Doc

I also push the fact that very few animals die peacefully of old age in their sleep. A few graphic descriptions of the deer yard over in Honeoye back in the 80's with the gaunt scarecrow looking deer standing in the middle of of east lake road too weak to move out of the way of cars, and the dead deer draped over the top strand of a fence because they lacked the strength to clear the fence when they tried to jump it. Also the description of snow covered lumps out in the field where dead deer carcasses were accumulating. I also point out the browse line and the necessary winter forage that was destroyed for at least a decade thereafter, and which can even now be detected. Now if that doesn't do it, I break out vivid descriptions of the gasping coon with distemper that I had to put down because it was in such obvious suffering. And some descriptions of the deer that wound up in my front deer slashed and bleeding to death after being chased with dogs taking one bite of flesh at a time over miles in the deep snow. And then there is the deer that I shot a couple of years ago that had suffered a similar fate as it was obvious that he was being slowly eaten while still alive. Now anyone who can still continue to harp on the cruelty of a hunters bullet or arrow, simply will never have a grasp on the reality of nature's alternatives to hunting. They want to use sentiment and emotion for their arguments and tug at people's heart-strings? ....... I can do that too.

Ok, here is a prime example of one of the reasons why gun ownership is constantly gaining deeper restrictions and hunting has been showing a marked reduction in participation. It is this kind of naive failure to recognize the importance of individual advocates, and organized advocates or to understand the political nature of these issues. In fact, I noted the tell-tale conspicuous absence of any credit being given the NRA as a necessary and time proven asset in the maintenance of gun and hunting rights. Those who think that Dads and Grandads and shooting instructors are all that's needed also fail to see that we are in a very severe minority, and that much of our destiny is not in our hands. It is a closed loop mentality that does not understand that we have to reach out to voters who don't hunt or who don't have cast-in-concrete views on guns and hunting. Wake up people ..... the opposition is not making those kinds of rookie mistakes.

Ok, here is what I found on California's Dept of Fish & Game website: "Until the mid 1950's, wild pigs were unclassified under state law and could be killed with no restrictions. In 1957, wild pigs were designated a game mammal by the State Legislature. The Fish and Game Commission soon established hunting seasons, bag and possession limits, method of take and the conditions for using dogs. In 1992 Fish and Game Code Sections 4650 through 4657 were added that required hunters to possess wild pig license tags while hunting pigs." So apparently they have given feral pigs full protection as a recognized game species, complete with seasons, bag limits, and special requirements for methods of taking as well as the specific tags that were previously mentioned. I'll tell you, that is a level of protection that most states reserve for their more prized game species. Given the stories of run-away populations and breeding frequency, it sounds like granting rats protected game species status....lol. So again I have to wonder if the claims of hog related environmental horror stories that we hear really have any credibility. There is something about these two widely divergent management claims and practices that really are hard to reconcile. Why don't we hear of California being completely over-run, rooted up and tossed into the ocean by some massive out-of-control hog population explosion.

Just to clarify, the programs I was watching were not involving casual individual license checking. They were portraying large inter-agency, organized raids. They were investing a lot of serious man-hours supposedly for the purpose of protecting these hogs. But they never did mention the specific violations (or maybe I missed it).

I'm sure that eventually NYS will copy California's lead on trying to turn a state environmental disaster into a money grab. In a state like NY that would put a financial strangle-hold on their environmental, fish and game management agency so they can pilfer the funds for more state spending elsewhere, we can assume that it hasn't happened strictly because it hasn't occurred to them yet. That doesn't make it a smart move, it only makes it a typical move.... lol.

Charlton Heston is dead and Tom Selleck shows no interest in getting into the battle. But there are George Clooneys all over the place. I guess it's time to simply let the libs keep the stage when it comes to the battle for the hearts and minds of the fence-sitters .... eh? You people don't seem to understand that we don't have a whole lot of options if we want any public figures at all actively countering all the george Clooneys of the world. You all seem to completely side-step that situation as you revel in your bashing of Nugent. By the way, most likely the reason that Selleck and others don't go out of their way to become active public advocates may just have something to do with the weird euphoria so many of us feel as we gleefully destroy our advocates.

