Doc

Here is a little thought that makes it real easy for me to wear blaze orange. Picture the wound on any of the deer that you have seen shot with a 12 guage. Now look at your arm or elbow or stomach and picture that wound there. Doesn't even have to be in a lethal spot. Just picture that. Perhaps that is a good exercise for keeping people from burying their heads in the sand and pretending they are invincible and that nothing bad can ever happen to them. Here's another thought. How many shots have you taken at deer where you could swear with any real certainty that there was nobody tucked away next to some tree way in the background dressed in some of today's hi-tech camo? Unless your hunting on a prairie or a sanctioned backstopped and cleared shooting range you might find that your answer is "never". Does the lack of a blaze orange law only effect the idiot that is out there in camo? Maybe not always. Doc

Don't forget the number of hawks that are around these days. They get their share of bunnies too. Doc

It is amazing that Carhart chose that brown color, and even more amazing that people would wear them out during a deer season. They seem to be decked out with everything but a pair of antlers strapped on their head ..... : . I am constantly amazed by people who could mistake a human for a deer, but I am equally amazed by those that seem to get a kick out of tempting fate by going out and trying like crazy to tempt one of those idiots to shoot them. I don't get it. Doc

Do the tresspassers notify you before they step through the posted line? Seriously, we always think we know who is on our land and when, but the reality is that unless you have an electrified 8' fence around the perimeter, you never know who is there and who isn't. My property is posted such that you are always in sight of 3 bright yellow posted signs at any point along the boundary, and still I occasionally come across trespassers deep inside my land. And a word about "the good ole' boys who make sure its a deer and whats behind it before letting one fly". I truly believe that the only place where you know what's behind (or in front of) what you are shooting at is when you are shooting at a shooting range that has an earthen backstop and all trees and bushes removed between the shooter and the target. I have had guys walk right past me during bow season and never know I was there. Camo works! So to those who feel absolutely safe on their own land during gun season, I can only say that yes, the odds are definitely more in your favor there, but never say never. you have decided to accept the more favorable odds and that is certainly your right, but do not get the feeling that nothing bad can happen. It just isn't so. I would never recommend that anyone go into the woods during a firearms deer season without a generous amount of blaze orange. And that applies to hunters or non-hunters. Also, in my mind there is nothing about a deer drive that requires blaze orange more than any other hunting situation. Doc

I have the same dilemma in my ground stand. My legs won't last through the hours anymore so I spend most of my time sitting on a folding stool. So depending on how the ground blind is constructed, I may have the choice of remaining seated. I have the same problem if the deer decides to take some whacky direction, I may be forced to risk standing up at a time when that is just about impossible to pull off. If I can see the deer coming from a pretty good distance and there is enough cover between us, I prefer to get into a standing position. I know my shooting is better when I stand, and if I have some good big thing to stand behind as part of my blind, I have more mobility and options available. Doc

I'd hate to say how many prime spots have been lost over the years because the landowner decided to sell out or build a house or some other kind of action that has left me looking for a new spot. It's hard enough to get hunting permission to start with without having the land changing hands every so many years. That's one of the reasons that I rely primarily on state land. It may be over crowded, but I know that nobody is going to sell it out from under me. Doc

What's nice about gun season is that you can put on some of the excellent rain-gear available these days and stay dry and comfortable. The extra layer of stuff does not impact your form like it does with a bow and will not interfere with executing the shot. Actually, the best rain-gear that I have is poncho. Lots of air circulation and nothing gets through. Doc

No-no-no-no-no! That's all wrong. I've heard it many times. The right way to do that is to take somebody along that is clearly more gimped up and slower than yourself. That way, you don't have to out-run the bear. All you have to do is out-run the other guy. ;D Doc

Well, you know after you have seen a few hundred kill shots, you kind of get burned out on that stuff. Most of the TV hunting shows are so predicable, you could watch one and pretty much see what's in all of them. First you have the hunter-heros driving to the camp that they are going to hunt out of. Then they have the introductions. Then they might show a bit about the ranch or hunting camp or whatever. Then you see the guy in his stand. Then they have to show a whole bunch of monster bucks that they are passing up because they are not quite what they are looking for. Then the hunter-hero whispers that there is a "shooter" coming. Then the funky 1970's music starts as the buck slowly moves in. He shoots the deer and it runs away with 4/5 of the arrow sticking out of some non-vital part of the deer, but he flashes the thumbs-up signal and starts giggling all over himself. Next thing shows him following the blood trail. Then all of a sudden it's pitch black and the hunter is kneeling behind a well manicured and cleaned up buck and he's telling the viewer how the buck only ran 80 yards and died. That's pretty much all there is to any of the shows. As far as educational, I haven't seen one of those since the video, "Bowhunting October Whitetails" with the Wentzel brothers a jillion years ago. I think I only watch these shows anymore just so I can see how much phoney stuff they're trying to put over on us. Yes they do have an opportunity to do a bit of education if only they would try it once in a while. Even experienced hunters can always use a bit of a brush-up on the basics, and if they would just try, there probably are some little ways of looking at things just a little differently or pointing out some info that maybe never occurred to a lot of us, that could benefit viewers. Yes, I'm afraid I am getting a bit burned out on these scripted hunting tales. I think Jim Shockey probably realizes this too and maybe that's why he's trying a little different approach by trying to show the behind the scenes views of his end of the business. Unfortunately, it's not really working for me. Doc

Great pet! :

These kinds of dangerous encounters with wildlife seem to be happening on a more regular basis these days. We seem to have more recent cougar attacks out west with an occasional fatality. There was the 15 year old girl up in Canada that was killed by some coyotes, bear incidents now, occasional deer attacks. It all seems to be increasing quite a bit as time goes on. Is the outdoors gradually becoming a dangerous place, or is it just that now with the internet, we are simply hearing about more of them? Doc

Can they survive our winters?

