airedale

I finally got around to sight the little Marlin 44 mag in with the same 300 gr Noslers used with the receiver sight. Bore sighted first and was shooting low, walked them up to center and she grouped about the same as with the receiver sight. The thing is the scope will work for my eyes in dim-low lighting conditions where the receiver sight was very poor in getting a sight picture, really pleased with the 2.5 Leupold compact scope, field of view, eye clearance and clear sight picture are superb. Also the Leupold quick release rings which are a first for me work very well, took the scope off twice and fired a shot and both printed right back to the point of aim. So if the scope ever happened to fail which I highly doubt because it is a "Leupold", I still do have the open sights to fall back on. It will not be long before I will give her an early season try where most shots would be well under 100 yards. 50 yards

I believe it all depends on the amount of human activity that goes on in the immediate area that is being hunted, the more activity the less spooky the deer become, they will learn to avoid. I for years hunted small game on the exact same property I hunted deer, I may have been hunting as many as five days a week right up to opening day of deer season. The deer would surely clear out and avoid me when I was coon hunting at night, grouse squirrel or rabbit hunting during the day and by the way with dogs to boot. Bottom line the end the deer always came back to their home territory and resumed their normal activity after I left because I believe they saw me as more of a nuisance than a predator that was actually pursuing them. When deer season opened I went into stealth mode and never failed to kill a deer in that area and some decent ones at that. Now in a more remote area with no human activity to speak of a different set of circumstances. Deer will be much more spooky and suspicious of any scent or activity they are not used to. I would keep the activity down when the season got close. Also I suppose if I were a trophy hunter after a known big buck in the area I probably would change my activity level pre season and keep it at a minimum in that buck's home area. Al

That's what I like seeing, nice shooting with a classic rifle and cartridge that can handle every big game species there is to hunt on this continent. Al

That is the same thing that is coming across to me. Al

Oh they have a plan alright.

Depending on the hunting pants I am wearing I will use either gaiter leggings or camo duck tape to seal my boots and pant cuffs to keep ticks out especially in warmer weather. As for the tape's scent I firmly believe that there is no possible way to defeat a Deer's sense of smell if you are upwind and the scent around you is going to them. So while I try not to stink like high Heaven I do not worry at all about the tape's scent. Al

I once owned a Ruger 44 auto, the physical gun I loved in both looks feel and handling. The accuracy was not good at all, I was getting 6 inch groups at 100 yds which was probably good enough for taking deer but I was not happy with that kind of accuracy with a rifle especially when I could shoot better groups with my S&W model 29 revolver. It was pretty well known that accuracy out of those carbines was not the best but I tried. So down the road that one went. I currently have a Marlin 94 lever action with the 16 inch ported barrel, that little carbine is a tack driver with my shots touching at 50 yds shooting 300 gr Nosler hollow points with open sights. I was having trouble lining up the receiver sight in dim light so I mounted a Leupold 2.5 compact this past winter. It is going to be what I use in early part of the season when the leaves are still on this year. Al

I will stand by stop and frisk as the best common sense method of getting guns out of the hands of thugs and criminals and I also will stand by my statement of not being scared in the least about being stopped and frisked because there will be nothing illegal found when I am frisked. Unless you are up to no good there is no real argument here other than having to put up with some hassle on a method that has been proven to stop crime. It will save lives. A lot of crabbing about stop and frisk but no one has shown me any better solution to actually getting illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals. I am not against a better idea to help solve this problem, if you have one let's hear it. Al

Don't scare me in the least because if I am frisked there will be nothing found that is not legal. Regardless I would put up with it if it saves thousands of lives. Al

Stop and frisk is when police temporarily detain somebody and pat down their outer clothing when there are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous. It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring

Who wants the hassle of having to be stopped and frisked, nobody including myself wants to be stopped and frisked but these inner city shootings-killings have become so pervasive that it is almost normal. Even here in central NY turn on the local evening news and see reports of shootings every other day and this happens all over the country, something has to be done. There is going to have to be some give somewhere and of all the solutions I have seen to get guns and thugs off the streets stop and frisk is the best idea with the most common sense. I don't like it but I would put up with it to stop this massacre that is going on. I do not see making drugs legal or banning rifles that hold more than six rounds even putting a small dent in this problem, we are dealing with criminals and they don't much care about the law and they are certainly not going to all come forward and turn in their weapons if drugs are legal or not. Or just keep the status quo and let em blast away until we end up with cities like the movie "Escape from NY' block them in and let them have at it! Al

Where are these utopian nations where hard drugs are legal? Every day, 78 people in the United States die from an opiate overdose — 29 of them from heroin, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's more than 10,500 deaths a year attributed to heroin and more than 28,000 deaths from opiate overdoses. If the above is happening with just those two drugs, it is not hard for me to imagine what would happen in time if hard drugs were made to be legal and the spigot was turned on. As for marijuana like cigarettes there is going to be no free lunch smoking that stuff especially long term health wise. Colorado will be a good test to see how legal works out on the crime side.

