Doc

Somehow I don't think we are seing the whole story here. I am a staunch advocate of home defense, but I'm wondering if there might be a bit more personal involvement between this woman and the two guys. I don't know, but as the story is being portrayed it looks like a clear-cut case of self defense. So the arrest may be very well be based on some other features of the event that we are not privy to.

I hate to say it, but I think all these special "youth seasons" are very much grasping at straws. I think that everyone is hoping the future of hunting relies on holding special introductory seasons. I hope they do some good, but realistically, I believe that they are pretty much window dressing, and really don't address the real causes behind the low replacement rates in hunter populations. I don't for a minute believe that kids have no interest in hunting because they don't have a special time set aside for them. The real reasons are social, and until ways can be found to re-ignite youth interests in all outdoor activities and a genuine interest and enthusiasm in nature, all the rest of these experiments are most likely going to be wasted effort. Sure I suppose there is no harm in experimenting, but the hunting community should not start thinking that some special season is just the ticket for turning things around. I'm hoping that the powers that be are using their brain power on more than just this feeble activity. It would be nice if there were a few school programs that attempt to make outdoor activities "cool" again and other things that encourage kids to appreciate all things natural. It also would be nice to try to indoctrinate parents into appreciating the mental and physical values of outdoor activities for their kids and themselves. Hiking, camping, fishing, trapping, or just plain random exploration of nature all are a whole lot more influential in boosting the hunter numbers than any of the special seasons that anybody might concoct. Furthermore, I do believe that more kids were sold on hunting on their first visit to hunting camps where hunting became a social event than some other kind of special season where the majority of hunters are not allowed to gather and create the hunt camp atmosphere. I guess what I'm saying is that I am getting a bit tired and worried about how everybody is pinning all their hopes for the survival of hunting on special youth seasons. It all leaves me thinking that after such a plecebo is implemented, everyone will walk away thinking they have successfully saved hunting and continue to ignore or fail to invent and pursue real solutions.

I guess it is a hard concept to explain to those who have never experienced trying to bowhunt over-pressured deer. When you have control over your hunting lands, or have someone else keeping the pressure limited for you, it's hard to imagine why others would be concerned about excessive gun activity that is happening elsewhere during or before you begin trying to use the conventional methods of scouting and patterning the deer you are trying to bowhunt. Frankly, I don't know any way of making it clearer. For me it has always been pretty obvious that you don't hold a gun season and then try to bowhunt. It has always been obvious to me that bowhunting is an activity of stealth because of it being a close-range style of hunting. Others apparently are in a position to take all that for granted. I don't think there really is any way to explain it to those that don't have to worry about hunting pressure.

Sounds like a reasonable comment to me. Anybody got some new gadget or activity you want to use, stuff it in bow season. What the heck they are in the minority and one heck of an easy target. Fill it up! You're absolutely correct ..... enough is enough!

Are we now judging the fitness for private ownership of firearms based on their appearance? Assault rifles .... Black guns ...... what nonsense! It's just another semi-auto rifle that has simply become the target for the anti-gun nuts based solely on how it looks.

Because what you are trying to regulate involves behavior. Criminal acts are behaviors. Regulation of inanimate objects can only have extremely limited effects on behavior. At some point redundancy in law making begins to miss the point and simply becomes a burden on law abiding citizens. That is the state of gun regulation today. And that is why continuing with the lunacy of filling law books with worthless gun-restricting laws is a futile exercise doomed to be as ineffective as the previous laws. We all have heard the definition of insanity as doing the same things over and over and expecting different results...... Well here we have a classic example of exactly that.

