Doc

Let's understand that we are not talking about a law that regulates how close to a structure we can hunt. We are talking about modifying a law that regulates how close to a neighboring structure that we can release an arrow whether that be hunting or target practice. Let's also understand that this law will regulate the back-yard target shooter as well. And that legal modification will apply in all neighborhoods regardless of lot size. In many suburbs the lot sizes may be very close to that 50 yard limit. Also it must be pointed out that the change in law will apply to all ages including the group of neighborhood kids who may or may not understand or care about the sensitivities of their neighbors ..... lol. Do I feel that there may be disputes involving extremely unsafe situations caused by this kind of a change ...... you bet. If I lived in one of these sub-divisions, and I walked out in my back yard and found someone drawing down on some foam target at 50 yards with me all of a sudden behind it, I would be the first to be looking for somebody to choke. Fortunately I don't live in a situation where that could happen but there are a pile of people who do. I do honestly believe that most people do have the consideration and responsible attitudes so that the world of suburbia will not instantly turn into a hail of arrows flying into people's houses and yards. But I am also fully aware that jerks exist in this world, and neighbors are not always so concerned about safety or concerns of their neighbors. I also believe that it would just be a matter of time before we would be reading about somebody being stuck with an arrow because of this change. So I guess I am against revising the law to legalize the kind of carelessness and lack of responsibility that you just know would happen. I also want to maintain some legal recourse when a neighbor is put into such a position of unsafe conditions for himself, his family and his property. No one should have to be in a position to be afraid to step into their back yard because their neighbor is an archer. No, we do not all live in conditions where this can become a problem, but that doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of others who do. All I ask is to think how you would feel if this sort of situation were to happen to you. How would you like to find out that hunters had arranged to change the law so that you had no ability to stop this kind of activity next door. We can't always measure the correctness of a law simply as it relates to our own personal situations.

Cuddeback claims 1/4 second trigger speed. For me that may be worth the extra bucks. I don't know .... I still have a lot of time before I really have to make the decision. So many things to consider .........

Yes, I'm sure of it. It is a response to that Holder fiasco that Republicans are investigating now. It's an interesting story of government screw-up. Check out: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/08/attorney-general-eric-holder-grilled-on-bungled-gun-sting.html

That's ridiculous ....... standing room only ..... lol. I have never seen as many geese as I have this year. I don't think very many of them are going very far south this year.

Not too bad a price. But that 4 second trigger speed is absolutely unacceptable. I think that one is coming off the list. Unless an animal is standing there feeding or something, in 4 seconds they have plenty of time to walk right out of the picture. In fact as I went through that site, I noticed that all the Stealth-cam white-flash camers were 4 seconds. I think all the Stealth-cams are off the list.

I suggested that on another similar thread, and there were objections to adding a directional requirement to that law. Remember that in suburbia, there is always some house or yard that you are shooting at that is within 50 yards. I think a combination of the two (distance and direction) would be the best law. But that is not likely to happen. I do not credit our legislators with that kind of intelligence to understand direction of a shot is more important in satisfying the safety requirement than distance. So, I fully expect that they will shorten up the distance for bows to 50 yards and there will be all kinds of neighbor disputes with people actually shooting legally but irresponsibly at their neighbors house or yard.

I think everyone knows what is "good judgement", and "right" in that situation. And we all understand common sense. And we also know what the smart thing would be in those situations. But if everyone did the "right" thing and always applied common sense, good judgement, and always did the "smart" thing, we wouldn't need any law. However, this thread is about changing the law. And the change in law that we are talking about here could and would be used as a defense to the exact scenario that I described above.

Sounds like intentional homicide to me.

Normally, I would have an issue with the use of vulgarity and rudeness that is kind of the hallmark of Ted's personality. But in the case of Piers Morgan, I would be surprised if I could discuss gun issues without resorting to the same thing.....lol. Other than all that, nobody can honestly or realistically argue with his presentation of the facts and content of that interview. Argue about the debating style if you want, but the facts are irrefutable.

Lol ...... It doesn't format too well when copied and pasted onto this site, does it? That's why I simply gave the link. On another thread, I went to great efforts to completely re-type this chart and format it so people could follow the columns and rows. It didn't matter. Nobody read it anyway. It's a great source of info when discussing blaze orange topics if only you can get anyone to actually read it and then acknowledge the facts when they see them.

If you're standing in the middle of a field, you're probably safe enough ....... probably. For myself, I wouldn't trust even that situation. But I will say that under that situation, while standing in the middle of a field, if someone shoots you it probably doesn't have anything to do with the mentality of blaze orange being mandatory or not. More likely they simply want to shoot you.....lol. I only mentioned the idea of hanging your jacket on a tree limb or throwing it over a bush as a suggestion and as something that I do. For one thing, I have to put it somewhere. Why not put it where it provides another layer of safety? However, whether you do that or not still should not absolve anyone from being liable for careless accidental shootings as a result of unsafe hunting practices. I think that goes without saying. The person that mis-identifies the target should still be the one that is legally accountable. If there are judges, juries, or other enforcement and judicial people that do not abide by that line of thinking, then that is a problem that has nothing to do with blaze orange.

