Grouse

If you voted for this guy, better keep it a secret. People only have so much self control.

Same as when we do drives in this country for whitetail. And in many shotgun only areas, that is the preferred method for deer hunting. I guess that's been unethical for 100 or so years, but who knew?

They asked for the data bases and were told they were destroyed. After that caused a major inquiry, all of a sudden they were found. You are directing your mockery at the wrong people. No possibility of fraud? LOL! https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/voting-machines-pennsylvania-republican-ballots?fbclid=IwAR0bzB_cSyeuixrK5uewlnf5nmTqFki1MiovriNm2vRNoU6rlL5c1DVvtWQ Voting machines across Pennsylvania county not accepting Republican ballots in local races And that's just the beginning. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/michigan-attorney-phantom-ballots-antrim-county-2020-election-case?fbclid=IwAR3vLDqiYB8KJ47ret-mB_lAKipW4yCCWttMR_KaC2YP1cCBrvE5Ldcw5-A

Pretty cool hunt in Hawaii taking a white turkey. https://go.mossyoak.com/videos/pinhoti-2021-ep-1-pinhoti-project-mp4?fbclid=IwAR0ZdHPkX8OMESx0lPbFi2v-keYQ0yXULwIV1TYF_L3Bd7AlGLRXzQyiiug

This 2" blade was a gift from my daughter. Very sharp as well. "Only sharp knives are interesting", to paraphrase a quote about accurate rifles.

Two Puma folders. A newer 3" blade and an old 4" blade. Both are real smooth and very sharp.

Some might want to read "Shots at Whitetails" written by Lawrence Koller about 75 or so years ago. He hunted in the Sullivan County area around the Neversink River and the hills around it and describes deer hunting at that time. Many running shots were taken and people then were good at it. Not to want to take a running shot is not an issue, but trying to claim moral superiority with it is.

Once again, that's your opinion, and it's not shared by many hunters who can swear to many successful running shots.

Shots are running deer have been done since deer hunting began and calling them unethical is judgemental and your personal opinion. Running shot proficiency is a skill set many hunters have mastered and is not illegal. A hunter must know his limitations. If they are confident they can make the shot, just like those who are confident they can make a 500 yard shot, there is nothing unethical about it. If it is "above average", the skill level of today's hunters has really dropped over the years. Plus it is the hunter's responsibility to track any deer they hit until they find it. Nobody expects to change your mind, because it's apparently closed.

Very nice little Buck knife. I don't like seeing "China" stamped on a blade either, but some really high quality knives are being made in China these days. Al Mar knives being the best IMHO.

You're Welcome. I enjoy these historical and factual articles about hunting too. I did a lot of duck hunting in my youth and did some with small shallow draft prams that could be sculled close to rafting ducks. Two hidden hunters in the boat could knock down 4, or maybe 5 ducks with a good approach, but getting hundreds with one shot is unimaginable. It must have been something to see and even more exciting to be involved in. Imagine how many ducks must have been around in those days to see hundreds of them at a time in the air or on the water. I never knew those punt guns were confiscated by the government when their use was outlawed. I guess the government violated constitutional rights regarding guns and private property even then.