That sounds good to me, now how do we go about getting all those illegal guns out of the hands of those that do not have them legally?

So Redneck as I asked Core what common sense solution do you propose doing to solve the rampant illegal guns, murders-shootings and drug problems wrecking the inner cities? I am all ears. Al

So Core what is your common sense solution for getting those illegal guns and drugs out of the hands of those folks destroying those communities?

I totally agree with strictly enforcing the gun laws we have on the books and ending the plea deals. And like I said above here in NY I already have to register my handguns like it or not. Al

The rampant shootings along with drugs are the main reason inner city communities are falling apart and turning into war zones. Something has to be done and stop and frisk seems pretty reasonable and a common sense course of action unless you are someone that is up to no good like having an illegal firearm or a pocket full of drugs if you play by the law you should have nothing to worry about. Also Cops do not have free reign when it comes to stop and frisk and I do not buy into the payola slant at all. Stop and frisk is when police temporarily detain somebody and pat down their outer clothing when there are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous. It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. Reasonable suspicion is one step below probable cause and one step above a hunch. A "frisk" by definition is a type of search that requires a lawful stop. It is best thought of as a separate act, but in practice, a suspect who refuses to answer questions in a stop may be providing the officer with sufficient justification to frisk. A frisk should not be for anything other than a dangerous weapon or contraband. However, if other evidence, like a suspected drug container, is felt, it can be seized by the officer under the "plain feel" doctrine. The test for plain feel is that the item's contraband nature be "immediately apparent".

From the look of the fur it looks more like a bear that any of the three choices. Al

Sorry not buying into to that line of thought, stop and frisk done right has nothing to do with registering guns, by the way here in NY my handguns are basically already registered. Everyone is clamouring about something being having to be done about all these rampant shootings with some common sense, this is about as common sense as we can get without trampling the second amendment. Like I said the law can stop and frisk me all they want, I ain't worried because I am not doing anything that is not legal and so should anyone else that is following the laws. Al

As far as I am concerned stop and frisk used right is a good common sense way of getting many of the illegal firearms off the streets and bring down these crazy shootings that have become common and rampant. The law can stop and frisk me all they want, it would not bother me one bit.

I happened to catch a hunting show a couple of days ago on one of the outdoor channels featuring a fellow that took just about every single species of big game in North America with a Winchester model 94 in 30-30. He did not mention the ammo he was using but whatever the brand and bullet it worked very well. Moose, Elk and Bison did not go far after he hit them with well placed shots and neither did any of the other smaller species, I was impressed. I like lever actions and have 3 Marlins in 357 mag, 44 mag and 45-70, a Winchester 88 284 Winchester and a Savage 99 30-30 all iconic rifles and all will work great on big game with well placed shots using the proper ammo. Go to a well stocked shop and get your hands on some lever actions and get a feel and fit for each maker's rifle, go with the one that you like in looks and the way it shoulders for you. Al

This part looks to be a good solution. Al http://www.garandgear.com/m1-garand-ammunition

Your Monarch Cookstove is a more modern version of the old fashioned models and it appears to be in nice condition. The cooktop will clean up with some fine steel wool and some cooking oil after that is done wipe down with a cloth with just enough cooking oil to leave a very light coating to keep fine rust from forming. As long as the grates and firebrick "(if used in this model) are in good shape five to seven hundred dollars is not out of line. For a camp a wood-coal burning cookstove is the ideal appliance, it will handle both heating and all your cooking chores It would be one of the first things put in a camp if I owned one. I use one in my home and it has been one of the best purchases I have ever made. I picked up a new Heartland cookstove about 20 years ago, it burns both wood and coal, I burn coal 75% of the time because of long burn times. When the cold hits weather It heats the house for the most part and most of the cooking is done on it during the winter months and a constant 10 gallon supply of hot water, also nice backup when there is any power outages. This is the model I have except it is in hunter green.

