SteveB

Here is another one.

Complete and utter BS.

Never thought about polar bear - been 7 or 8 years since I saw one of them.

Mountain lion for sure.

Or how we can get rid of drugs in this country?

Still have my lifetime license so will be doing a couple weeks at least here. Have found a reasonable place to hog hunt there and will look for more. Plus deer season is open already there!

Headed for Florida so house is for sale. Shoot your bows or guns to 200 yds in the 10 acre back yard. Frozen Ocean state forest 1/4 mile away. Only place on seasonal rd - plow turns around in my driveway. Link to Realtor: http://searchlink.syr.interealty.com/PropSearch/PropertyDetail.asp?Code=&ML=S275665&AgentID=beanrolh

2 for 7j

I shot thru a large cow elk with 52 lbs.

But apparently most are unwilling to voluntarily restrict themselves demonstrating their convictions. This would be the overwhelming majority of the alleged 72% claim.

Great post Doc - very points I've raised literally dozens of times without a single counter that makes logical sense. Amazing how the alleged small minority opposed to AR's can continually kill the alleged high % of 1.5's year in and year out. Only 2 possible reasons: 1 - the poll numbers are way off. 2 - the supporters can't be bothered to walk the talk.

All that can help. But without a setup that is reasonably tuned and matched, it's a long road to reasonable proficiency.

2016's are a much lighter spine then the 400's. They should be close to what you need for that draw wght.

Of course they had to save them - they had names.

Shot them if I had tags - left them if not. I'm not risking injury - they are just deer.

A 400 spine arrow 28" long is way over spined for a 50# draw - and you are probably drawing to 27 if the arrows are 28. Means you are shooting 47lbs tops. This will cause a left hit and it will be high if you are canting the bow much. You can try loading the point wght, get full length .400's or best get a .500 spine and start with it long.

I think what Joe means is that when there are more older bucks, the 1.5 will be less involved. Instead of actively chasing, they will be more observing.

Not surprised - you first.

For someone who doesn't care, you seem to care a lot.

For someone who claims to have researched Joe's opinion from his past posts, it is amazing that you missed how many times he has answered those questions. Maybe you where looking for "joey" and missed them? I am as anti mandatory AR as anyone, but respect Joe's opinion 100 % because he is one of the few that back it up. There is a dynamic to the herd that is missed when doe/buck ratio's and/or normal age ratio's are skewered. And while trying to balance them will result in an increase of the % of larger racked bucks, it does not mean that is the goal for all who support methods to balance both. Nor does it mean that if you support trying to balance those ratio's that you are an AR supportor - as in my case where I feel education and voluntary restraint.

Yep - yearlings like that have great potential. Under AR, their points would make them hot targets.

Think he is a 1.5?

Drugs aren't covered in the constitution. Plus the cost of the program you suggest would be enormous for little real effect other then the feel good one or for re election campaigns. How many crimes are committed by someone who has 1000's of rounds of ammo vs those with a maybe a couple clips worth?

It is not about need - it's about setting a precedent for control. So the level of "need" get's set at 1000. We have agreed to control. Then someone decides hunters only shoot at most a handful of deer - 20 is all they need. No longer about whether the number should be regulated - now we are fighting for what the number should be. And you know what - someone bent on doing bad will still find a way to fill their "need". How much ammo a person buys does not make them a criminal - committing a crime with it does.