Doc

Sounds like something you want to do yourself? That's a job that I haven't tackled since they went away from the steel cables .... lol. I wouldn't even know where to start. Obviously it can't be rocket science, but I would definitely require some "in-person" help at least for the first one. It would be a good thing to know since it's not a real cheap thing to do. The only thing I know for sure is that you have to go out and buy a bow-press. After that ...... I haven't a clue....lol.

Look, I'm sorry I replied to your post. Not sure what your problem is, but if you didn't want any comments, you probably should have said so.

It's been 3 times that I have suddenly come upon someone dressed completely in camo on a very heavily pressured piece of state land (how many did I never see?). I get so darn irritated with those guys that plant themselves in the background dressed completely in camo during gun season, just tempting fate and using me in their little game of chance. It's not just their life they're messing with. I'm not sure who it was that mentioned the fact that camo'ed hunters in the background behind a deer is a situation that can turn an innocent, safe, responsible, hunter into a person who has to spend the rest of their lives knowing that they have killed or maimed somebody. Their fault or not, it doesn't matter. It has to be a traumatic thing to live with and completely unnecessary. And sure there are those that would parrot back that old safety slogan of "Be sure of the target and the background behind it". Well, if we are to be honest about that nice sounding adage we have to admit that unless you only hunt on a shooting range with foreground and background cleared down to the ground, and earthen backstops, none of us could swear that there isn't some goof, all camo'ed up, hunkered down in the woods behind the deer. Remember the object of camo and concealment is not to be seen. I don't like it when people put me in that position, and perhaps I get a little out of sorts when some jerk comes wandering out of that backgound with full camo. So perhaps that maybe explains a bit of my hard-line attitude when it comes to blaze orange. At least give me a chance to see you back there. Don't be puposely setting me up for that kind of horrific experience.

What kinds of liabilities go with selling things like that?

I neglected to comment on this part of your reply. I guess I never even thought of this kind of law because I thought that I had heard somewhere that it was already a requirement. If it's not, I absolutely agree that this would be a good revision.

I don't think there is anybody saying that B/O is some kind of magic bullet that will wipe out all hunting accidents. But let me quote one further stat about the overwhelming cause of hunting mishaps that was brought out in this report. "Of the 125 incidents in which the injured hunter was mistaken for game, 117 (94%) were not wearing hunter orange, and six (5%) were wearing hunter orange; for two (1%), hunter orange information was not recorded." Now that is getting pretty close to 100%. Relating a blaze orange law to the NYS seat belt law, I have never heard anyone say that wearing a seat belt will eliminate all car accidents or prevent 100% of the fatalities. And yet most people agree that it is a good law that saves lives.

I'm assuming that they did not only select those kinds of conditions differently for each category. In other words, I doubt that they only counted the camo-wearers who got shot near or after darkness while disregarding those B/O wearers shot in those conditions. I'm assuming that the results are random with no special slanting one way or the other. Further, the results are so stark that it's hard to imagine any influencing factors that would significantly change the obvious conclusions. Also, I'm not sure that a significant number of these incidents actually occurred near or after dark. However, when I think about blaze orange in the extreme twilight situations that I have seen on my way into or out of the woods, I must say that B/O does show up exceptionally well in those kinds of marginal lighting conditions especially when compared to camo which doesn't show up at all. I do wish there was some way of surveying how many lives have been saved or injuries averted because of B/O, but of course that is impossible to determine. I do think people would be shocked. However on another branch of this discussion, I am curioius about the reasoning behind those that think that blaze orange is something that they wouldn't go gun hunting without, but feel that there is some reason why it should not be mandatory. I hear this alot, but seldom hear any reasons that I can actually get behind. So far, I have heard essentially three reasons. One is that it infringes on our God-given right to be stupid and somehow threatens citizen freedoms and the American way. Another is that passing such a law will instantly turn all hunters into idiots that will use that law as an excuse to shoot any human forms that are not B/O. And the last reason is, "I just don't want to wear B/O" (perhaps some kind of fashion statement). I'm collecting these excuses just for curiosity's sake, and would appreciate any other contributions to the list. Maybe one of these will eventually make some sense to me so I can get straight on this issue.

Per data reported at the bottom of http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00044112.htm , out of 356 two-party (not self inflicted), hunting associated firearms injuries, between1989 through 1995, 259 wore no blaze orange, and 84 did. You can make out of that whatever you want, but I figure it all says that there simply is no excuse for not wearing it. Is it flawless? ....... obviously not. Is it a very significant safety measure? ..... the numbers speak for themselves. By the way, this report also noted that only 81% of the hunters wear blaze orange.