My attitudes toward hunting are quite different from many of today's hunters. That doesn't mean I am right and they are wrong. That simply means that I have a personal opinion that hunting is completely unrelated to animal husbandry, and I really don't want to get involved in treating the local deer herd like something to be trained to avail themselves for easier hunting. I tend to hunt the deer as I find them without training them to come to some food source that I have provided. Part of hunting is finding and interpreting the location and timing of whatever food sources the herd is using at whatever time they want to use them. It doesn't include creating those things. That's just my own personal view of hunting, and the way that I conduct my hunting. If others feel that they need those kinds of activities to get their deer, I have no problem with that. I really do believe that my view of hunting is now in the minority, but old traditions and relationships to hunting die hard. Whether I would call it hunting ethics or not, I'm not sure. It all is just issues that many of us struggle with and we seldom all reach the same conclusions.For me it's just a feeling of how my hunting should be conducted and a set of limits on exactly what I am willing to do to kill game. Hopefully as I try to explain the reasons for my selected limits, it doesn't come out too "preachy", judgemental, or offensive. That isn't my intent. I do understand that I represent just one opinion on a lot of this stuff and often my opinion is a minority one.

First of all, some of that "2 more weeks" makes up for some time that was taken away from us when they revised the seasons for Saturday openers. And second, there is no rule written anywhere that states that everytime something is given to bowhunters, something has to be done to screw up part of it. Bowhunters have been pushing for an October 1st opener for a long time. For come reason, the DEC (and apparently some other hunters) thinks that everything bowhunters achieve has to come with some kind of penalty.

Lol .... that's all of little comfort to me. I am in WMU 8N and if you believe the DEC data I am in an area that has one of the highest deer densities in the state. And as someone pointed out earlier ..... If My area is one of the few that conducts an "as needed" early muzzleloader season, 8N likely will become a super-magnet for muzzleloader hunters in the surrounding WMUs. So the predicted "light" effect of muzzleloaders in bow season will actually be kind of an out-of-scale addition of gun activity. So again, I say that I have no crystal ball that can predict the impact of an early muzzleloading season, but logic and intuition gives me a bit of a negative feeling about this part of the proposal. There's no way that I can support that sort of thing.

Then we agree that the argument about something being ethical just because it is legal, misses the definition of both. So, I hope that we don't see that argument used again. As far as someone talking down to anyone, I know that a lot of times with ethics discussions that's the way it sometimes sounds. Maybe we don't always express ourselves as clearly as we should. That is more likely the real problem and not the ethics discussions themselves.

You are absolutely correct, and don't think for a minute that that gun disturbance doesn't put deer on an evasive pattern if you happen to be trying to hunt in an area where a gang of small-game hunters set up. And the more gunners you have in the woods, regardless of what they are after, the more likely that is to happen. Months of patterning and scouting can be trashed just by the sound of nearby gunfire. And all that is without the gunners actually heading for deer habitat in particular. Now add to that a group of gun hunters who are going out of their way to invade deer bedding and feeding areas specifically, and pretty soon you have something similar to regular gun season. A lot of this perception is a result of where a bowhunter is hunting. If you have your own private and posted land or exclusive permission to bowhunt a certain area, or maybe just a honey-hole that most gunners have not found yet, you may not be too concerned about additional gun-hunting. Probably under those conditions, you may not even notice the difference. And if you do, you have the control of the situation to clear the woods out anytime you become bothered by all the commotion. However those of us who hunt state land or open private land see an entirely different picture. Last year on three different occasions, I had an afternoon hunt completely wrecked by a pair of squirrel hunters who sat not far from my stand and popped away at squirrels about every 15 minutes until it was time to quit hunting. Absolutely they had a perfect right to be there. It was just my bad luck. I had been zeroing in on a pretty impressive buck and he either went nocturnal or shifted his area for the remainder of the season because of that activity. At any rate whatever I knew about him was trashed. That doesn't happen all that often because there isn't that many small game hunters these days. But depending on how popular these early gun seasons become, I can see that scenario beginning to play out more often than anyone would like to think possible. We know from regular gun season that gunfire and people invading specific deer habitat put deer into a completely different survival mode. Anyone with more than a few years of bow and gun deer hunting under their belt has seen that happen. The closer a bow season comes to duplicating those carnival conditions, the more bowhunting becomes an activity of blind luck rather than a hunt that uses scouting, patterning, and hunting skill. How popular will this early muzzleloader season become? .... well you need a crystal ball to make a guess at that one, but if you listen to all the hype about the necessity of an early season, you have to believe that either it is being way over-sold, or that there will be a significant impact.

