Doc

Every rifle, pistol or shotgun carried by small game hunters and Fall turkey hunters. And that makes a difference, how? You dont have people hunting deer with guns, the deer arent getting shot at with guns (with the exception of the occasional poacher), and they arent on ultra-high alert. Again, your logic on this just doesnt add up. I was simply answering your question. You are the one who asked. And I guess you probably missed my reply about the overlap of muzzleloader and bow seasons that already exists in both the Northern zone and Southern zone. Come-on guy ..... Let's keep up . So again, you are incorrect ..... there are people using firearms during bow season and in fact some of those are deer hunting as well. I am not sure just how many people that you envision are severely disabled to such a point that they would qualify for handgun use in bow season and who coincidentally would be interested in even doing that, but I am thinking that the number would be so small that you (and the deer) would be hard pressed to even know they would be around, especially when compared to the already existing small game gunfire. If we were talking small game hunting, yes, there would be people using firearms. We arent, we are talking deer hunting and taking deer with firearms during archery season. Yes, I realize the number would be small, the point still remains that most truly disabled people dont want to be treated like they are disabled, they want to be able to participate in things as closely to anyone else as they can. They can already hunt with guns in gun season, so your guns in bow season idea doesnt make sense. Now, I do have to say that this is kind of catching me off guard, its not your typical extremist line of thinking about crossbows. I actually never thought I would hear you say you would support the addition of guns in archery season. Actually, it is pretty extremist to support guns in archery season rather than crossbows, so I guess its more typical for you than I first thought. ;D Ok, without using your favorite phrase about "cherry picking", let me suggest that you go back and read the part about muzzleloaders and bows already sharing the same season for deer hunting. Maybe that escaped you the two or three times it was included in different replies (but probably not). If you really missed it, then I now understand why I have to repeat myself endlessly before you finally understand what I am talking about. As far as people feeling bad about receiving special treatment for their disabilities, I have to point out that that is what the proposed bill in the very first post is all about. Perhaps you are saying that that bill has no merit because some disabled people may take offense to special treatment. Well, I think you are wrong. I think they would appreciate receiving the assistance of a weapon that adequately compensates for the disability that they have. If that is a crossbow, then so be it. If their disability is a bit more severe where a crossbow simply doesn't cut it then lets at least be honest enough about what it is that we are saying that we are trying to do, and allow the appropriate weapon for the appropriate disability. I'm not sure how many times I have to say it ...... If we are going to keep all this from being just an insincere, empty piece of window-dressing then let's do something that actually accomplishes what we claim we are trying to accomplish. There's nothing extreme about that unless you believe that the whole idea of helping the disabled is extreme. Oh, and by the way don't let it throw you that I am suggesting that a few severely disabled individuals be given the right to use a weapon that their disabilities require. You won't be seeing me supporting a notion that able bodied hunters use handguns or even crossbows or any other inappropriate weapon in bow season. Nothing has changed there. You seem to be having some difficulty grasping the concept that we are talking about the severely disabled in this thread only.

Could become a very popular delicacy ...... roast unborn fawn. Yummy!! Shoot a doe and get some bonus fawns. ;D

No, that was my last hunt of that sort. Too many years have gone by since those days. I'm glad I did it while I could. We were all in great shape back then. Doc

Somehow I don't think that's where they were going with the idea when they allocated the cash to develop that feature. Doc, my comment was said in jest. In any event, it seems like that sort of crossbow represents a "concept Crossbow" akin to an automakers concept car. Such a weapon would probably not be accepted as a legal hunting implement but as a marketing tool it serves their purpose quite well (we are talking about it and can reference the company who invented it, its a win win situation for the manufacturer). Yes, you're right. We are both guessing about where this new crossbow might lead. My point is simply that just as the compound never stayed at the same technological level as the old Allen, What you are seeing in a crossbow today is nothing compared with the logical progression that it is bound to undergo. This auto cocking device is only an indicator that they are beginning to think along those lines already and that they have absolutely no intention of keeping the crossbow technology along the lines of what you see today. And consequently, my comment about "....and so it begins". Because surely this is only the beginning. By the way, in terms of legal limitations, remember that the initiator of legal exceptions is not a responsibility of the crossbow manufacturers. Someone is going to have to be monitoring every new design and legally proving that innovations move the weapon outside the official definition of a crossbow before they can be deemed illegal. That doesn't sound like a very cheap process, and most likely they will be given great latitude just as the compounds were. So I wouldn't look to the law to maintain restrictions and controls on just where crossbow technology grows.