If half of what they say about the environmental impacts of hog infestations are true, I would think that total un-restricted hunting, trapping, or whatever is the proper approach. Eradication should probably be the goal, not trying to squeeze some extra bucks out of the hunters. I'm thinking that "hog poaching" probably is not worth 5 seconds of our sparce DEC law enforcement personel's time. More regulations mean more enforcement time required with an already admittedly inadequate policing force. It seems to me that charging a fee for tags on a destructive invasive species really is not all that smart in that it not only hampers hunter participation in the extermination of the species, but also takes enforcement time away from truly deserving poaching enforcement. Leave it to a liberal government agency to place income above proper management.

I believe that that statement about whether he does more harm than good is pretty much an unsubstantiated opinion. Yes, opinion is what forums are meant for, but let's not confuse opinion with fact. My thoughts are based solely on the factual ways that he presents gun and hunting issues. I mean you all have worked all around the fact that he alone engages the public and does frame and present the debate in factual ways that are impossible to argue with. You have all apparently missed the point that no one else is doing this. And apparently you feel that this kind of thing is not necessary. Well let me point out for those that are unaware of it, that there is a whole crowd of very public, very well financed, and very dedicated and very vocal anti public figures working very hard for the hearts and minds of the uncommited. I do believe that those public anti-hunting and anti-gun personalities cannot go unchallenged. I don't happen to think that we have any spokespeople to squander especially when there are no other ones waiting to take on that role. So as stated before, while we spend all our energies shooting our own messengers, the opposition enjoys a united front, and dedicated singularity of purpose free of our style of self destructive nit-picking. That's not a real good situation for those of us that still believe in hunting and 2nd amendment rights.

I have actually listened to what he has to say and I've got to say that there really is not a whole lot there that I disagree with. I find him to be a guy that is a little rough around the edges as far as personality, but also a guy in complete control of the facts, that is very quick on his feet in a debate and a guy that very few antis can ever get the best of. I believe that most people who actually listen to his ranting, finish up saying, "You know, I can't really argue with any of that". I think we need more of those kinds of people and probably should stop trying to crucify anyone who takes center-stage and articulates these kinds of views. So far, I haven't heard anyone argue against what he is saying. You all just wish it was someone else saying it. I've got news for you ..... there is no one else.

And that really seems to be the center of the whole issue isn't it. Those that would like to silence Nugent really are not willing or able to step in to take his place in publicly speaking out for gun owners and hunters. None of us have that bully pulpit of fame (or notoriety) from which to speak, do we? We are all as individuals pretty much silent and ineffective in the arena of public debate because all we do is preach to the choir and discuss these things only amongst ourselves and have no national standing to reach the other side. Most of that is because we simply don't have the platform, and part of it is because it is a lot easier to simply snipe at those who do. I must say that other than Nugent, I have found very few people who can and do talk to the general non-hunting public on a national stage while arguing (quite factually and effectively I might add) all the pro-hunting and pro gun ownership points with precision and passion. In fact, I guess I don't hear anybody taking on that set of issues on our behalf who isn't simply talking between hunters. So I have to ask ..... you all have lots to say in terms of shooting down this guy. He does make an easy target of himself because he is not afraid to put himself on the firing line. And apparently there is no shortage of people overjoyed at taking potshots. So who exactly do you all have in mind to pick up the public debate in our behalf? Do any of you detractors think you have the ability to do a better job? Is there some other personality that you believe will take on these issues in a public fashion as Nugent does that will also do it according to your own narrow versions of perfection? Are you content to try to destroy this guy and leave this argument only to the antis. After all there are plenty from that side that are more than happy to preach to the public their version of the debate. Just about any person from the entertainment field will be more than happy to speak against guns and hunting and they have th eplatform to do it well. Are you all happy to leave the antis to frame the complete debate? My take is that Nugent is a fairly intelligent and effective speaker who is the only public figure willing to publicly stand up to the antis. I have not yet seen one of these antis who can successfully hold their own against this guy in a debate of the issues based on hard numbers and documented facts. To me that is a resource that should not be squandered by namby-pamby nit-pickers. We are pretty fond of shooting our own messengers. I am here to tell you that it may give some some sense of warm and fuzzy, but in reality we can't afford to keep on with that kind of nonsense. I see this kind of nit-picking in the way we treat our advocacy organizations and now here we go pulling the same crap with individuals who are willing to speak up on our behalf. Think what you want about the antis, but one thing you have to say for them is they are smart enough not to bicker among themselves. They have a singularity of purpose which hunters and gun owners just don't seem to be smart enough to match.