You mean "if the end result is less guns anywhere the desired result will have been achieved" don't you? I mean that is the usual mentality when it comes to gun law fanatics. That really is the purpose and motives behind the gun control advocates ...... simply get rid of those evil guns by any means possible. And if it requires ridiculous, costly, mandated technology to get to that end, then so be it. Whatever it takes. And this latest example points that motivation out perfectly.

Anybody concerned about the use of firearms during a time when visibility is impaired by leaves? I'm referring to the safety element of people shooting at things that are mostly hidden by foliage and promoting that old "target mis-identification" thing that is the major cause of hunting accidents.

For all of our members who are fans of gun laws and who seem to have never seen a gun restriction that they didn't love, here is an up-coming law that has already made it through the New York State Assembly. I'm speaking of the so-called "microstamping bill". Apparently here is the latest brainchild of the NYS anti-gun forces that require all new semi-auto handguns to carry a new technology called microstamping that would imprint the make, model, and serial number onto the cartridge case when the gun is fired. Sounds pretty slick eh? The only problem is that it can be foiled by anyone replacing a few small parts with common tools. Hey maybe another new cottage industry for NY's economy .... lol. In the meantime, the cost additions to firearms will be significant, and likely result in manufacturers not selling new handguns in New York State at all. That result is surely the prime reason for the new law being peddled by all these gun-hating Democrats. The good news is that the law will have a bit more of a problem getting through the Republican controlled Senate..... not impossible, but a bit more of a problem. So is this yet another of the beloved "common sense" gun laws that our resident gun-control advocates are so in love with. Does this fall in line with what will make you sleep better at night. A law that is easily thwarted, but perhaps will shut off the sale of new handguns in the state and assuredly raise the cost of new handgun ownership for every law abiding person in the state? This is just another move to harrass legitimate gun owners and push to discourage them from purchasing a new gun ...... obviously the real purpose of the law. Is this the kind of thing you have been defending?

Also while on the subject of medicines, if you have pets or small children around, keep track of any dropped medication. Remember, one person's medication can be another's poison.

Yup! that certainly is their M.O. You always get these little feelers (publically released "proposals") sent out to the public just to see what the reaction is. No significant reaction - then that is what they pursue. Big negative reaction - the issue silently goes away. Old political trick ... lol.

It sounds like some want to let a bunch of legislators determine their code of ethics for them. That's basically what you are saying when you state that if it's legal it is automatically ethical. Frankly, I don't think that is really what you mean, or at least I hope that is not what you mean. There are and always have been legal activities that were not necessarily ethical. The law is not where you get your personal ethics from. For me, ethics is a personal code that I live by that has nothing to do with the legal system. It's a further limitation beyond what society places on us. And I really don't see any problem with that. Further, I don't see any problem with someone stating that personal code here on a forum. Nobody has to agree with it, and certainly you are free to voice their own opinions and lay out your own code of ethics relative to issues. Yes, it is uncomfortable to have someone declare that some activity that we are engaged in is considered wrong by someone's personal ethical standards, but if that's the way he feels, he certainly has a right to say so. You have the right to argue the point. But for crying out loud, don't be relying on legislators to set your ethical code. Even though we always seem to see that on these forums, that's not a very convincing argument. In fact judging from the pile of stories about politicians in the paper lately, that may be the last place you want to get your ethics ..... lol.

Is there really a difference between standing corn vs corn stalks that have been broken down of cut? The deer can reach both. The distribution is the same. I frankly don't see where simply cutting the stalks or bending them down makes any difference at all. Now, if the corn in a food plot was all cut and stacked over by a hunting blind in a pile, that might be a bit of a different situation as far as fitting the DEC's version of baiting....lol. Anyone considering doing that might want to run that by their local C.O.

The only definition of baiting that counts here in NYS is the DEC definition. And food plots are not defined as baiting. Sure, the differences between baiting and food plots is really kind of a fine legal point and the motives generally are roughly the same, but the DEC does make the distinction and that is all that matters.

I have a copy of Bowhunting October Whitetails with the Wensels. It was the best video back then and as far as I am concerned, there has been nothing that I have seen since that even comes close since. I still pull that out and enjoy it every few years.

