Mr VJP

CA has had a ban on lead ammo in Condor areas since 2007. The legislature was pushing for a ban statewide ever since. A vote in the legislature in 2013 passed a statewide ban and Gov Brown signed it into law Oct 2013. Shortly afterwards it was learned the US Fish & Wildlife service withheld info that showed even after the ban in 2007, Condor levels of lead in their blood did not show a significant decline, suggesting they were getting lead from sources other than ammunition, as pro-hunting groups had always asserted. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/2/lead-ammunition-ban-passed-after-feds-withheld-key/ BTW the Washington Times is a Leftist proponent. The California Fish and Game Wardens' Association, in joining the opposition to the lead-ammo ban, broke ranks with the state's Department of Fish and Wildlife, which officially supports the ban. "California Game Wardens are on the front line enforcing the ban for most hunting in [California] condor range," the association wrote in a letter to the governor. "But there is insufficient data to justify such a drastic action across the entire state." There is evidence lead poisoning is more likely due to an industrial lead compound, which is much different from the metallic lead used in ammunition. Many experts state there is no scientific evidence that traditional lead ammunition threatens wildlife populations. Metallic lead used in ammunition is relatively insoluble in the digestive tract of organisms and does not possess the same soluble properties as industrial lead compounds (e.g., leaded gasoline, leaded paint). Thus, lead ammunition is quickly passed naturally through the digestive tract instead. It is likely that industrial lead compounds are responsible for many of the highly publicized lead poisonings attributed to lead ammunition. The five-year-old lead ammunition ban in the California condor region has proven ineffective. Despite a 99 percent compliance rate by hunters, researchers now admit that "lead exposures continue" and condor blood-levels have not dropped. Supporters of lead ammunition bans continue to ignore alternative sources of lead in the environment as the primary cause of lead poisoning. Instead, the proponents have successfully enacted a statewide ban that will be phased in over the next several years, continuing to attack the use of traditional lead ammunition for hunting game. BTW, public opinion is against hunters and for the ban. Of course, their opinions are based on the reports they are fed by the government and activists. Based on the above info, it is hard to agree with a ban when the science used to justify it may be junk. How is it hunters used lead ammo in this land for over 200 years and it has now become a huge problem that it never seemed to be before? Extrapolating that to the subject of public opinion, junk science can be used to sway public opinion towards the goals the government has in mind. Can we trust any of the "scientific" evidence put out and paid for by the same people who have an agenda it supports? If one goes back to the 1940's & 50's, when hunting wasn't being attacked, you can see the emergence over time of animal rights groups, environmental groups and gun control groups that all work in concert to attack hunting and gun ownership. Their "scientific" evidence supporting their positions have been proven to be inaccurate, false and even outright lies on many occasions. I'm afraid that also promotes a great deal of skepticism with any study that claims to accurately gauge public opinion about hunting. Not only can the data be wrong, it can be highly influenced by propaganda fed to the public in the first place. Curm, Some hunters may be switching to non-lead ammo without complaint, and that gives the banners more propaganda to use to support their agenda, as long as they ignore the millions of hunters who are complaining. As far as contests, the brainwashed public surely finds them offensive, but they are legal pursuits and serve a multitude of purposes including fund raising, varmint control and fellowship. Perhaps it would be wise for hunters to keep the public's opinion in mind in the interest of self preservation (idiots and do gooders can be trouble), but by no stretch of the Constitution does the government have any authority to ban them.

That's your opinion. My four decades of experience with hunting and the politics that affect it, has shown me that any wins by the opposition simply embolden them to attack even more. If you give them and inch...... The same thing happens with gun control and I don't think anyone would argue that hasn't happened over the years in NY. California has also proven that gun control and hunting are inseparable. It is the poster state for total government control. California started it's drive to ban lead ammo with the same tactics we are now seeing in NY. A lot of talk was generated to get it in the forefront of the public's mind with the goal of galvanizing the opposition. The result was a ban after the government knew it had the public's support. Consequently, many long time hunters, with a major investment in a lifetime supply of ammo, became the victims of heavy handed do gooders. Nothing was considered to minimize the impact a ban on lead ammo would have on the industry or the current owners of lead ammo. The same tactics were used to ban so called "assault weapons" in that state. In the end, many good, honest, productive Californians eventually found themselves demonized, blamed for everything evil that happens there. Since that time, the state has brazenly attempted to go even further with all types of gun control measures, that even it admits will have no impact on criminals. You guys are diligently pursuing an agenda that you believe in. However, if it looks like your objective is slipping away and the public fails to adopt your cause voluntarily, it will be only a matter of time before you start calling for a ban. You guys are on a crusade. Quoting Brandies here: The greatest dangers to Liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding. "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams

Because I enjoy it, and I'm very good at it. What more do you need to know?

