, I have never noticed anybody doing any prep activities before shooting their bow (particularly in a hunting situation .... lol). Maybe they should, but people that I have shot with and seen at the clubs just simply pick up their bows and start shooting. And yes, I have seen that "sky draw" technique where they point at the sky and then give out a nice little grunt (almost a karate yell) and then settle down into a quivering shake with the beads of sweat and the bulging vein in their forehead. I still crack up every time I see this, but I have to wonder how much long-term damage they might be doing to themselves (if any). But anyway, I still have to note that the way bows are drawn is still a most awkward way to apply force, and it seems like drawing a heavy bow thousands of times is a rather easy way to obtain repetitive, accumulating, mini-injuries that might eventually (over decades) result in the early onset of bursitis, arthritus, and other bone, joint, back and muscle ailments. The problem is that I have never seen any guidelines as to how much is too much or how do you know when you are over-doing. I have subscribed to all kinds of archery magazines for years, and you would think that at least once there would have been an article on this subject. But I have never seen one. This is one subject that would actually serve some useful purpose on those TV hunting shows, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. So I guess lacking any guidance on the subject, everybody just has to do their own thing and then find out in the later years whether they have been doing it right or not.

I wonder if there may have been a requirement for burying entrails in the CWD area that was established after the initial outbreaks? I seem to recall that they had a lot of unique regulations for that area.

I think that before I got real comfortable about the recent legal changes in landowner liabilty, I would have to read the exact wording of the law. I'm thinking that there still may be plenty of situations where a landowner still takes on liability. Here's a situation on our property that makes me wonder: We lived on our property for quite a few decades before we found an old dug well half way up the hill (who would have ever expected a well there?). The well was deep enough to drown anybody who happened to stumble into it and it was uncovered (we have since filled it in with rocks and logs. I have heard about liabilities that involve "maintaining a hazardous situation on your property". When you think of all the conditions and situations where that "hazardous situation" might apply, it appears to me that there might still be plenty of liability to sink a landowner. Good, sharp lawyers can make a good case out of just about anything. So before I hung my hat on this latest re-visit of liability law, I would want to carefully read the words of all that. Some interpretation from a quicky newspaper press release may just be overstating just how far the landowner liabilty really has been relaxed. In terms of categories of liabilty, I know that it always has been that as soon as you accept money for access permission, the levels of liability go up. I'm not sure about "invitees" and such. At any rate, there definitely is some value to having written permission. Ever receive verbal permission from the landowner only to be harrassed later by the landowner's friends or relatives who are unaware that you were given permission? Sure can ruin your day. Also, how about the landowner that just plain doesn't have all that good a memory? Get it in writing ..... always a good policy.

Just a classroom practical demo.....lol. I think the message probably got across to the rest of the class. It was nice of that guy to volunteer to shoot himself and his wife for the benefit of the class.

Yes..... Maybe it wasn't really a case of mistaken identity or a situation where he didn't id the target. Maybe he just shot low.

I guess I was thinking of long-term injury that perhaps you aren't even aware of as it is happening. Is there a cumulative effect to over-stressing bone, ligament, muscle, and cartiledge that can mask itself for years only to create a big problem in later years? I don't really know ..... just asking. In terms of how much poundage is enough, I can say that I and many others have successfully taken deer with recurves as low as 45#. And along with erussell, I have heard of others that have successfully used a 35# recurve to take deer. However, in my recurve days, I never shot at a deer over 20 yards away. Today there seems to be an emphasis on turning the bow into a semi-longrange weapon, and the poundage requirements are probably higher for that. Also, there is a mistaken notion that arrow speed can somehow beat a deer's reaction time, so for those that believe that, I can see why they would demand more poundage. But the truth is that given reasonable and realistic bowhunting shooting distances, I believe that people would be surprised at the low poundages that can be successfully used. But the real question of the thread is about long-term effects of heavy poundage bows, and will that normally cut short your bowhunting longevity.

As I understand it, their "official position" is that they want them gone. There is no closed season. There is no bag limit. There is no restrictions on hunting methods or weapons. All that is required to harvest them is a NYS hunting license. There was an interesting quote in a recent issue of New York State Outdoor News that indicated that they did not necessarily want you actively hunting them for fear of dispersing them and driving these feral hogs into new territory and hastening their introduction. The quote was from some official in the DEC, but I can't think of the name or position. I thought the comment was a bit strange. It's kind of one of these "having your cake and eating it too" kind of remarks ..... lol. But anyway, hunting them is not controlled, regulated or illegal. I thought there was something in the syllabus about hogs in NYS, but I could be wrong.

Well, the discussion has already taken more time than it's worth. It's not a question of anybody being out of line, but just an observation that declaring skepticism of somebody's account of something may not be the most friendly way to encourage that member to ever post again.

I often wonder how long-term excessive draw weight might impact such things as bursitis, arthritis, back spasms and other back problems, and premature muscle and joint difficulties. I remember back in the late 80's when I was preparing for a moose hunt, I regularly shot a Proline that was set at 80 pounds. That included NFAA tournament shoots a couple times per week, and endless hours of practice. It wasn't long after that that I developed some strange shoulder problems that I blamed on the excessive abuse from that bow. When the moose hunt was over, I bought a new bow that was set at 60 pounds, and never had another problem. Do you all think that guys shooting excessive draw weights may be setting themselves up for medical problems that might prematurely shut them out of bowhunting? I realize that it probably depends on the physical build of each individual. But I also see a whole lot of guys that are simply over-bowed. I know it affects their accuracy, but it also has me wondering how it may impact their longevity in the sport.

Good idea. I think they are all very interested in tracking the signs of feral hogs spreading in the state. I think they will appreciate the report.

Do non-hunters really differentiate between these idiots and the rest of us when they continually get bombarded with so many of these ridiculous incidents? We really get some pretty wide-spread bad press with these ugly displays of stupidity, and I think that a lot of non-hunters paint us with the same brush. Not fair, but I'll bet it happens. That's why every time I read another one of these kinds of stories, I almost take it personally because I know that, rightly or wrongly, such things have to effect how the non-hunting public views hunting and hunters.

No, I'm just saying that every so often there seems to be a feeding frenzy mentality that develops where for no particular reason that I can determine, a rather innocent post receives a strange out-of-scale negative or hostile reaction. We can certainly ask for more details and perhaps even offer alternative opinions of what may be going on there without declaring skepticism about the whole story, or declaring the story to be a little thin, etc. I don't know, I just think that it is not a great way to promote participation. It's not a big deal, but it just struck me a bit odd the way the whole reaction to the post went.

Just the other day, I fished around in my camera bag and grabbed one of the memory card plastic cases and headed out the door to check my camera. I never realized until I was at the camera getting ready to swap cards that the case was empty ...... wasted trip.

Actually, if you go back and read some of the replies there were a couple that basically were calling the post a lie. To quote one of them: "I'm skeptical of your story". Another: "Story is a little thin............". Frankly, I didn't see anything much to be skeptical of. Yes there may be more than one interpretation of what he found, but his interpretation is certainly one of the possibilities. It's not like poaching never happens. It's quite likely that replies like those are the reason he backed out of the thread and maybe out of forum participation.