One thing I hope you are not confused about is the fact that while I disagree with Nugent as an effective spokesman for gun owners and hunters, that does not imply that I disagree with his message. It is the offensive delivery methods that I find fault with. That doesn't mean that he isn't correct in what he is saying. There may be some finer points here and there that I might take issue with, but the general theme of what he says on gun control seems to align pretty well with my beliefs. Further, I find no problem with him being associated with the NRA. In fact that is the one thing that actually gives him some credibility and perhaps is the only reason that I occasionally stop and listen to his opinions. I believe the NRA like any effective advocacy organization is strengthened by the fact that there is room for all kinds of gun owners with all kinds of opinions and viewpoints. As crazy and irritating and obnoxious as Nugent is, at least what I have heard him say on the subject shows he is on the right side of the gun control issue. I simply have a concern about how many people he may drive over to the other side with his offensive presentations of some very good views on the issue of gun control.

That reminds me of back when I was shooting NFAA field rounds with a 40# recurve. That 80 yard walk-up was impossible to get a pin that would handle that far out. In fact it was even hard to see the target because your hand covered the target. that one was a true instinctive shot .... lol. I remember that I had a prism sight for some of the longer shots because there was no room to get a regular pin where it had to be. It seems that someone had a fix for just about every problem back then. It sure was fun watching those arrows arc up in the air and finally drop into the butt. I didn't even care whether I hit the bullseye or not. It was just fun watching that arrow.

If you are suggesting that long waiting periods are indeed contrived, (and I suspect you may be right), it doesn't matter what the motive. Such contrived foot-dragging is then obviously another example of a campaign of indescriminant harrassment of ALL potential gunowners, including the vast majority which happen to be law abiding citizens. Such a policy of harrassment is exactly what many of our gun laws have become. It's just one more example of a gun restriction law that was passed for one purpose and is being corrupted by those administering it for their own interpretations and motives. My suspicions are that such a campaign of orchestrated stalling has absolutely nothing to do with preventing impulse law-breaking. When the waiting times are purposely manipulated to be as long as some that I have read in this thread, the motive becomes plain and obvious to be that of harrassment with the hope that many potential gun owners will be frustrated out of pursuing their exercise of their 2nd amendment rights. Is that what our legal system should be involved in? With such tactics being employed by those who administer and create gun restrictions, is it really any wonder that people become suspicious of further laws? I think the suspicions are warranted.

If I indeed do have anything to say as to who I prefer to represent my stance as a gun owner and hunter, I think I would prefer someone who conducts themselves in a way that people want to be swayed by him. You can be the most knowledgeable person on 2nd amendment issues and the science of management by hunting, with good answers for every argument thrown at you, but if the answers are delivered in a disagreeable and insulting fashion, all that great knowledge goes right out the window without anyone even listening to it. In fact, that kind of loud-mouth offensive delivery generally has the tendency to score points for the opposing side. That is great when putting down anti-gunners and anti hunters. The fact is that with them there is no way of changing their minds anyway, so what the heck, you might as well insult them and be as crude and loud as you want while doing it.....lol. However, it is the non-hunters that need a reasonable approach, and who are swayed by measured, reasonable tones and a bit of a polished delivery. They are the ones who are in the majority and who may at some point actually have the deciding voice in issues of guns and hunting. Throw the in-your-face approach at them, and you have instantly created an anti. It's just human nature. Besides, I don't want someone representing me with a pink-faced, wild-eyed look of a maniac with the vein popping out of his forehead, and spit flying out of his mouth when he shouts his opinions like some rabid out-of-control crazy person. I really don't believe that reflects well on hunters, gun owners, and certainly is not a person that I would rely on to persuade anyone in any argument, particularly those on-the-fence non-hunters or those without any passion relative to gun ownership that actually make up the majority of voters. So when it comes to whether I prefer this guy representing the shooting and hunting segment of the population, I say thanks, but no thanks. Tone it down a bit and maybe .... but don't link me and my activities with that kind of out-of-scale personality. We as hunters and gun owners really don't need that kind of image.

.22 LR is a great choice, especially if you are trying to save the fur.