I disagree. You want proof? I got one word for you. CALIFORNIA!

Since this thread is asking if contests hurt the image of hunters, let me ask this: What image have hunters had for the last few decades in this country, how did they get it and why did they let it happen? Answer: Hunters are blood thirsty killers. This perception was falsely applied to them by anti hunting propaganda organizations with an agenda. Hunters ignored the propaganda rather than uniting and going on a counter attack to set the record straight in the eyes of the general public. Sure there are some folks that may be scum in the woods, but should the whole hunting community be tarred with the same brush? America doesn't allow other groups of minorities to be generalized like that. Why does it accept it regarding hunters and gun owners? Think about it.

I wonder if non-hunters, or the public in general, would take offense at a rat killing contest. If NYC had a contest to see who could kill the most rats in one week, would the non-hunters think that was offensive? I think they would. I don't think the folks affected by too many rats would have a problem with it though, nor do I think I would have any trouble debating anyone over the question of it being a good thing or not. I don't care how crude the ads promoting it are either. My mother used to sum this up best. "Offense cannot be given, only taken". If we are going to allow other people to dictate the terms of any activity they do not even participate in, or contribute funds for, because they are "offended", then we have nobody but ourselves to blame. If only I could get everything that offends me banned! Like I said in the beginning of this thread, there are plenty of things, far more important to the future existence and safety of Americans, to be spending their, and our, energy on. Maybe we just need to point that out to them.

So, you have all of these negative things to say about the way hunters go about things these days, and you are having these conversations with non-hunters that are not too happy about hunting. I have to assume you are not defending the things you don't agree with when you talk to non-hunters. I also assume you put yourself above other hunters when you speak to non-hunters and position yourself as a hunter that wants to change what other hunters do, being so much purer an all. What do you think you are accomplishing by doing that? You say you don't want a ban on anything, you just want to get hunters to do things your way. Do a reality check. They are not going to just let you tell them they should be better ambassadors for hunting, they are not going to agree with your definition of what that is. The only thing that will stop these things people keeping giving publicity to, anti's and elitist hunters alike, is a law that bans them. So if you think you are not helping things move in that direction, you are not being honest with yourself. The more publicity these issues get, whether it's lead ammo or contests, the more attention brought to them, the more likely we will see a law banning them. I would not like to see that happen, but I get the feeling elitists would be quite content with that, and possibly with much more infringement in the future, if it controls hunting the way they want it to be controlled. In my book, anti's are the worst, non-hunters are just misinformed, but a hunter that cannot properly inform and educate a non-hunter about the complex issues involved with all facets of the pastime of hunting, regardless of the public's perception, might just as well cross the line to the anti side, because he is helping them and hurting the pastime of hunting. Elitists have their view on the issue, and I have mine. When all hunting is completely banned, I'm sure the elitists will believe they were doing the right thing and none of the blame is theirs.

If you are worried about the perception of hunters in the eyes of non-hunters, what you're advocating is banning contests and making laws that will control hunting more to placate the anti's. Banning lead ammo and hunting contests are just two infringements. What's to stop the momentum after it gets started? Seems to me we are opening a door towards a total ban on hunting. I'd rather see hunters unite to elect pro-hunting politicians that would be inclined to pass a law recognizing hunting as a traditional right that cannot be eliminated. Other states have done it. Why not NY? If we do not push back against any and all attacks on hunting, we will soon find we have lost the war altogether.

No, anyone from any state can get the permit for $2.

The taste of the bear's meat really depends on what it has been eating. The ones taken in the state forests are tasty, or at least mine was.

If people won't listen to experts on the subject, they are not going to change their uninformed, misguided opinions no matter what facts they are presented with. I also do not think it is a good idea for hunters to tell other hunters what they can do when they are not doing anything illegal. We need to present a united front at all times if we expect to keep our hunting traditions. There was a time when Americans worried more about people and their problems then they did about animals that cause problems. These days, many sanctimonious animal lovers hate people!