Ok, I finally got to see another episode of the Jim Shockey show that gave a glimpse into what's behind these TV shows and inspired the original post of this thread. This time I got to see the entire show. The name of it is "The Professionals". Even though this was the second program of this series that I have ever seen, it too was equally depressing. I probably won't be watching it ever again. This latest episode was all about setting up two hunts for a scheduled that they had already committed to deliver before the hunters were even selected. In one scene, I saw 5 different people and the cameraman made it at least 6 different people that were involved in the stalk. It was hunting by committee. There must be some real money involved in that business, because it was plain that this had nothing to do with recreation. It was all dead serious business. As serious as any industry developing a product with delivery dates and drop-dead deadlines. Anyone who thinks that these guys live the perfect life with being able to hunt all the time, ought to see one of those shows. Even Shockey himself had to admit that it is not really fun, but some very serious and difficult work. It all seems like a great way to ruin a perfectly pleasant pastime. Doc

I didn't do as good as usual here in 8N. I only got one permit. That probably will do me just fine anyway. Doc

I have to agree that there are things that run contrary to my personal code of ethics, and legality is only one factor that enters into that kind of judgement. Canned hunts fall into that category. Yes they are legal, and no I do not think they are forms of ethical hunting. You can call them "slaughtering operations", but calling them hunting is a bit offensive and demeaning to most of those of us that hunt "wild" animals. So legality is only one aspect that has to be factored into one's personal code of ethics. It may not even be a major one. Most likely that isn't such a radical position. I'm sure we can all figure out at least one thing that is legal that we don't think is right. The reason for that is that we don't generally leave things like ethics and opinions up to legislators. Doc

Some of you guys have some pretty exotic stands. I would guess that the real benefit of them is just the idea that you can get the heck out of the weather and put in some real time in real comfort. I do think my heights thing would still bother me, but I'm not sure. Do any of you put portable heaters in there with you? Doc

Ok. Ethics and greed ....... two very common human traits. Nothing new, and those traits can be found, to one extent or another, in all of us. And yes it does have an impact on some aspects of hunting and hunting related industries. Ethics has a positive effect and greed has a negative effect...... generally. And no, "deer hunting will never be the same". Also, you will never cram that evil genie back in the bottle. So where do we go from here? Doc

Well, I'm not sure I'm ready to condemn all of capitalism as an evil force that has ruined my hunting. After all, the system here in this country has been pretty darned good to me ...... . Doc

I noticed that one of the threads is missing. In fact it was one that I put a rather lengthy reply on the other day, and I noticed that not only was my reply gone, but the whole thread had disappeared. It was one of the crossbow threads. That's the only one that I have noticed was missing. I assumed that it was some kind of glitch or that someone had posted something there that caused the topic to be removed. Doc

He looks pretty comfy. I don't suppose he would move over enough so you could use the stand too. I suppose it's like the question of what does the 800 pound gorilla do? .......... Anything he wants to. Doc

I suppose it saves a lot of time and effort to have the guy standing there holding the leash while you shoot ................ Just kidding ....... lol. ;D

My guess is that the definitions are cast in stone until, or if, the hunter population drops below a level where the DEC feels they have a viable population control tool. If that should happen, anything is possible and likely in terms of relaxing baiting prohibitions. Doc

That's something that will send me packing too. Also, I have been persuaded to get out of the woods by some rather violent winds on a couple of occasions. I have a super reliable gun stand that I often use on opening day that was built around a rather huge old dead maple. Last year when I went up to freshen the thing up a bit prior to gun season, I found that the top had busted out of it and sent a 2' diameter log speared into the ground, exactly where I usually set up my stool. I relocated that stand to a different spot. Doc

I'm not sure I really care about the ethics or logic of it all anymore. As far as I'm concerned, if the DEC is satisfied with a definition of baiting vs. a definition of a food plot, I am happy as long as their definitions are clear, precise and easily understood by any hunter. The fact is that I engage in neither practice so I really don't have to concern myself with the definitions or the logic behind any of it. Doc

Yes the official scoop is that any animal's scenting ability is enhanced with moist or humid air. However, what I think makes a difference and what may appear to be a contradiction, is that while rain produces the moisture requirement, the action of the rain or snow is such that it knocks the molecule clusters called "rafts" down to the ground before they get broadcasted very far or create a scent plume. Another thing about snow is that it leaves very poor scent levels. The scent is purer, because there is no vegetative decomp competition, but because quite often the air above is dryer with less humidity, the airborne component is less effective to the animals scenting capabilities. I think that because there are often conflicting forces at work, you will often get conflicting stories on what weather does to an animal's ability to read scent. Parts of each story are correct and each element of the weather plays a part. Air temp, ground temp, wind, sunlight, rain, snow, ground features (thermals) and humidity all play a part. Often some of these things oppose each other in terms of final effects. Also involved is whether you are talking about airborne scents or ground scents (tracking). There are conditions where air borne scent is enhanced and ground scents are impaired and vice-versa. So the whole thing gets to be rather complex and inter-twined. Often the exact set of circumstances need to be put together to get the right picture of what the animal is experiencing. Doc