Lol ..... yes, maybe I should not be so amazed at anything that happens in California, particularly as regards game laws and policies. But I've got to say that their policies on the hog issue couldn't be any further apart from what appears to be the overwhelming opinions of all of the other states. I just thought it was curious.

OMG ...... you're right! If the shoe fits ..... wear it. Your attitude sure sounds like it fits perfectly. I've already explained the way I feel about those that attack our advocates. It may be uncomfortable for you to hear, but it has to be said.

Of course your definition of a "whacko" might just be the thing that is in question. I've heard other gun rights advocates referred to as whackos. I think the common term is "gun nuts". Actually, that is a term that the anti-gun crowd likes to use on anyone who has any strong, pro 2nd amendment thoughts, or even those who have the audacity to even own a gun. Is that what you believe? .... that he is a gun nut? Is it really his stance on these issues that you don't like? Or maybe it's the fact that he dares speak his mind when it comes to the support of guns and hunting. You want him silenced? If so, you have a lot of company. Go to any Handgun Control Inc. meeting or any animal rights organization and you will find all kinds of people who agree with you. Speak your mind at a PETA rally and you will get cheers from the crowd.

I have been watching a few of these programs on National Geographic channel about California game warden activities ..... "Wild Justice" I believe is the name of the program. So far I saw a couple programs that described their efforts to apprehend wild hog poachers. So out there in California, feral hogs are apparently protected to some extent. Season, bag limit, or some other level of protective laws, I'm not sure. But apparently there are laws that make some acts of pig killing illegal. Just about every other state that I have ever heard of treat feral hogs as basicly a scourge to the environment. I have heard the spread of active hog populations described as an apocalypse visited upon the environment, and a scourge that impacts the welfare of habitat and nearly all native species (human or animal), to the point where most state governments would like to see them exterminated completely. NY has adopted the policy of "kill 'em ...... kill 'em all". So is there anyone else that's confused by this radical difference in game management policy? Having never personally witnessed the destruction that everyone talks about, and the out-of-control population explosion that is always supposed to happen to pig populations, I have to wonder how California can support any level of legal restrictions on the harvesting of their pigs. Why isn't California one huge rooted-up state with jillions of pigs over-running every yard in their state? And of course there is the question as to whether the hog impacts might just be a bit over-stated. I don't know, I can only go by what the supposed experts tell me. But then most of that does not reconcile with California's notion of "wild hog poachers". What he heck am I missing here?

I have to say that I am curious as to what makes people such haters when it comes to someone who speaks up for gun ownership and hunting. I can understand the obvious answer to that, except that most of you claim to be hunters who prize your right to own firearms. What is this perverse need for destruction of our advocates? Why is there so much comment here that sounds an awful lot like it is coming directly from campaigns of animal rights organizations, and/or the Brady bunch of gun confiscators? Is the left wing getting so transparent now that they can't even be a little bit subtle about their hatred of gun and hunting advocates?

As I understand it, it is anything south of route 20. Although, you have to wonder about cities like Canandaigua and Geneva, both of which have routes 5 & 20 running right through them, and have some suburban type areas south of that route.