Every rifle, pistol or shotgun carried by small game hunters and Fall turkey hunters. And that makes a difference, how? You dont have people hunting deer with guns, the deer arent getting shot at with guns (with the exception of the occasional poacher), and they arent on ultra-high alert. Again, your logic on this just doesnt add up. I was simply answering your question. You are the one who asked. And I guess you probably missed my reply about the overlap of muzzleloader and bow seasons that already exists in both the Northern zone and Southern zone. Come-on guy ..... Let's keep up . So again, you are incorrect ..... there are people using firearms during bow season and in fact some of those are deer hunting as well. I am not sure just how many people that you envision are severely disabled to such a point that they would qualify for handgun use in bow season and who coincidentally would be interested in even doing that, but I am thinking that the number would be so small that you (and the deer) would be hard pressed to even know they would be around, especially when compared to the already existing small game gunfire.

Lol ..... Spoken like a true anti-gun advocate. The anti-gunners know that the NRA is the only thing standing between them and their goal of total gun confiscation. I don't see how there is an honest person on either side of the gun issue who can truthfully deny the fact that the NRA is the only reason we have private gun ownership today. The Kennedys, Bradys, Boxers, Feinsteins, Schumers, and all the other members of the anti-gun brigade would have long ago had their way with our gun rights if it were not for the efforts of the NRA and their members. Those gun owners that think they are being so open minded and intellectual by bad-mouthing the NRA should give their head a shake and and just send in their contributions to the Brady bunch. To publicly bash the only effective 2nd amendment advocacy organization is pretty much in the same sort of thing.

Yeah, but you just know they will be back soon with another increase. And what are you going to do. You have 3 choices ... pay the money, hunt illegally, or quit hunting. Sounds to me like they have things pretty much their own way ..... they are definitely in the driver's seat and I think they finally have realized that.

Actually, back in the mid 80's, we did an Ontario moose bowhunt that was back in so far that we had to show the outfitter where we were going to be. He had never been there. We left his camp and traveled back in about 40 miles on what was little better than log roads. Parked the truck, unloaded the canoes and a small motor boat and traveled the length of a rather large lake. Then we portaged about 150 yards into another lake, and went the length of that lake and built a camp along the shore. By the time we were done, there was absolutely no sign of humans other than ourselves. The only sounds were the moose splashing around in the swamp on the other side of the lake at night, and the occasional tail slap of a beaver that wasn't taking too kindly to our campsite in his turf. In fact I didn't even hear an airplane all the time we were there. The fishing was great and supplemented the dried food that we took in. There was no outfitter doing any scouting or butchering or supplying ATVs or hotels or even feeding us while we were back in there ..... lol. The moose that we got was carried out in chunks along with all of our other gear, and the temperatures were such that we didn't have to worry about meat spoilage. The moose went out the way all our gear went in ....... on our backs. What the outfitter did for us was to first satisfy a legal requirement. He obtained the legal moose and bear tags for us and provided a Canadian fishing license. He also offered his walk in cooler when we finally got back to his camp with the moose, supplied a warm cabin for a good night's sleep before going home which we were required to rent for the entire week even though we only used it that one night, and oh yeah, he fried up the moose liver for our supper that last night in Canada. He had a bar and restaurant in camp. As far as scouting, that was done over the previous year with topo maps, and the final butchering was done when we got home. The first day was spent checking the lake edge and the swamp at the end of the lake and the edges of a small inlet river. That first day we had several calling sites located near some pretty good trails with fresh moose tracks. That was it ..... one day of on-the-ground scouting and a bunch of hours back home pouring over some topo maps. So all in all, I would call that about as do-it-yourself a hunt as the laws up there will allow. It required 4 of us to pull it off. I don't see any way that a single hunter could ever do it. Anybody can do it today if they are fit enough. By the way, back then the whole trip was dirt cheap. I'm sure that aspect of it has changed by now. Doc

