Doc

Ha-ha ..... that's funny. The law is for minors only??? I guess once you reach a certain age nobody cares whether you get shot or not.....lol. Well, they are one step closer to the other 37 states that actually show a little common sense and mandate B/O during their deer seasons. It takes a while to get past all the stubborness and all the conspiracy nuts that see B/O as the gateway to citizen slavery, but eventually, the stats begin to be something that simply can't be denied or ignored.

Make the most of your free time. I know that these days that time away from work is getting to be pretty darn sparce. I'm not sure what your situation is like, but before I retired, there were years of downsizing, but the jobs didn't really go away. They just became added burdens on those that were left. Of course this resulted in constant overtime (unfortunately, this mandatory OT was not paid). I was lucky and had complete flexibility in my hours. So I began at 4:00 am and was able to still salvage a piece of the day for my hunting activities. However it became a constant fight for vacation days, and the weekends were only half available. When they started that nonsense, I began seriously thinking about retirement. So when you talk about "free time", I recognize just how valuable that can be. Doc

Honest to gosh, I hate to be such a big baby, but that darn 12 guage hurts. Funny thing is that when I'm shooting at a deer I never have felt any recoil at all. But lay that sucker on a bench and shoot more than 5 shots and I'll guarantee a black and blue spot on my shoulder. :-[ That doesn't make a guy want to target practice with the dang thing. That's one of the primary reasons that I was hoping that Ontario County would get that rifle bill passed. I was already picturing a nice .243 that I could shoot all day without getting beat up. Oh well maybe next year. Doc

All right, let's go back in time without using the cloudy vision of aging and faulty memories and see how it really was: "From 1965 to 1994, reported hunting injuries in New York decreased steadily from 157 (22.3 injuries per 100,000 licensed hunters) to 52 (7.2) and from 11 deaths to one death. In 1991, DEC reviewed hunting-injury reports and concluded that most hunting injuries were associated with violations of basic firearms safety rules. DEC also found that most hunters who were injured as the result of being "mistaken for game" or "in line of fire" were not wearing hunter orange at the time of injury ." "In 1992, DEC initiated a campaign in New York to promote basic firearms safety and the use of hunter orange clothing through hunter education courses, meetings with hunter organizations, and advertisements in hunting literature. During 1992-1995, following the initiation of this safety promotion campaign, the average annual injury rate decreased 27% compared with the rate during 1988-1991." This info only takes you up to 1995 and I think anybody who has been paying even a little attention knows that the most recent years have been setting new safety records. Yes, relatively speaking "carnage" may not really be too strong a term when you actually look at the facts instead of relying on old fond but failing memories. Doc

I didn't go back through this thread to see if I may have missed any, but were there any replies from anyone who regularly target practices with their slug-gun ...... lol. I think the consensus was that it gets pulled out just before season and a few shots are fired to ensure that nothing has moved. I think anything more would require periodic surgical shoulder replacements every few years ;D

Yes, it's kind of like the advise not to ever argue politics or religion ...... lol. I don't completely agree with applying that to hunting ethics because I always hold out the hope that reasonable people can discuss anything reasonably, but I'll admit that I have seen evidence that such discussions can be difficult . However, I must say that I have a whole lot more respect for someone who is not afraid to speak up regarding his convictions than those that are afraid of how those convictions will be received. I always look at an individual's ethical comments as simply one data point that when considered together with all the others, arrives at a near perfect solution. If they keep those ethical views to themselves, they benefit no one and are nearly worthless. Culvercreek hunt club noted that ethics can occasionally be changed over time (even those that are thoroughly entrenched in one's being), and I think that is possibly true. However, they will never change, evolve, or spread if no one is willing to discuss them. The fact is that each generation has a duty to pass on whatever ethical concerns and ideals to the generations following them. How does that ever happen if everyone is afraid to discuss such thoughts? I really don't want a future of hunters whose actions are only ruled by laws. I don't want them to have to rely on the opinions of some legislators to tell them right from wrong. Yes, I want them to abide by the laws, but I also want them to recognize when the laws have failed a situation. We all know that the legal system falls far short of covering all situations, and we also are aware that many times the legal system arrives at incorrect solutions. Arming future hunters with the ability to rely on an internal system of ethical judgement on right and wrong is a much more reassuring way to secure and safeguard the principles of hunting. But that ethical system does not evolve in a vacuum. And speaking of the legal system, I think it's fair to say that most laws are derived from ethical concerns. How does that system ever improve, or evolve if no one is willing to discuss the ethical concerns that new or improved laws might be based on. We can all think of many examples, but let me offer just one that gets to this point. A few years back, there was an outfit that was going to offer "hunting by computer". The idea being that you would log in, pay your money, choose your animal, and when he walked in front of the rifle armed camera, you would shoot and blow the animal flat. That perversion of hunting rankled the collective ethics of the entire hunting community and new laws in several states were authored and passed to prevent that kind of thing. What if everyone had said, "We can't discuss that"? And finally, you are right when you say that we have to "Accept that others may have different beliefs" but that does not mean that we have to mute our own. Yes, in the end, if you are not all that persuasive, you will have to accept that they still have different beliefs and then you will have to live with that. But at least you will have had your say and had the courage to put your convictions on record. And who knows how many others you may have swayed in the process.