I have hunted over my Airedales for birds most of my adult life with pretty good success, they are flushers and when hunting with flushing dogs as long as the hunter can keep up with their dog to the point of the flush so the bird is in range all is good. At this stage of the game I am still taking my share of birds but keeping up with my Airedales is getting tougher as the years pass and I finding myself missing more and more opportunities because of out of range flushes. Around ten years ago I decided to try out a pointing breed, an English Setter male named "Stickers". I could not have been more happier or pleased he was a great bird dog and I had a ball with him on upland game and we took our share. He was a foot hunter's bird dog deluxe he worked fairly close and was staunch on point and as long as you could walk you would kill as many birds as you wanted with that guy. As fate would have it Stickers for what ever the reason had a stroke at only four years of age, I did all I could for him but after a couple of weeks he faded away and passed. Been raising hunting dogs all my life and this was a first and to say I was devastated would be putting it mildly. This is a painting of Stickers done by my grand daughter So for the next few years I just continued to hunt birds with one of my Airedales with decent results but I sure missed Stickers. Although I toyed around with getting another Setter I never pulled the trigger that is until a month ago when surfing the web just looking of course I found a litter within driving distance that I really liked. To make a long story short I took the drive and came home with a little girl whom I named Matilda, Matty for her call name. I am in love with this little gal and she is doing everything I want so far, I will still have to hunt this fall with one of my Airedales but next year Matty should be pointing birds for me if all goes well., I can't wait! Matty holding point nicely on a Pheasant wing.