Ontario Canada has a good moose population if you want to get back in far enough. Outfitters are required, but then there is no problem getting tags because the Outfitters are allocated plenty ..... At least that's what it was like a bunch of years back. By the way, just because you have to hire an outfitter, that does not mean that you have to use his facilities. Pack in as deep as you want to go (on your own).

Lol .... see, there ya go. You guys in the northern zone always have these goofy situations to contend with ;D . I've got to believe that there would be some fancy way of getting by that problem, but what the heck, I can't solve all their problems .... lol. Somebody else can work out the appropriate reporting deadline.

I included the warning notices to allow for an occasional computer glitch that we all know can happen. This gives the hunter some recourse if he becomes a "computer victim". It happens .... lol. Besides, they could afford the expense of an automatic mailing with the money they would save by not having their people running all over the state trying to support that "reporting rate" fiasco.

Well, I'm not going to try to guess where this invention will lead or what kind of marketing success it will have or even what impact it might have on the crossbow's effectiveness for hunting. I might however speculate that this is just one step toward bigger and better tech advances but of course time will tell. From what I see on the video and other videos in the past, I would say that the idea of a marketable repeating crossbow has moved one step closer.

As far as I know, nobody does this for disabled hunters, but then I am not familiar with the details of season rules outside of NY. However, if I am reading the game syllabus correctly, right here in NYS we have a bow season and muzzleloading season that overlap significantly in the northern zone. Bowhunting: Sep 22 - Oct 22 m'loader: Oct 16 - Oct 22 Also, it appears that here in the southern zone we have the last week of the late season shared by bows and m'loaders. So there are a lot more extreme examples of guns in bow season than the relatively insignificant numbers of severely disabled hunters that I am talking about. Having that arrangement regarding the entire general hunting population (even just the muzzleloading portion) is not something that I am real comfortable with. But, the actual numbers of severely disabled that we are talking about is miniscule by comparison.

The system along with enforcement would be 100% automated. Here's how it would work: Every tag would require a report ... Successful or not. That's the only requirement that would be different for the hunter. Since tags are issued by computer, and the reports are made by hunters via computerized systems, it is a simple computer function to compare tags out to reports in. Those who do not comply are identified by a simple computer sort. Warning notices are sent out with a final deadline for compliance. If that date goes by without compliance then the the penalty is levied. What the heck, we are already 95% there. Let's get the rest of the way into the computer age and let the computer do the work. Right now we have biologists and other expensive DEC personel running all over the countryside visiting deer processors, taxidermists, roadchecks and other places where harvested deer might be accumulated, writing down data, carrying it back to Albany, inputting it into computers, which apply all their guesstimates, factors, formulas, etc to eventually arrive at a "reporting factor" which they cross their fingers and apply to the actual reports to come up with a harvest number. Is that what we want the DEC to be doing with their limited resources, or should we be letting the computers be computers and free up all those man-hours and perfect the results in the process. Anyways, that's how the proposed system would work ...... along with a little bit of editorializing ....lol. There must be a flaw in that system somewhere because I have sent in that suggestion to the DEC on several occasions when they were soliciting such suggestions and nothing like that has happened yet.

Every rifle, pistol or shotgun carried by small game hunters and Fall turkey hunters.

Somehow I don't think that's where they were going with the idea when they allocated the cash to develop that feature.

But they are already here aren't they? It's been that way for a long time.

Yes, you have to wonder why a company like Parker would waste all that R&D money and marketing cash on something that has no value.

