Doc

I really didn't think that the weather has been very wet, but I still have huge areas of lawn that I can't even get near because of soggy ground. Some places I have standing water. Anybody else having any problems with waterlogged lawn, or is it just a local problem? Forget the low water table due to the snow-less winter here. I have a small pond that is over-flowing. Also, I have a well that is pushing water out the top of the casing. So any water shortages that the dry winter may have caused are certainly all better now.

There ya go! absolute proof of a NYS mountain lion ...... lol.

Bill- You were quite lucky. I've heard some awful nasty horror stories about injuries when bows self-destruct at full draw. I agree with the suggestion to take a real close look at the limbs. Some of these bows are becoming darn near "delicate" as the manufacturers try to squeeze the last foot per second out of them.

OK, this one has me really confused. I don't know what the heck I'm looking at here: The camera is about 2-1/2' off the ground and tipped very slightly toward the ground. To me it almost looks like the tail of a housecat or something. I tried to think of some part of a deer that would look like that, but nothing makes any sense. It must be fairly close to the camera because the flash burned out the image again. I'm beginning to think I am infested with aliens ..... lol.

See, that's what makes hunting different from a trip to meat counter of the super market. Appreciate the near misses as well as the scores. That's what makes success all that much sweeter.

Yup! and that sure does mean a whole lot than some hack-job by a news reporter. Relative to who Nugent speaks for, or doesn't, I will say that I really don't go out of my way to act like a loyal fan ...... because I'm not. However, I will also say that I don't go out of my way to throw him under the bus either. I find no benefit to hunters to do that. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to devote that much of their life and energies toward speaking up for hunters and gun owners, (When almost all hunters won't even bother to pick up a pen and write their opinions or hunting concerns to legislators), is probably not someone that I feel the need to tear down. I guess I just don't get the motivations for some of this spite that we seem to enjoy heaping on people that do speak up for us. I see the American hunter as being the most self-destructive set of individuals in society as they seem to get some perverse joy out of destroying those individuals and organizations that volunteer and serve as advocates. Really, I just don't get it. Maybe I don't necessarily like his abrasive style of speaking. Maybe I don't like his personality. Maybe he does make some mistakes along the way (don't we all). Maybe I don't like his music ....lol, but I have yet to hear much of what he says that I disagree with. I don't have to like the guy, or like much about him in order to not go out of my way to try to get people to stop listening to his positive views toward hunters and hunting. I don't see that sort of thing as being beneficial to me as a hunter and gun owner. Why would it be? Also, I would say that as long as we demand absolute perfection from our advocates, we needn't wonder why we have so few people saying anything positive about hunting and gun ownership. We do it to ourselves everytime.

That is the odd thing about this whole fiasco. Say what you want about the guy, you have to admit that he is not dumb. I find it hard to believe that he would knowingly air a program that depicts an illegal act. I really do believe that he had no idea that he had broken the law. In terms of the description of the law being obvious and clearly posted on the regulations book, I would have to see the example before I put a whole lot of credibility in the word of any newspaper reporter. Sorry, but I do have a bit of a general bias against the media when it comes to gun or hunting issues. Yeah, I know ..... it has to be true because it was in the newspaper ..... right? Well, maybe it is, but I would rather read that information from a more reliable source before I get too excited about it.

Trackloader???? What is that? I guess it's probably one of those things where if you have to ask what it is, you probably wouldn't know where to find one anyway ...... lol.

Yes, that little saying about "ignorance of the law" is an often quoted saying, and is most often dragged out by someone (like everyone else) who unwittingly breaks laws just about every day. I have reviewed some of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law which is contained in two volumes with a total stack height of over 3-1/2" of small print and complex legalese which will quickly throw you into a coma-like stupor and that simply resembles a bunch of double-talk. I have seen laws where if you ask 3 different law enforcement people the same question you will get 3 different interpretations. We have discussed laws on this site and have come away with no actual resolution of the meanings of those laws. Some of the laws defy interpretations. So saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse simply is another way of saying that any time that some L.E.O. decides he wants to write you up, it is very likely that he will be able find some obscure law and do so even if you have made a concerted effort to educate yourself on the entire content of the law. It's one of those things that sounds so wise and thoughtful when you say it, but which also like many of the laws themselves, has no basis in actual reality. Oh, and by the way I have only been talking about NYS laws. So imagine the research involved when you visit 3 or 4 different states in the same year. You had better have a whole lot of time on your hands or reconcile yourself to the fact that you will be ignorant of some local laws and you very well might get arrested for those. I hear that oft quoted little phrase about ignorance of the law, and acknowledge that it applies. However I also disregard it as a meaningless phrase that is so far out of touch with reality that it has no real practical meaning.

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.