Grouse

But if you don't currently reload, you need to purchase a lot of expensive stuff to get started, which you don't have to do now buying cheap lead ammo. It still forces expense on lots of people.

Here are my thoughts on this issue. It all boils down to trust. A lot of these claims of poisoning come from groups that have an obvious agenda. The real effects of these proposals on average people usually show up after they are forcefully implemented, much like most government mandated edicts. I think that is where the resistance comes from. And it's not a few dollars more. For most shooters, it's quite a few dollars more. In an age where the cost of ammo has already soared, with the government threatening to add high taxes and fees on top of that, and taking it to who knows what end, people have reached the point of anger. It's seen as an insidious incremental oppression, and people are becoming more and more aware of it. You don't need to ban firearms if you can make ammo unattainable, whether it be through cost or supply. And that might not be judged an unconstitutional infringement on 2nd Amendment rights. If only non-lead ammo was legal, could the producers meet the demand? Could they do it without very high prices? I think not. As far as a ban goes, outlawing lead ammo could be done on the state level as was done in California, but the steel shot mandate for waterfowl was done at the federal level. The more you hear about non-lead ammo, the more you have to think lead ammo is eventually going to be banned. As long as people are free to make their own choices there is no problem. The lead free crusade has a PR problem, because it doesn't have the answers to real questions and concerns.

I really doubt pink is as good as orange. I think one color used by all is better than two, or eventually even more.

This one has an impact on every hunter in NY. Senate Bill 2491, sponsored by state Senator Liz Krueger (D-28), would force gun owners to lock up guns in the home, which would only give criminals an advantage. This legislation is dangerous and renders firearms useless in self-defense situations. S.2491 would create six new crimes within article 265 of the penal law in addition to creating felony penalties. Every household is different and firearms storage should be a matter of personal responsibility, not mandated by legislation.

I also notice every sponsor is a Democrat. "This year, anti-gun lawmakers are pushing a series of bills that will do nothing to improve public safety and will only serve to harass and punish law-abiding gun owners." https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160304/new-york-nra-continues-to-fight-further-infringement-of-your-rights Hopefully, the link will work now

This is how crows leave when you miss them with all three shots.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was a typo, but then thought maybe not.

The whole post is very interesting and enlightening, but this one paragraph has me confused. What is, "a 3.85" live round"?

But we keep attacking pipelines and the building of new ones.

I've never had a problem getting a bird, duck, goose or deer to move out of the way. I just keep creeping forward until they realize I'm a lot bigger then they are and I'm not going to stop. I've never had to try it on a moose though, and probably wouldn't.

If I recall correctly, many years ago there was a desire to make spear guns legal for hunting. They were going to shoot the same shaft with a broad head on it, rather than the regular spear head. The idea was dismissed by game departments because it didn't qualify as a firearm or archery equipment.

No matter how you look at it, you can't deny the anti hunters effectively stopped hunting there. This stopped all of the revenue hunters brought into the area. Now they are going to kill 200 lions and gain nothing by doing it. The anti hunters consider this a win. Not because it saved any lions, but because it stopped hunters from killing them. The fact that lions will still be killed is immaterial to the anti hunter.

I have no problem with it being used in any firearm season. But I don't think that is the intention or goal of the manufacturer. Perhaps I was misunderstanding the thread, since it was titled "Hunting with the Airbow" and is in the Deer Hunting forum. I was pretty sure we were talking about hunting deer with it. It also seemed the prior comments were about using it during archery season. If were just talking about it's abilities, it looks like a fun toy for back yard use.

Well, if there were 300 lions a year ago, and that was near the carrying capacity of the area, one year later there can easily be 500 lions, making it necessary to kill 200 at this time. That would be a direct result of no lion hunting in the area for a year.

Originally, archery was implemented to be a primitive weapon season. So was muzzle loader season. The idea was to allow people to hunt deer in seasons other than firearm season, if they wanted to take the challenge to do it with a primitive weapon. There was a certain sense of accomplishment when succeeding at it. Sort of like fly fishing vs bait casting. Today we seem to be pushing modern technology into these primitive seasons. The more we do, the less of a primitive weapon challenge exists. Actually, the less of a need for a separate season exists. Sometimes I fear these archery and ML seasons may become so effective, when the anti gun folks really push to ban all firearms, they'll be able to point to the archery season that allows all types of technology and say they aren't preventing anyone from hunting, just preventing doing it with a firearm. Does loving to hunt require putting meat in the freezer? Does one have to kill an animal to enjoy the hunting? Seems to me getting meat commercially is less expensive than hunting it on a price per pound basis. I'm not knocking anyone who hunts for meat. Just saying we need to be aware of how much "sport" is removed from the process when we modify the rules.

If I recall correctly, even if you move out of state, you still get the lifetime license privileges for life.

War and hunting are two very different things. In war, you want every advantage. Hunting is more a test of your skill.

Usually people on this site complain other people post things that have nothing to do with hunting. They demand these posts be censored, or at least moved to the political forum. This guy posts nothing but hunting posts and people still protest. I don't get the animosity and hostility here.

The dentist was never convicted of anything illegal. All the charges were dropped. It wasn't poaching, but the guide has been accused of unethical behavior. The lion left the safety of the preserve and moved into legal hunting territory. It was lured with bait, but that also is not illegal there. The anti hunting groups used this info to create the perception of a crime. This ended all the lion hunting there, because of the negative publicity. No wealthy African hunter wants to wind up like the dentist. So, the conclusion has to be, the animal rights people stopped all legal lion hunting there, so the local government will be forced to kill (legally poach?) a lot of lions without any monetary compensation when it's done. It's a huge waste, thanks to the emotional response the anti hunters conspired to create.

Saw this great comment on the net. Perfectly sums up the situation: "Last year, the bleedin' heart liberals lost their collective mind over the fact that dentist Walter Palmer shot and killed a lion named Cecil during a hunting trip to Zimbabwe. Big whoop. Hunters go to Africa. They kill animals, and the licensing fees help the conservation efforts on the continent. But thanks to the outcry, hunters are no longer booking trips to the African Savanna. Now, the place where "Cecil the Lion" was bagged and tagged is facing a bit of a lion problem. The lion population at Bubye Valley Conservancy has ballooned to more than 500 felines. Combined with a dry summer that caused the grassland to grow stunted, the lions are laying waste to the other animal populations. As a result, the conservancy is saying it might have to go out and kill 200 lions. "The astronomical fees foreign hunters paid to shoot animals in Africa directly supported the continent's conservation efforts," wrote The Truth About Guns' Nick Leghorn. "It was a mutually beneficial, self-sustaining system. Now that the hunters are gone, there isn't enough money to support Hwange National Park's operation and the ecosystem is out-of-whack. Lions will be killed, anyway, without any of hunting's enormous economic benefits." Furthermore, think of the economic loss to the region. Think of the lost jobs, the money not coming into the area because there are not the hunters willing to pay for lodging, food, transportation and guides. Anti-hunting groups had their field day, but they aren't going to be concerned about the effects of their rabid protesting."

With interest rates as low as they currently are, I can't imagine it's earning enough.

The state's or the DEC's?

"We are a nation of 300 million people. The two frontrunners are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It would be hard for me to think of two people less suited to the presidency in mind and character — especially character — than those two. But, in a democracy, the people get their way. And elections tell us a lot more about us than about the candidates." —Jay Nordlinger

Then what happens to the principal that was invested?