I think non-hunter's opinions can be swayed with wildlife biologists giving them facts and data from scientific research. I think it's the Div of Fish & Wildlife's job to worry about the opinion of non-hunters. They need hunters, and they know it. They're employed, at our expense, to manage the state's wildlife. We only need to make sure they are doing their job.

I don't think non-hunters are as concerned about these contests as animal rights fanatics and the anti-lead crowd are. People who live in areas where coyotes and crows have gotten way out of hand certainly aren't against the contests. People who live in urban areas might have issues with them, but then again, when are they not trying to tell everyone else what to do? People really should be more concerned about the perceived image of Americans around the world than the image of hunters here. With a clown like Obama as President making America look stupid and weak, and his entire lawless, corrupt administration, I think this country's non-hunters have a lot more to be concerned about at this moment in time.

At $137 total cost, bear hunting in NJ is pretty cheap. Considering you don't have to travel far and spend a ton of cash for gas, the non-resident license fee is not out of reach. I think $135 is high for NJ though. I don't think the bears den up in NJ in early December. Especially in the zones that are at a lower elevation and not as cold. There are plenty of them out and about, especially on the warmer days. It does seem to be better bear hunting from noon to sunset on the cold days though.

This NJ one is 300 lbs. I took it in 2010. I have the skull, but never had it measured. I'm not even sure how it's done.

So I guess something can give a bear a big head. I know some people like that. LOL!

Why so? Wouldn't a bear's skull be the same size if they are the same weight?

What about PA?

NJ is the place to go for big bear these days. The cost of the bear permit is only $2 too! http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/index.ssf/2014/12/hunter_kills_bear_weighing_nearly_700_pounds_during_first_day_of_nj_bear_hunt.html

I've hunted in the AR zone 4P for three years now and have seen nothing while hunting larger than a 4pt buck. It's not working for me. I fail to see how it can work when they still allow young hunters to shoot any buck they see. I think a lot of groups that have a youth hunting with them will have any hunter shoot the small bucks and have the kid tag it. All I can say is after 3 years, I should be seeing some nice bucks.

The higher quality variables do not have a significant or obvious change in eye relief. The less expensive ones are very noticeable.

Nice article and some great photos. I love when these types of stories are printed and the authors all state, "It's not the low life sport I thought it was." Just shows how judgmental these people really are until they actually do a little research. Love the photo of the girl holding the rifle. That's a Kimber Select Grade rifle in stainless steel. Not sure if it's an 84M short action or an 8400 long action. I'm guessing it's a short action. Very lightweight rifle. With the Leupold VX-III scope, that girl is shooting a rifle/scope combo worth about $1600. Not bad for a 15 year old. I'm curious what round it shoots.

When is comes to handguns, NY state is horrible, and unconstitutional IMHO. The entire pistol permit system is in fact handgun registration. That's why they want to know exactly where in NY state you live, and exactly what handguns you have, at all times. If they ever pass a handgun ban in NY state, they will know exactly who has them, how many you have, and where you live. You will have no choice but to comply. They are trying to get the same type of info on all black rifle owners through the SAFE Act, for the same reason. One cannot look at these gun registration systems and deny the end goal is eventual confiscation. Disarmament is like plucking a bird. Take one feather a day and the bird will not notice, until one day IT FINDS IT CAN NO LONGER FLY. These are my observations and opinions. You may disagree, but I believe the best thing a NY gun owner can do to protect his firearm rights, is unfortunately, move out of the state.

The above link is a good read on the .223 vs 5.56 and sums up the issue very well. A "TRUE" 5.56 round fired in a rifle with a "REAL" .223 chamber can give you dangerously high pressure levels. The details are many and are all covered in that article. The problem with .308 vs 7.62x51 is more of a rifle issue than a cartridge issue. The cartridges are basically the same, but the military case is thicker, having less capacity, and if reloaded as a "max" load listed for thinner commercial brass, can give unsafe higher pressures when fired. A rifle, most often of the military type, may have a chamber that will cause commercial .308 Win brass to stretch, because it is thinner than military brass and the military chamber is slightly longer. That can cause case separation issues. If you really want to know what is safe to fire in YOUR rifle, you can only tell by finding out what your chamber specs are. That means throat and leade as well. That's the only way to truly tell what your rifle is really capable of safely firing.

Well, that's one side of the story. I'm sure the other guys story will be different. The truth will probably be different than both stories. Either way, it's crazy to get into any kind of physical altercation when the guy you assault has a gun.