I have always been back and forth on this issue, depending on whether I have my hunter hat on or my landowner hat on. I have a house that is at the end of a 200+ yard open field on some rather heavily used hunting area. The hedgerow between the field and my house is a few red pine trees. Deer do like to come down the edge of that hedgerow when the hunting pressure starts. The distance is such that nobody shoots the length of the field with a shotgun. With a rifle? ........ who knows? On the other hand, I have spent decades abusing my shoulder with that old 12 guage mangler. Heaven help me if my 3 or 5 shot pattern needs adjustment at the beginning of the year. Anymore than 5 slugs, and I am likely to be nursing a bruised shoulder and will be flinching like crazy by the 6th shot .... lol. I wouldn't mind retiring that old man-killer and replacing it with something like a .243 or .270, or something of that nature that is a little kinder to my old bones. Also, it would be nice to be able to pick the exact hair on the deer that I want to hit ........ and then actually do it. I have a theory (and that's all it is) that when a guy goes afield with a very precision kind of weapon that he has spent a lot of time shooting, like a nice scope sighted rifle, he is much more likely to try to use that precision in a careful, deliberate fashion, which automatically makes it a safer shot. That as opposed to the all too typical, spray and pray, 5-shot volleys that I often hear with the shotguns. I think that shotgunners have an awful lot of bird-hunter mentality in their deer hunting. Who knows, maybe while they are carefully settling down for that shot with their rifle, they just might see that gray house just beyond the hedge across the field .....lol.

Got a lot of heavy rain last night. I'm wondering what I am going to find out there when it gets light .... lol.

I have noticed that a lot of times you will see turkeys and deer together. It's almost like they know that where there is food for the other, there is food for them. Their diet is quite similar.

I used to make my own strings, so a string change was really cheap. You're right, back in the days when they had the tear-drop fitting, there was no need for bow presses and all kinds of expertise. I could do any kind of bow repair or modification I wanted with a spare, over-sized bowstring (over-sized string so I could do it by myself) that I kept around just for that use. Bow design has come a long way hasn't it? ..... lol. They have increased the cost of a string change by ten-fold. Somebody looking for something new to design and put on the market?.... well there is a good lead to a new needed product. Develop and market a bow stringing system on bows that doesn't require a $100 (or whatever) trip to the pro-shop. It wouldn't be all that hard to do.

Here is another picture for reference. When I spoke about the height of the camera, I should have also mentioned that it does have a slight downward slant because of the shape of the tree. So I'm not sure how well that shows heights of things in the image. But anyway, this image may help establish something about the height:

Well, when the heck did we get all this rain? yeah, I've seen some showers here and there, but nothing that would explain all this water. The only thing I can figure is I must have slept through some heavy gully-washers during the nights. I will say, I think it was Saturday morning when I was heading for town, every little culvert had logs, gravel, leaves and other debris laying all over the road, so something ugly had happened during the night. Good thing I'm a sound sleeper ..... lol. But now for the second week, there are huge places that I still can't take the mower. These areas are going to be a darned jungle by the time I can get out there to mow them.

That was my first thought. I really can't think what else it could be.

This issue can be a very volitile issue. I believe that whether these rifle changes get passed or not depends on how much public attention it gets. Ontario basicly had the thing passed until it was discovered that there was a flaw in the way it was written up. It was on Patterson's desk ready for signing when the Bristol town supervisor had to request that he veto it so they could correct the description of where the rifles would be allowed. Once that happened, it basically went back to the beginning of the process. That glitch got picked up by the Canandaigua Messenger and that was all she wrote. The anti-rifle forces got wind of it all and organized and strong-armed their town supervisors to take up a negative position on the change even after the area description was officially modified to include only areas south of rts 5&20. Apparently a much quieter movement has taken place to silently bring the change back to life and start it through the legislative gauntlet. I really believed it was a completely dead issue until I read about it in the NYS Outdoor News. So now there is some hope, but only as long as the anti-rifle forces are not alerted. I hope that NYS Outdoor News has not made this info public too early. So now, I guess the message is ..... "Sh-h-h-h-". I'll have more to say about it once the damned bill is finally signed and turned into law.....lol.

Ok, I guess I have never heard them called that before, but I think I know what you are talking about now ..... thanx