"Need" is not relevant to Rights" by WENDY LAFEVER 1. “Do you really need this?” he asked, glaring at me over the checkout counter. “This has 150 grams of sugar in it. Not in the whole package, per serving. There are a full 13 servings in this box. That’s too much for you,” he concluded, yanking my doughnuts off the conveyor belt. “Obesity is a killer, and unless you have a doctor’s note certified by our local sheriff and the head of the FDA, you don’t need these doughnuts, and you can’t buy them.” 2. “You cannot possibly expect me to believe that you really need this,” she spat, looking at my cart full of fire extinguishers. “What on Earth are you planning to do with all these fire extinguishers? The only reason anyone needs more than one fire extinguisher is if they’re pyromaniacs or arsonists.” She reached for the phone. “I don’t care which one you are, but I’m sure the police will.” 3. “Do you really need this?” he demanded, pointing an angry finger at the muscle car I was trying to finance. “That car has a V-8 engine that generates 370 horsepower and 395 lb-ft of torque. That’s law-enforcement power, and the only reason you’d need a car that fast is to outrun the police. Unless you have a note from your local law enforcement as well as the head of your state’s Department of Transportation proving that you have a consistent need to get from 0 to 60 in 5.2 seconds, you need to leave.” 4. “You don’t need this,” said the banker, shaking his head. “The house you’re trying to buy is four times larger than a single person needs to survive. Why do you want 1,600 square feet when you really only need 400? What are you planning to do with the other 1,200 square feet?” He gasped, “Are you one of those crazy square-footage stockpilers?” I watched as he pulled out his stamp and marked “DENIED” on my loan application. 5. “Do you really need this?” he said, looking at me over his mask with a drill in one hand and a work order in the other. “This paper says you’re authorized to have 9 megabytes per second of internet speed. And here you are with 12. Why do you need 12 megabytes per second to post pictures of your dinner to social media? You don’t,” he concluded smugly. “Not unless you’re trying to use your Internet to send large files, and nobody needs to do that except the government. We’re cranking you back down to dial-up.” Of course, I didn’t write this article on parchment using a quill pen. Of course, nobody tried to tell me I couldn’t buy all the doughnuts I want. Nobody denied me financing for a muscle car (mainly because I can’t afford it anyway and haven’t tried). Everybody knows that it’s wrong to deny financing to someone for a large home just because they could probably survive in a smaller one. None of those things happened, and if they had, it would have been an outrage. So why are we gun owners routinely asked these same questions, with the threat of having our rights and property taken away from us if The Powers That Be don’t like our answers? Let’s roll back to #1. Let’s substitute “doughnuts” with “a matched pair of classic revolvers.” If I live in Virginia (and don’t have a concealed-carry permit), then I cannot buy both of those revolvers at once thanks to Virginia’s new “One Gun a Month” law. Let’s go back to #3, and replace the muscle car with a suppressor. I’ll quote Jeff Johnston’s “How to Buy a Suppressor” article here: “Silencers for firearms were made in 1902 by Hiram Percy Maxim in lock-step with another one of his inventions, the car muffler. This makes sense because both products utilized nearly identical technology. Today car mufflers are mandated by the government, while firearm suppressors are highly regulated by it. That doesn't make any sense at all.” No, no it doesn’t. The reason why it doesn’t make any sense is because, if we’re discussing need, we are having the wrong discussion … and that is not an accident. Anti-gunners know that if they can force us to justify our rights while only using the language of necessity, they can tie up the argument on this detail or that technicality forever. The truth of the matter is that of course, neither you nor I need six fire extinguishers all rated for different kinds of fires right this moment. However, if we do come to need them, we will need them very badly and 10 minutes ago; not having them could prove fatal for us. It is the same for guns, but with a twist: The Bill of Rights doesn’t have a special amendment for fire extinguishers. Guns do. And that’s why the next time someone asks you if you really need an AR-15 when a bolt-action would do the job, or if you really need 10 cases of ammo, just say, “Yes, and you really need to read the Constitution.”