Lol.... I never said that anybody has to agree with it . It's just reassuring to know that a few people actually understand what I was trying to say without going all crazy on me. Relative to the enforcement, I admit that the DEC probably doesn't need more on their plate right now. However this is where someone smarter than me would have to work out the details. I would never say that it can't be done. As far as firearms during the bow season, I must point out that we already have that with concurrent bow seasons, small game seasons, and turkey seasons. I think the scattered few extremely disabled people that would be added would be the proverbial "drop in the bucket". I would visualize the people allowed to use a handguns in bow season would be only those severely handicapped people who could use no other kind of weapon (Note: I'm starting to use the term "handgun" or "pistols" now because I am not sure that long-guns would actually be useful for those disabled to that extent). I think those numbers who are disabled to that extreme extent and coincidentally also want to hunt would be extremely insignificant numbers as compared to those that are already out there with firearms. This is a rather new thought that has occurred to me with all the talk of disabled hunters, and perhaps I have not thought of all the details and difficulties involved. However, I don't think it is a notion that should be discounted just out of hand without a bit of consideration. Anyway, it's just a thought that I figured I would throw out there since the bill in the original post seemed like a limited half-way, almost insincere, measure that left out a whole category of disabled folks in a truly practical sense. My belief is that if we are really serious about doing something for the disabled, it probably is not right to be thinking only in terms of the mildly disabled.

This thread is not about including anything in bow season for all hunters. At least that is not the way that I read that bill in the original post. My comments are limited to only those individuals who need assistance to participate in hunting. My thoughts are that it would be the right thing to do, and that the actual number of individuals involved would be relatively insignificant and completely transparent to other hunters and bow season harvest results. There is also an assumption that a system could be devised and enforced to eliminate fraud (important caveat). My opposition to the inclusion of anything other than a bow in bow seasons for able-bodied hunters remains unchanged. Doc

I've got to admit that I have grown attachments to the land. I hunt where I grew up and to me, the land, the surroundings and the hunting are all inter-linked. Every foot of that acreage has memories of family and friends that hunted there. For a while, I experimented with hunting in other places, but the experience isn't quite the same. For one thing, every place that I tried to hunt years ago had some house spring up or some posted signs, or some other interference that rendered all my knowledge there instantly unuseable. I finally got tired of that game and came back to the roots of my hunting where I know the land use is stable. I also have to admit that I really don't miss that getting up in the wee hours of the morning so I can spend an hour or two on the road to get where I want to hunt. I own acreage, and live next to 600+ acres of public land. So I have developed the philosophy that I will hunt the herd as I find it, scarce or plenty. If they are scarce, I look at it as an extra challenge. If the deer are plentiful, that's good news too. And even when I am not successful because the numbers are a bit low, I am still spending some quality time surrounded by a woods that reminds me of hundreds of hunts that span my entire lifetime, no matter what part of it I'm in. Another benefit of that kind of intense familiarity with your hunting area is that you really do understand what the herd condition and numbers are on that particular bunch of acres. Others may try to tell you about what's going on across the state, but no one is going to credibly tell you about what things are like where you are hunting when you have 5 or 6 decades of experience there day in and day out. I'm not sure that explains why I and perhaps others are reluctant to chase the big herds. I suppose others have their own personal reasons for hunting where they do. I also suppose that's probably up to them and I wouldn't try to tell them they are wrong. Lot's of deer ..... darn few deer, that is not always the sole criteria for picking a spot to hunt. Not an easy concept for everyone to understand, but for some of us that's just the way it is.

OK, that sounds more like it. So that was a local ordinance. That was a long time ago, and the details escaped me. However, I guess my memory isn't completely shot .... just partly ... ;D . Thanks for the info. I was already resigned to the fact that I must have simply imagined the whole thing .... lol.

Just another cost of doing business, right?

I get the feeling that these hunter-heroes are under tremendous pressure to produce, and when laws get in the way ....... no problem ..... ignore them. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, but the list of law-breaking TV personalities, and magazine writers, and others that make their living off of killing critters is getting quite long now. Anybody want their job? Better think twice about that.

Oh my gosh, I woke up the troll ...... ;D .............speaking of "totally ridiculous"