Where do you buy your factory reconditioned cams?

I keep reading about these unique parcels of property where in one fashion or another hunting is impaired by the 500' rule, but I have yet to read any reply to my comments of legalizing someone taking shots in the direction of a neighbor's house from a mere 50 yards. Is that really something that you support? Has anybody really visualized just how close 50 yards is? My gosh that is a commonly used target practice distance. Would you feel comfortable sending the kids out in the back yard while someone is 50 yards away shooting in their direction? How do you feel about your house being used as an archery backstop? That's the reality of the changes you people are in favor of. Am I the only one that understands that?

If there are some jerks that will follow that line of thinking, they probably already think that way even without mandatory B/O. That is even another good argument in favor of wearing blaze orange. What amazes me is all the people who claim that hunters will react in this ridiculous way, and yet feel comfortable wandering around without B/O. Blaze orange may not be a perfect defense, but it still is darned effective. We will never know how many of us have never been shot at because we were decked out in B/O, and I'll tell you that I don't really want to find out about that stat with any kind of first hand experience, if you get what I'm saying.

That's the kinds of comments that I am interested in. I started a new thread inquiring about experiences with a few specific makes and models. Here is one thing that I am doing to minimize my risks somewhat .... I am only dealing with internet suppliers that offer: free shipping and shipping returns if necessary No taxes And a "no questions asked" return policy That is one thing that impressed the heck out of me about Hayneedle. All of this fiasco may have been a true frustrating pain in the butt, but didn't cost me one dime. So, the theory is that if I do happen to run into a piece of junk, I won't be dealing with the manufacturer, but simply return it to the seller. However, I am still interested in your Cuddeback comment. Free or not, no one wants to set themselves up for a bunch of frustration and wasted time.

I'm looking at the Cuddeback Attack and the Cuddeback Capture, and the Stealthcam Rogue and the Stealth-cam Sniper Pro for my next purchase. I have only a few qualifications: good color and quality of day or night images (no infra-red) good functional quality and reliability Ease of use and set-up The cost of the above makes and models is about as far as I will go for price. Has anyone had any experience with any of these specific cameras? Any general comments on these manufacturers in terms of customer service and reliability, Etc.?

Too late. Fed-ex headed out the driveway with the packages. I've done my time with them, and am simply not willing to endure one more minute of frustration. Time to move on. So now I am upping my game a bit and looking at Cuddeback Attack or Capture or Stealth-Cam Rogue or Sniper pro. More bucks, but it looks like an improvement in picture quality and a big improvement in trigger speed. In terms of function, well ...... perhaps that will become a whole different new adventure ..... Lol. It's weird, I seem to be encountering more problems with the white-flash cameras than I have had with my three IR cameras. Although I did have to return a Primos.

Wow ..... those are some great prices. Might be time to drag those traps out of the barn and have at it.

They are all back in the mix again ..... lol. The one problem I have is the lack of good test reports on white-flash cams. Chasinggame.com covers a lot of trail cams and gives sample pictures, but even they are a bit short on covering the white-flash cams. It looks like the IR styles are getting to be the only ones that anyone is interested in anymore, but I have a special use for one or two reasonably priced cams that I want for some fairly good quality color pictures. Anyway .... the search continues, and stealthcam is certainly one of the candidates.

I guess I don't really understand the philosophy behind all these special youth seasons. Is someone claiming that there's not enough access to hunting time and that an additional three days is going to make the difference? What's supposed to be the big benefit to these seasons. Is there any data that shows that special seasons increase recruitment or is this all just a "feel-good" activity to make people feel like they are doing something about the decline of hunter population? I hear everyone talking like these proposed special youth seasons are some kind of salvation for hunting. Ok .... so exactly what is the problem that these things are supposed to be addressing. What evidence is there that such seasons make any difference at all?

The following link is a pretty good report from a few years back that gives exactly the info you are asking about. Especially note the chart at the end of the article for a pretty good run-down on the stats. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044112.htm

Did anyone say that? That makes no sense at all. I don't have a clue where you are coming up with that statement.

My reply was not related to your BS so relax.

I understand that, but the subject here is reducing the shooting proximity for bows. And I am just pointing out that without adding some clause about not shooting at a structure, 50 yards is way too close. As I pointed out above .... just put yourself in the position of a neighbor stepping out his door and seeing someone at full draw 50 yards away with the arrow pointed at his chest. I suspect that even if the arrow was only roughly pointed in the direction of your property, you would understandably probably flip out on the guy. As far as what kinds of structures should be included, that's another subject. My take on all this is that any residential situation that has outbuildings (including sheds), is that all buildings should be treated like dwellings since there is no real practical way to define the frequency of use.

Nope! ..... I just found out that even the few times when the camera was flashing, most of all that flashing wasn't even taking a picture. Obviously there is more wrong here than just a sensing problem. The flaws are getting too complex and inter-twined, and I think I really don't want to put myself through the frustration and hassle of trying to get everything fixed over the phone. Hayneedle is willing to refund my money, and I'm going to chalk this whole fiasco up to experience, take the cash and run. So now I am back to square one with trying to find a good reliable "white-flash" camera.