By JIM MATTHEWS www.OutdoorNewsService.com The final 2014 numbers are in and the number of hunters and fishermen in California dropped to their lowest level in history last year. I think the Department of Fish and Wildlife can pat itself on the back for its monumental effort to drive sportsmen away from hunting and fishing in an unprecedented way. These are the numbers: In 2014, there were 990,447 annual resident sportfishing licenses sold in this state. This is only the second time the number has dropped below 1 million (the last time in 2011, when it missed the mark by 32 licenses). Throughout the 1970s and into the mid-1980s, annual fishing license sales exceeded 2 million each year, and the peak sales year was in 1981 when just under 2.3 million were sold. As an interesting note, during that time, fishing license sales were almost exactly 10 percent of the state’s growing population. License sales continued to grow on pace with the population until the mid-1980s when the sales numbers began to steadily decline. While there might still be a few more hunting licenses sold between now and the end of the license year the end of June, the numbers for the 2014-15 year look like they will drop below 245,000 for the first time, setting a new, all-time low mark. While DFW on-line data doesn’t go back before 1970, I have read that hunting license sales peaked in the late 1960s at about 700,000 (there were just under 691 thousand sold in 1970). Numbers have declined steadily ever since. Numbers hovered around 500,000 per year in the 1970s and then declined into the 1980s. They dropped below 400,000 for the first time in 1988 and below 300,000 in 1997. There has been a downward trend of 4,000 to 5,000 per year since then. Amazingly, the agency’s revenue from sportsmen has continued to grow even as our numbers dwindle. They gouge us with increased license and tags fees, permits or stamps also have annual increases, and there are new individual fees each year for just about anything we might want to hunt or catch. With the money the same or increasing, do you think the state agency cares our numbers are declining? Do they care enough to do something about it? Absolutely not. The DFW is in charge of selling a great ‘product,’ and if the staff wanted to refocus its management, reduce the regulatory burden on hunters and fisherman, and initiate a private-sector type marketing program (like the state has done for Covered California, the health care debacle), they could increase license sales by a minimum of 50 percent in three years. I happen to believe the reality is that they don’t want to increase our numbers again, and they are certainly not investing any of its funding to do so. They don’t want more people looking over their shoulders. They don’t want more accountability. When fishermen represented 10 percent of the population and hunters were four or five percent of the state’s population, we were a significant ‘constituency’ group that mattered to Sacramento legislators, so we also mattered to the DFW and Fish and Game Commission’s political appointees. A phone call or letter to a representative about declining trout plants or changes in a hunting season meant the DFW and FGC would be called out and there was accountability. Today, no so much. There are legislators today who probably don’t know the state plants trout for anglers. Why should they? Anglers are now just 2 1/2-percent of the population, and hunters represent barely a half-percent of the people in the state. To the rest of the state’s population the DFW is supposed to represent when it comes to non-game and endangered or threatened species, most can’t tell you who or what the DFW does. They don’t know its Fish and Wildlife that are supposed to be the watch dogs that protect wildlife and habitat. If they did know that, they would gasp in horror and the incompetent job the agency is doing. Why? Because there is no accountability. Just the condor program is a prime example. The state is supposed to be the coordinator of a broad-based coalition of scientists and researchers from private, state and federal agencies working with this critically endangered bird. After 35 years of supposedly intensive study, we still really have no idea of where or what condors eat in the wild. With all of the birds wearing markers and most with radio telemetry gear so we can track their movements and location, we still only have anecdotal information on where and how they feed in the wild. There has never been a food study done on condors. This is a critical omission when you have been telling everyone for two decades that lead poisoning from the condor’s food is their biggest threat to recovery. And that lead poisoning — they have and continue to say — is caused by lead ammunition remnants left in game gut piles and carcasses discarded by hunters. But then we banned lead ammunition for hunting in condor country, there was a real shocker. It didn’t help. The after-ban data shows the condors are still getting lead in the same amounts. Now, the so-called experts are scrambling trying to make the data fit the disproven theory. They are grasping at straws: ‘Hunters must not be complying.’ ‘Poachers are still using lead.’ But all the excuses beg the simple question. It’s working somewhat for eagles and vultures, why isn’t it for condors? Well, it appears the simple answer is that the assumption about condor lead coming from ammunition was at least partially wrong, mostly wrong. Has the DFW said, ‘Whoa, we need to finally, once-and-for-all, do a condor food study and see where this lead is coming from’? No, they are mismanaging endangered species like they have the resources — the hunted and fished species — that could make them a mint in license sales if those populations of game and fish were optimized. A total ban on hunting with lead ammo goes into effect on July 1, 2019 The NSSF surveyed California hunters after AB 711 passed and found that nearly 40 percent said they will either have to stop or severely reduce their hunting due to the much higher costs of non-lead ammunition. This goes for 22 rimfire ammo also, probably the most widely used ammo of all. So far the best they come up with for 22 rimfire is a powdered copper X poly pressed bullet that shoots like crap and costs 10.99 for fifty. And “widely available?” Forget that. The Fish and Wildlife Service has an approved list of non-lead ammunition that has less than 40 manufacturers on it. Further, due to local restrictions in densely and highly populated Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento and San Francisco, ordering ammo by mail is nearly impossible—if not all together forbidden.The NSSF report says the ban could lead to a loss of $20 million in revenue for the state. I won’t name names here, but there was once a do-nothing biologist I knew in the 1980s (an anomaly back then, because the biologists with the DFG then were mostly hard-working, dedicated troops) that became the butt of a joke. I used to say, ‘Put him in charge of desert tortoise if you want to assure they go extinct.’ He pretty much represents how the entire agency functions today. There are a lot of biologists (excuse me, they are all now ‘environmental scientists’) who would love to get back in the field and do good things for wildlife, but they are handcuffed today by bureaucrats and supervisors who don’t want to fight the good fight. They are handcuffed by decades of regulations and rules that no one questioned when they were implements. They are handcuffed and lack of funding (read that ‘lack of funding’ line to mean, ‘misappropriated funding spent elsewhere on something that doesn’t really benefit anyone or anything in the state’). In a recent press release, the DFW director hailed one of the top accomplishments of the agency: Wildlife nanny. He didn’t use that term, but he was proud of the time his biologists and wardens wasted on problem wildlife calls. Mountain lions, bears, and other potentially dangerous critters would enter urban California and need 100s of man-hours of time to be tranquilized, caged, and relocated. For many animals, they would end up in the same situation a week or two later. That is an accomplishment? Wildlife nannies: That’s what the DFW has become, a feel-good agency all fuzzy and warm and politically correct. The wildlife nannies (aka DFW) don’t have the gumption to tell the public that those critters should get a load of 00-buckshot and a necropsy. Potentially dangerous wildlife coming into urban California is a problem we don’t want to give another opportunity to hurt someone. They come because they are looking for food; because the population is saturated, and they can’t find food or a home range outside of urban California. They come because we’ve mismanaged the lion, bear, and other wildlife populations beyond all recognition. They keep coming because we want to do the feel-good thing instead of the right thing. But it’s one of the agency’s key accomplishments? They have lost their way. And only a handful of us remember or care what the agency should be doing or why. Hunting and fishing license sales are the big picture they refuse to see or address.