The History of Punt Guns by W.H. "Chip" Gross - Thursday, May 13, 2021 It was both the most demanding and most dangerous form of waterfowl hunting. And yes, some hunters died doing it. Termed punt gunning-a punt being a small, flat-bottomed boat-punt guns were used during the 1800s and early 1900s, resulting in the mass slaughter of waterfowl. Upwards of 100 ducks, geese, and swans could be killed with just one shot! State hunting laws and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 finally outlawed use of the big guns, but during their heyday they were very much a part of legal waterfowl hunting. The guns were especially favored by market hunters. A punt gun, in essence, was an exceptionally large muzzleloading shotgun, weighing as much as 200 pounds and measuring 10 to 12 feet in length. Its bore diameter could be two inches, and shoot two pounds of shot. Obviously, punt guns were not fired from the shoulder. Instead, the big guns were usually mounted in a skiff, 16 to18 feet long, and the boat and gun rowed or paddled to the flocks of birds. Punt guns were usually used at night, the darkness helping conceal the approach of the boat and hunter from the birds. The hunt began once a large flock of rafting waterfowl was sighted. Lying in the boat alongside the big gun, the hunter would keep any wind to his back and stalk the birds by using small hand-paddles to slowly and silently propel the skiff forward. Once within range-usually about 50 yards-the hunter would aim the punt gun by sighting along the side of the barrel and shifting his weight slightly forward or backward. By moving forward, the gun's muzzle would lower and by moving backward it would rise. Before touching off a shot, the hunter would intentionally bump the gunnel of the skiff with one of the paddles or make some other subtle but unnatural sound. This caused the birds to raise their heads in the split second before the shot, resulting in the killing or wounding of as many waterfowl as possible. Early punt guns were flintlocks, and the hunter closed his eyes and turned his head away from the gun as he pulled the trigger, protecting himself from the flash of gunpowder igniting in the lock's firing pan. This also shielded his eyes from the much larger flash that instantly emanated from the guns' muzzle, preserving his night vision. Many early flintlock punt guns were eventually converted to percussion cap, a much more reliable ignition system given the damp conditions of waterfowling. As can be imagined, the roar of such a gun on a still, black night over open water was deafening. One hunter referred to his punt gun as his “headache gun” because he said he took two aspirin before firing it and two again afterward. The big guns were dangerous, not only to waterfowl, but to the hunters themselves. The guns' recoil was fierce, and if not properly controlled could damage the skiff in which the gun was mounted-even knocking out the boat's transom and drowning the hunter. The guns recoiled with such force that they would slide backwards several feet following a shot and at times break ribs in the skiff. To prevent this, a plank-known as a kick board-was nailed to the ribs. Several burlap bags filled with sea oats also helped cushion the gun's recoil. One of the most successful punt gun hunts ever recorded happened on America's eastern seaboard the night four boats hunted together. “You could hear the redheads ‘meowing' the same as a bunch of cats as we got our guns ready,” remembered market hunter Ray Todd. “There was a solid roar like thunder every time they flew. As the sun set, we skiffed right down its path at a flock of redheads, over a half-mile long and nearly as wide.” Todd said that all four punt guns fired simultaneously and it literally rained ducks-a total of 419 redheads were killed. “The birds flew off a short distance and began to feed again. We made three more shots that night. By morning we had killed over 1,000 ducks. They brought $3.50 a pair in Baltimore, and it was the best night's work we had ever done.” Each punt gun had a specific name-Bundick, Snead, Cheseldine, Dutch Mike, etc.-generally the name of the family who originally built and owned the gun. When the guns were finally outlawed, many of their owners didn't give them up easily. Hidden in hollow trees or chimneys, many were discovered and confiscated by the law. Some of those same punt guns are on display in museums yet today. A figure of speech remains in our language from the era of punt gunning. When we prepare for a project, we often talk of “getting our ducks in a row.” And that's literally what punt gunners used to do before touching off a shot from their infamous, deadly guns.

At close range when the deer is calm. Try 50 yards at running deer during shotgun season in shotgun only areas.

Some states have taken the position no rifles are needed and restrict people to shotguns. Curiously, semi-auto shotguns are NEEDED for deer hunting, since one shot kills are not the rule.

My bad. I meant during the birthing season when the pups are born.

Yotes, being predators, have a detrimental effect on many other game species. They are not going to wipe out other game species, but they do reduce their numbers. Especially when they cluster in a relatively small zone. Reduced deer and turkey numbers result in reduced hunter numbers. That is a negative for wildlife management and the economy, as well as hunting's future in general. Closing yote hunting during their breeding season indicates NY wants to protect the yote population, even when they negatively affect other game populations. There is no shortage of yotes in NY and most science indicates hunting them year round will not affect their population. Therefore hunting yotes year round makes sense and fining people for shooting them when NY is protecting them makes no sense. That's the logic the science presents. I don't support any illegal yote hunting because the optics look bad, but I don't support laws that make no sense either, especially when they're applied for PC reasons and are creating bad optics. BTW, I saw bear numbers get out of control in NJ when they were protected and the state sent out rangers to shoot them out of season. The law isn't just when the government is exempt from it. NJ has once again gone stupid with bears and soon we will see rangers shooting bears again when hunters can't. Makes no sense. I've also seen local towns ban the discharge of firearms and bows to stop hunting for deer, then pay private companies to come in and shoot the deer at night with "assault rifles", silencers, bait and night vision too. None of which are legal for hunters in the state. The law only applies to hunters. Makes no sense not to allow at least bow hunting there. Let people hunt yotes in NY all year round and this problem goes away.

The problem with the coyote season in NY is, it protects the predator during the worst time of the year. Spring is when the young yotes are born and the most young deer are killed to feed them. Many states allow yote hunting year round. I don't consider shooting predators to be poaching. Illegal because NY says the season is closed, but not poaching, because they are not game animals, they're varmints. We can kill porcupine all year long, as well as other varmints like red squirrels, but not yotes. When someone can logically explain to me the wildlife management reason for not shooting yotes all year long, I'll start caring about people shooting them "out of season". Right now I'm only opposed to it because of the penalty the government inflicts on people who do it.