I believe we all have that tendency. I remember a time when my arrow made it all of 5 of the ten feet to a deer because of a little branch that I was sure would never be in the way. I tend to get into that clear-cut mode myself now. However, I tend to do the massacre about a year in advance so that I don't have to do anything too obvious in the same year that I'm going to use the stand. Doc

That reminds me of a few years ago when I noticed a hunter standing over in the state field about 200 feet from my house. I went over to gently remind him of the 500 foot rule regarding discharge of weapons, and almost fell over from the smell of whiskey. I took one look at those bloodshot eyes and listened to the slurred speech and noticed the way he wobbled around just trying to stay upright and my concern changed from his proximity to the house to his ability to safely negotiate his way back to his car as well as what he would do if he ever did find his car. I was beginning to try to figure out how to get this guy some help when he assured me that he had a son that was coming along shortly. As a matter of fact, while we stood there, his son did step out in the field. That is about as drunk as I have ever seen anyone who was still conscious, and it was one scary thing. I had a little safety pep-talk with the son and advised him that this sort of thing could wind up as a pretty terrible tragedy. I also suggested that the son immediately pull the slugs out of his father's shotgun, which he did. There was no point in trying to talk to the father because he didn't even have any idea where he was and what he was doing. I couldn't help but wonder what could have happened if he had wound up wandering around the water falls and gorge up behind the house. So yes, just like anything else, we do have participants that cannot or will not lay off the booze, and far too many of them that don't realize the danger of mixing alcohol with hunting. Doc

Trying real hard not to get too far off-topic on this, let me try to explain exactly what I feel is the difference between an opinion and ethics. The definition of an opinion is: "a belief or judgement which falls short of absolute conviction". I also believe further that opinions are transient and negotiable and subject to change through discussion. Ethics on the other hand is a moral code that is permanently engrained from a lifetime of social experience, and is something pretty fundamental that guides us in the way that we conduct our lives. A person's ethics do not "fall short of absolute conviction". So we really can't use the terms interchangeably ..... well we can, but it is not correct. It's kind of like the principles of fair chase. Those aren't opinions but fall into a category of an ethical code of hunting. And that also is exactly what I think needs to remain in hunters minds. So if Nugent was trying to say that hunting should exist without any ethical considerations, that is specifically what I would find wrong with his message. By the way I taped the program from 10:00 this morning. It was Deer and Deer Hunting alright, but they apparently have moved on to another episode. Too bad because I really was interested in what this guy had to say about ethics in hunting. It's one of my pet subjects primarily because I am constantly hearing this theme that it is ethics in hunting that is causing all the dischord in the hunting community. That's not a real popular view with me. To me it is the ethical base that hunting is built on and the fact that just about every tiny aspect of how hunting is conducted is constantly scrutinized and discussed with ethics in mind that strengthens the activity. Doc

I kind of wonder if the proliferation of hawks isn't responsible for the scarcity of grouse and other game birds. Doc

While I am not a huge fan of drives, I do have to admit that back in the days of the huge drives, the deer were kept moving. Now-a-days, it seems that everybody just picks out a favorite tree in the woods and sits there like a lump all day. Meanwhile the deer quickly figure out that if they move they get shot at, so they go into a hunker-down mode, and eventually everyone is just sitting there in the woods without moving an inch ....... hunters and deer. It used to be that they were not allowed to just sit in one spot all day. Some drivers (or still hunters) would come through and get them up on their feet again.