By the way, some good reading on the subject for those that are interested: http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/00044112.htm http://www.dfw.state...ge_Clothing.pdf

Why is it that people automatically think that just because you don't see B/O, hunters would look at something human-shaped and shoot it? Where does that line of logic come from? ..... lol. I will say that if theplace there are people in the woods that don't want to be seen, you very likely will not see them, and they might very well be in the line of fire. Certainly that has a stronger potential of happening with those that are dressed in camo and trying their best to blend in with their surroundings than those dressed in B/O. But that is not going to happen anymore frequently with a B/O regulation. When it comes to other states and their safety records, after this year's results, our record may no longer be so stellar. We had a bad year, especially when you consider all incidents and not just the fatalities. As far as making it mandatory, I am not one of these paranoid types that sees such a regulation as leading to the downfall of the free world. And I would have no problem supporting such a law. And no, that doesn't mean that I would start shooting anyone who isn't wearing it ..... lol.

That's a unique mount. I don't think I have ever seen anyone try that one. I like it!

And, I don't think that it does. Sure enough there are some subjects that I will never agree with some on. But you know what ...... I do get over it and move on, never afraid to re-engage in the discussion whenever it comes up again, but I think we all understand the difference between disagreements and vendettas. At least I hope so ..... lol. If you ever want to test that out, just let some animal rights wacko come on here spewing their garbage and see what happens.

Bran Flakes ...... make that bran flakes ...... and no pissing there-in ..... lol. And Merry Christmas to you too.

Merry Christmas to everyone

I have always been impressed as to how well that B/O clothing keeps me aware of just who has crept in and set up in a situation that I consider to be too close. Sometimes the situation is reversed, and I find myself getting too close to someone else. The B/O keeps that from happening. That is a case where an unsafe situation can be averted simply and only because of blaze orange. I don't have to see the whole hunter or even very much of him to be instantly alerted that it is time to move on.

I have already stated what I think about personal attacks. However, I fully expect that issues regarding turf wars and such in hunting are going to continue to be vigorously debated, and understandably so, just as they have for decades. And no, I do not expect that those arguments are always going to be conducted in a pleasant way. It just isn't human nature and it's silly to expect that to change. Also, I do not expect that such arguing is going to have one single impact on the future of hunting. I keep hearing this nonsense about how just because the hunting community is not enjoined in some sort of constant lovefest that the antis are going to simply walk in and dissolve hunting. That's total nonsense. We have survived many more vicious arguments in the past than anything we have going on now, and I fully expect that to all continue and be just as harmless as it always has been. Frankly, I am totally against the tone of some of this stuff simply from a standpoint of it being offensive to watch, listen to, or read. But I have never for a minute saw any of it as being a problem for the future of hunting. Would it be better if these things could be kept civil? ...... absolutely. Is the world of hunting going to come crashing down around our ears because it is not? ....... not hardly.

My little tiny piece of 8N: Population down very slightly from what little of the season that I actually got to use and observe. Given the eyeball problem, and the crappy weather at the start of bow season, I guess I did ok. I got my supply of venison.

Another thing to consider is the fact that not many deer are really being fooled by the presence of the camera, even the IR ones. Many pictures that I get, the deer are staring right at it ..... lol. So, if you use a camera prior to or during hunting season, you may want to be careful about using it at a spot where you intend to hunt. Most deer will tolerate it, but some of the bigger guys won't.

Quite a while ago, I posted a lot of this same kind of stuff on here and believe it or not, there were people who got very irate and staunchly defended "their right" to wear full camo during gun deer season. It's frustrating, but there are more of them out there than you would ever want to believe.

Well, obviously that isn't the way I interpreted it. Perhaps I was reading it with too much of a bias based on other similar threads that I have read. I think it is because the lines often get blurred between just expressing an opinion, and using opinion to bash other hunters equipment, methods, etc. At any rate if that is what was meant, then I have to agree. We had two topics on here in particular that I felt were out of line. They were basically the "I hate Bowhunters" and the "I hate Gunhunters" threads. That's not really something that I think belongs on a hunting forum.

Ok, what do you think is the solution? When a demand is made on seasons or weapons are you then required to simply let it happen without a single dissenting word? Do you agree with every proposed change that comes along? Don't you have any opinions that you feel are worth fighting for? In the name of harmony is it your duty to ditch all your opinions and beliefs? Don't you people understand that everything involved in the legalities of the way we hunt have always been the result of viscious infighting, debate. And yes, a lot of those look like attacks ...... what the heck, a lot of them are. In my previous reply, I talked about attacks on the shotgun/rifle people and the opinions that chunks of their season should be replaced with additional muzzleloader season. Should they just roll over and say "yes sir, in the spirit of harmony, take my season"? Is that a reasonable response? Is that what you are expecting of them? Well, it's pretty obvious that that probably will not happen. If that opinion ever gains any traction, expect a huge battle as viscious as any that is going on now or ever has. As long as you have special seasons, you will have turf wars, and some rather unfriendly sounding discussions about when and how long those seasons should be and what is allowed in those seasons. Some will call that stuff "elitism", others will call it maintaining traditions, others will call it evolution of technology, some may have strong feelings about the fairness of some changes. Probably all will have some element of truth and correctness, but the whole process will always look like battle. I sure don't like this way of settling things but I haven't heard anyone come up with any more reasonable approaches that have a chance in hell of ever working. But I sure am open to any suggestions.

