Doc

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.

I just think that hunting 50 yards from someone's house is a bit tacky and unnecessary. In terms of the safety aspect, I believe it is more than just a function of distance. There is always the question of adequate back-stops, and the direction of the shot. I don't want anyone standing 50 yards from my house and shooting straight in my direction. I can't imagine anyone liking that idea. And yet we talk about legalizing such a practice. There might be something a bit un-nerving looking over toward your neighbor's place and seeing someone getting ready to loose and arrow in your direction at 50 yards. We do some target shooting at 50 yards and beyond, and we have a standing rule that regardless of shot distance, everyone is behind the shooter ..... always! ....... even at 50 yards and even farther. So why would I expect that my neighbor's house can act as my backstop for my 50 yard shots? Would you like to have to call your neighbor and ask if he was going to be shooting before you or your family felt safe using your backyard? The 50 yard rule would allow exactly that to happen.....legally.

I'll tell you what works for me. If for some reason I take off my outer BO jacket or whatever, it immediately gets hung on a limb right next to where I am working. That is true whether I still have some blaze orange on or not. No need to bring anything extra along. Simply don't throw all your blaze orange on the ground. It doesn't do much good there. Hang it up. Also, what ever shirts I have on underneath are always a pretty bright color as well. I don't leave myself unprotected for even a second. Spending all your deerhunting life on fairly high pressured state land tends to make you always super safety conscious. Of course, it all depends on how much of a gambler you are. For me when the stakes are my life or perhaps an arm or leg or two, I don't tend to gamble hardly at all.....lol.

I wonder why this is a state law anyway. Why shouldn't such things be determined by local laws that can be tailored to the specific conditions, needs, and requirements of the municipality? That way, if some township feels the need to reduce their deer population, they can make whatever specific modifications to their own law to enable whatever they feel they must do.

I have used a shotgun on squirrels. I actually don't relate that to any kind of marksmanship success or failure....lol. Generally, I am looking for a quick meal, and don't really try to apply a whole lot of "challenge" to the activity. It's simply meat-gathering .... pure and simple and I'm not very interested in shooting only at "posing" squirrels.

That's the one kind of hunting accident that I have never been able to understand, but yet one of the most common. What is it about a human that could possibly look like a deer? It is hard to imagine how someone gutting a deer out (or any other kind of activity) could look like a deer. But yet every year it happens. If you are trying to "place" your shot and avoid wounding, how do you look at a human, mistake them for a deer and place a round in the kill zone? Obviously there is still the old "spray and pray" style of shooting going on out there. One thing we all have to realize is that not everyone out there is as careful as we are. In fact some are just plain reckless and irresponsible. So it's always a good idea to hunt defensively. Fortunately, most of us do.

As usual your reply makes absolutely no sense, but I know it is important to you to have the last word, so have at it ....lol.

Yeah, I was wondering how long it would be before you started that kind of stuff. I knew you couldn't keep up a decent discussion for very long.

I'm trying to stay positive, but I've got to admit that it's pretty darn frustrating.

Personally, I do not think the path to strengthening hunting lies in randomly eliminating regulations and controls. In fact I think that is the quickest way to watch public respect, tolerance, and sympathies for hunting erode. As soon as we begin to think that our right to hunt trumps the rights of property owners, we should be ready for a huge shift in public attitudes against hunting. Yes, hunting access is an important feature, but not at the expense of respectful and safe distances from the homes of others. That's just the way I see it.

I already agreed that the DA is a dork. As far as jumping to conclusions, I will leave that to others.

If that is the way it is worded, I would consider even a garage or shed to be a structure that is "in use". All of those things are structures that could have a person in them at one time or another. That is probably the common thread that runs through the whole statement. It doesn't sound like it has to be a structure that is "lived in". Again, it could be one of those laws that can be pulled and stretched to fit any kind of ticket that law enforcement may feel a need to write.

Oh damn ..... I knew I'd be stepping on somebody's toes with that remark. Sorry about that. It was kind of meant to be funny, but still probably represents how I would feel if I looked out my window and saw some guy in a treestand grinning back at me. I still feel that 500' is a decent and respectful distance to maintain from somebody's home (it really isn't all that far). And I also have to say that such proximity to homes and all the activity that takes place there is absolutely not my version of hunting. It may be fine for others and that's ok, but for me it's not the hunting experience that I want. So I repeat .... It's not a law change that will get support from me.

I haven't heard of any requirement to report a harvest, but I would imagine that they would be real appreciative of any info on taking any of these critters. You might think they would be interested in where any were taken and maybe even some vital data such as gender, weight, and if it can be determined ... age. I think the DEC is the first phone call I would make if I ever got one.

As I understand it, it is not only the farmers that catch hell with exploding hog populations, but resident wildlife and habitat also get beat up by these things. Understand that they compete (very successfully) for the very same food resources that our game birds and animals compete for, only excessive populations of hogs would make them the winners in that competition. They are "eating machines" and very good at altering habitat ....... not for the better. They are definitely a non-native species that we could do without. I would love to hunt pigs also. I think it would be fun. However, if I ever really get the urge to do so, there are plenty of states down south and out west that are already infested with them and who would truly appreciate our help in controlling that infestation.

Seriously ...... Doesn't hunting usually get associated with wild things in wild environment? Urban hunting ..... doesn't that have a rather strange ring to it? Why are so many bowhunters concerned with being able to cozy up to other people's homes. Probably the last place I would ever want to hunt is next to someone's home. That would absolutely ruin the whole atmosphere of the hunt. I don't know, that's just the way I feel about it, so efforts to change that law will get no support from me. Those that get some kind of voyeuristic pleasures from that kind of hunting will have to fight that battle without me .....lol. 500' is about as much encroachment on people's privacy as I am willing to go for. I have no safety concerns when it comes to bowhunting closer than that, but it just seems right to me not to force my hunting into people's backyards.

I'm definitely not a fan of Ted Nugent ..................BUT ................... I really do wish I could defend the 2nd amendment half as well as he did in that interview. I wish I could instantly quote the stats as quickly as he did. I also like the fact that he did not allow Morgan to speak over him as is so often the technique of the anti-gun crowd. Apparently there was some language that may not have been appropriate or necessary, but in general I believe he stated our case very well and this time it was done in a fashion that might open a few eyes about what gunowners have been saying. I would say that he picked up a lot of stock in my mind with this interview and basically put Morgan in his place.