That is what I have witnessed nearly all of the time. A spooked deer almost always goes back the way they came, at least initially. Where they go after that is probably anybody's guess. The initial reactions prior to leaving are a whole variety of things that we have all seen. The blow (snort, whistle, whatever you want to call it), and then there is the old foot stomping, head bobbing tactic designed to get you to show yourself. And then I have seen those that simply drop their head, turn around and exit without a sound. How you could use any of that to your advantage is beyond me. If you are what spooks the deer, too bad ...... game over. If you knew that they were going to spook from someone else and could reposition yourself to cut off their escape route ...... maybe that might work, but that's an awful lot of "ifs".

What an amazing thread ...... 13641 views. That's a whole lot. Obviously this is one of the super hot button issues of the day. Unfortunately, I doubt that anyone's mind is being changed but the subject is certainly being well-covered. Doc

I don't know ....... I am having a hard time getting offended over this cartoon. I actually think it was kind of funny. But I do understand where some might be irritated at the unfair stereo-type that is being pushed. As everyone has pointed out it does point up an occasional real situation that is all too often a problem within our ranks. And I'll admit it is a little uncomfortable to have our dirty laundry displayed in public. Doc

Oh I get it all right.....lol. You finally made the effort to visit a dictionary and actually understand what it is you have been trying to talk about. Good for you. You still insist on putting things into definitions that aren't there (values and ethics are not opinions), but what the heck ...... at least you made the effort. I'll admit that holding a conversation with you is a bit difficult. It's kind of like trying to hit a moving target (reminds me of that game, Whack-A-Mole ;D ), so I guess I'll just have to give up on trying to make any sense out of what you are trying to explain about the program and wait until I get a chance to view it for myself, which is probably what I should have done in the first place. Doc

I occasionally can get sucked into a drive every so often, but it absolutely is not my favorite style of hunting. I guess I just like to be the only one responsible for whatever I get rather than a whole gang of people. It's just a personal wrinkle. Doc

Bowhunting is usually a morning and afternoon activity. What's kind of interesting is that I definitely have a lot more patience in the afternoon hunt. Every minute that goes by until quitting time gets better and better and more an more likely that the deer will be moving. AM ........ well not as much. After 8:00 or 9:00, things start getting less and less confident. The later it gets, the excuses to get up and start doing a bit of scouting start to get more and more convincing ...... lol. Usually around 10:00, I have convinced myself that all the deer are laying down in the bushes snoring and have no intentions of moving past my stand even though that probably is not true at all. Doc

Here's the breakdown of categories of hunting injuries in NY between 1989 and 1995: Mistaken for game - 35% out of sight - 22% in line of fire - 17% Unintentional discharge - 11% Struck by ricochet - 10% Other/unknown - 5% I don't think I am the only one who has noticed that most of the time, I only have to see a small flicker of that color to know that there is a hunter over there. I very seldom see the whole person first. It's usually that flash of orange through the trees that I see long before the guy is anywhere near me. Someone in camo?? ....... well I have already had it happen a few times where I never saw the guy until I was nearly in handshaking range. That's the kind of difference. Some of those categories above are situations where you can really picture that difference making a real impact. Particularly the first. I have yet to see an orange deer. Just imagine what it must be like live with the fact that you have just shot somebody, whether you are being held criminally liable or not, whether you have insurance or not, even if it really was not your fault. I don't know about anyone else, but I would have a hard time living with that no matter what court (criminal or civil) declared that it was not my fault. Why would somebody put me in that potential position? Yes, it may very well be that it was his stupidity that made all that happen, but is he truly the only victim? Is he the only one to pay for his stupidity? I think not. Doc