You can call it what you want, but when I consider the viewpoint of a shotgun/rifle hunter reading all these posts that propose hacking on the only season that he participates in, in favor of an extended ML season or bow season, I guess he might understandably consider that to be a pretty serious attack on the way that he hunts. Whether that be proposed law, or just an opinion (from which most laws spring) the result is understandably an instant aire of combat. And if he gets a little out of sorts about it, I think it might take more than Rodney King coming along whining about "can't we all just get along" to make him think otherwise. You want to reduce pressure on the herd, then start proposing that all take a hit rather than focusing on one segment of the hunting population. That sort of thing is exactly what starts the kind of pissing contests that this thread is whining about. Sometimes we have to put ourselves in the other guy's shoes and then we start to understand where all the dischord comes from. Yes, there are other kinds of attacks that are just as incendiary (and we have seen them here), but let's not be ignoring the kind that threaten other hunters the most and are most likely to get negative reactions ....... the ones that want to remove one hunter's established season in favor of jamming in someone else's. That is the quickest way to pit one hunter against another that I can think of. All I am saying is that if you are going to engage in that sort of thing, don't be surprised if there isn't some other sniping that comes out of all that and don't be all of a sudden asking, "can't we just all get along". Just a little edit: I am not saying that we shouldn't have and express our opinions. That really is the only way to affect change. What I am saying is that when we offer up changes that invade the space of others, we should know what we are likely to get in return.

I definitely could live with a "one-buck rule". No question that it wouldn't change my harvest at all ..... lol. But I still think it is merely a feel-good meaningless effort that would have an insignificant result on buck populations. Somebody did mention one possible beneficial side-effect .... that was that perhaps more hunters would be a bit more selective in the quality of the buck that they take. For those hung up on what kind of deer that others harvest, I guess that might actually work that way. Other than that, nobody would probably ever notice the difference except that rare individual who encounters the luck to have a second buck available for a shot. It turns out to be of no benefit to anyone, and actually irritates a few. So it seems like a lose-lose result..... just the kind of law that we need more of ..... right?

Frankly, I don't remember there ever having been this kind of dischord until recently when it seems as though everyone is trying to take over each other's season. It's like a pack of dogs attacking and defending. We now have muzzleloaders proposing to shorten the regular season (shotgun, rifle, muzzleloader, pistol, bow), and replace part of that with a longer muzzleloader/bow season (per the "longer ML season" thread). I think if there are some shotgun/rifle hunters that find that a bit aggressive toward them, they probably have a perfect right to feel that way. I have also heard bowhunters basically saying the same thing. As their season length grows they talk about significantly shortening the regular gun season. Is there any real surprise when special interest hunters begin to propose these kinds of things against other groups of hunters? And you know what's really funny is that it is always those that the aggression is against that are portrayed as the bad guys. If we are going to have "special seasons", we are going to have to find a way to make them cast in concrete so that every time some new weapon is legalized, we don't have this mad scramble of vultures looking to capitalize on it by screwing someone else. I think we also have to recognize that we can't keep adding special seasons just because it sounds like a nifty thing. There are some practical limits as to how long the hunting season really can be. So when you get to the point where adding another special season requires someone else shortening theirs, start expecting some friction. We can whine about "can't we all just get along" (per that great American Rodney King....lol), but the fact is that until we stop regarding the special seasons of other to be fair game for take-over, the answer to that question will always be ...."No".

I will start off with something that I was painfully reminded of yesterday when I swapped out the SD-card and got back to my computer. What I found was 549 pictures in only a couple of days. What happened was that out in front of the camera was a large pine tree with an overhanging limb. A couple of nights ago, we had a pretty good wind all night. Well guess what. the movement of that limb triggered the camera all of that time and just kept tripping off picture after picture. Here's the real bad news ..... You can't always tell from looking at those tiny thumbnails whether there might be a deer in any of those pictures, so each one has to be opened and examined before you can just delete them. I have had similar results with goldenrod, etc. So be sure to take a final look for things that the wind can move that might trigger the motion sensor of the camera.