73% involving those not in blaze orange is a pretty high representation from that minority of hunters. That's simple math too. Also, I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say that all shooting accidents would be prevented by blaze orange. But when I see a 27% to 73% difference involving just one simple variable, you really don't have to be a math whiz to figure out the correct conclusion. As far as the color blind aspect, if you had read more deeply into the article, you would have discovered that not all color blindness is created equal or has the same effects and magnitude. In fact those numbers of the totally color blind are nearly insignificant. I know in the past we have had comments from some members who have one of the forms of color blindness, and as I recall, each one had a different description of what they really see. But anyway, the fact that some small percent of the population has this affliction certainly does not invalidate the whole concept of blaze orange as a safety measure. If that were the case, then we should scrap the stop light method of regulating traffic .... lol. Look there is no point in trying to pretend that the blaze orange concept of safety in hunting doesn't work. There are too many piles of data from this state and others that prove that it does. Is it flawless? ...... certainly not. Just like the safety on a gun is not flawless. But whether you like it or not, color is a very effective and universally known and used safety indicator. The bosses of the road crews understand that. And what is that funny color that I see on all construction zone signs these days? That's right ..... blaze orange. Manufacturers of products that have safety hazards on them understand the effectiveness for drawing attention. Examples can be found just about anywhere you want to look of warnings and safety items that rely on color to draw attention, and to argue that it doesn't work 100% of the time and should therefore be abandoned is just plain silly. I would hate to see what the carnage in our woods would be like if we didn't already have the high voluntary compliance when it comes to B/O. Just imagine that! There are some that would try to convince us that there would be no difference. Don't you believe it for a minute. Doc

Pretty scary stuf ..... eh?

For many of my years of work, I was fortunate enough to be able to set my own hours. I used to start work at 4:00 am, and get out at 2:00 (overtime was a standard part of the day). I was home at 3:00. So I've always been able to satisfy my "forest fever" as somebody put it. I have to admit that I have been blessed with a pretty darn good life. Now that I've entered retirement, things have gotten nothing but better. The only thing holding me back now is some of the crappy weather we are getting lately. Other than that, I pretty much do as I damn well please ..... lol. LIFE IS GOOD!!!!! Doc

First of all, thank you for not fixing something that wasn't broken. I formatted my reply the way I did because I wanted to. Next, I want to suggest that you look up the definition of ethics so that in the future you can use the term correctly. There is nothing in that definition that regards "opinion", and there is nothing that regards laws or the legal system in any way. So your quote from Ted (and your additional comments) are dead wrong when you continue to try to link ethics with the law. Also I'm sorry to hear that you think that using judgement is some kind of bad thing, but I think that you really are a bit more judgemental than you are letting on (at least I hope so). Unfortunately some people have taken a perfectly good word and assigned some inappropriate and incorrect negative connotations to it. But once again, look up the actual meaning and you will see that it is not something to be avoided. Look, I don't always get the meaning of words correct, but sometimes it is useful to understand the meaning of terms that comprise the core of the discussion. It simply helps avoid misunderstanding and false arguments. Also, I will say that I have a lot more respect for people who will speak up against something they find repugnant without hiding behind legality as the sole crutch and criteria for their code of ethics and refuse to take a stand. Also, there is nothing honorable about sitting silently without speaking out against something that you find personally offensive. If you have any kind of code of ethics and you feel that some practice or attitude crosses over that line, I would hope that you would not just sit there like a lump simply because it has never been turned into law. Regarding your last paragraph, I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about. Do you have some other little secret subject going here that I have not addressed yet? I'm trying to respond to this additional 19 minutes of TV program based on the sparce info that you have provided. Until I can actually see those vital 19 minutes, that's all I can do for now. Your brief description of that program along with what I saw in that clip, and also the comments you have added are things I totally disagree with to put it as courteously as I can. I have said so and I have explained why. So what "subject as a whole" are you talking about that I have failed to address? Doc

Ha..... I guess we just look at things differently and will have to declare an impasse. I recognize how the state worms it's way into all facets of our lives. My view is that some of it is necessary and some of it simply is a true pain and bordering on governmental abuse. I have a hard time looking at a blaze orange law and seeing it as some sort of individual freedom issue. We have far too many things that are truly impingements on our freedoms to cheapen that thought by applying that argument when discussing the supposed inconveniences of blaze orange. So at any rate, It's obvious that neither one of us are likely to change positions, and I guess I have exhausted all my arguments for B/O. So I guess, as they say, we will just have to agree to disagree. Doc

Actually, when the percentages have that big a disparity, I think they tell a huge story. I believe you are correct that we (NYS) have a huge level of compliance already which makes those numbers even more spectacular. This small minority of hunters accounts for an over-sized number of shootings. There is a clear cause and effect relationship when viewed in that light. As far as the actual effectiveness of a B/O law, I would have to be coming off as some sort of prophet to pretend to know the answer to that for sure. I also don't know anybody who can credibly say that it would not be effective. When I look at the numbers, I would say that logically it should cut the quantity of shootings because clearly many of them are due to lack of definitive visibility. I'm not sure what else you can go by other than the actual records.