chrisw

When I used to sell scopes I never understood why someone would pay for a Swarovski. Until I handled them a few times, they're pretty incredible, the glass is insanely clear, the best I've ever seen. Now they are still crazy expensive but price is relative to the buyer. The Leupold VXL's are nice, getting a huge objective while still keeping a low mount height. I'm surprised your current VXIII isn't up to par though for you. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

This is new. Hunting shows aren't new, no. Social media has certainly had a huge impact on hunting, some good, some bad. I already said I don't begrudge them either. Traveling to 15 states showing the world their public land spots is a lot different than Field and Stream doing a rifle review. I don't think I've learned anything from them but it's entertaining. It's nice to see other states have such great public pieces. I'd be willing to bet that not all hunters give them a warm welcome though and I can see that also. I can't imagine hunting Ohio/Missouri etc public land as a resident and have SO MANY out of state hunters flocking to your state lands, it's gotta be annoying. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

I'm done debating this with you. You wont acknowledge anything that doesn't benefit you directly. More, more, more, typical modern day conservation. You don't know the first thing about management or QDM. Educate yourself, you might actually learn something. And for what it's worth, I don't need a longer archery season for my benefit, I do very well in the season that exists. I put the deer before my personal gain, you should try it. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

As far as The Hunting Public goes, I like their premise. I could also see the downside of drawing a lot of unwanted attention to some great areas. I wouldn't be happy if I hunted one of those spots. They seem like great guys, but now I'm starting to see some sponsorship there. I'm not knocking them, but too much attention can ruin good things too. Fortunately my spots aren't good enough to ever film a TV show. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

Unfortunately sex sells, no matter the product. Look at the hoes on YouTube that didn't fish at all now hanging their boobs out with a fish in their hands and getting paid for it nonetheless... Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

You people can't see the forest through the trees. It's an instant cop out to just say it's just selfish bowhunters. You can't even imagine any change without blaming a bowhunters "elitist". I too hunt with all weapons, my family only gun hunts, it would affect their season more than yours, you think I'm just trying to rob them of opportunities? Crossbows only took 11,000 deer? As if that's inconsequential, how many of those deer wouldn't have been killed if it weren't for crossbow? How many additional were killed during a September rifle hunt? How many more will be killed during the extended season? How many more will be killed if crossbows get full inclusion? If you can't understand numbers then I'm done having a conversation with you. Stop living for the moment and look to the future. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

EHD, excessive dmp's, an extension to an already unnecessarily long firearm season, addition of crossbows to archery. In my opinion the DEC doesn't have a clue how many deer we have. I'm not saying there is a foolproof way of knowing but they paint areas with an extremely wide brush and as a result the numbers are not what they seem. I'm not saying it will be a huge crash all at once, but the way we keep adding more implements and more "bonus" seasons it will catch up with us. I've seen multiple state lands we've hunted forever take a drastic nosedive in the last 6-8 years and it's not going to recover unless something changes. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

According to who? Would you even know if they weren't? Is this your own research? Aren't all numbers seemingly fine until they aren't? Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

Wait... So the liberal wants everything he doesn't like banned?? Who could've thought!? Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

Why do you say, "YOU have 4 months"? Is there a reason you can't bowhunt? Everyone would have that time, not select people. You're acting like this is some wild hair brained idea that's impossible. You do know that the states with arguably the best deer herds do something just like this right? If you disagree with it that's fine, but don't act like the sky is falling and someone just told you the earth is flat. As stated before multiple times, harvest numbers during gun season would probably not change, only the amount of days does. And I'll say it again, deer management is not about what YOU want or what best suits your needs or traditions, you know what it's about?? The deer! Health, numbers and sustainability. Don't assume ALL gun hunters feel the way you do either, I gun hunt and I feel differently? I bet there's people who would love a 5 month rifle season, would you love that too? You're right, to hell with what's best for the herd, let's wipe them out as best we can... Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

I thoroughly enjoy both. Red still wins but it's close. My wife isn't a big red fan but likes veggie, come to think of it she is more liberal than I am! Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

I'm not big on sweets either, rarely eat them. But Cannoli's, good God I can pound a case of them. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

As I've said repeatedly. I know there are multiple variables here and multiple people were in the wrong in order for this to transpire. BUT, only one person pulled that trigger. Had that person been trained and was responsible for a final check before being used, this thread wouldn't exist and someone wouldn't be grieving right now senselessly. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

Yes, compare that number to 5 or 10 years ago. What do you think changed? Hunters are evolving and seeing the benefits of a properly managed herd. Hopefully the trend continues as I think it will, state mandated or not. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

Do you know why the increase? More and more people are realizing the benefits of passing on 1.5 yr old bucks. QDM in some form or another is being voluntarily done, if it didn't work or create higher hunter satisfaction, people wouldn't be doing it. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

QDM isn't about stockpiling big bucks? Not to mention big bucks cannot be stock piled, it's impossible as nature will not allow it. That in itself would not be a healthy herd. When you have animals of all age classes the herd benefits immensely. Protecting the yearling bucks does wonders for the herd. In NY from what I recall, we take like 60-70% of our yearling bucks every season. When PA adopted AR, they reduced their yearling buck take to roughly 10%, from around 70%. As a result, the following years the take of 2.5 yr old bucks increased dramatically, as well as 3.5+ yr old deer. It simply guarantees a more diverse age structure. The same holds true for fishing. There needs to be structure. Guess what the best walleye lakes in the country have in common? Structured management and size/limit restrictions. Noone is catching less fish? They're catching better quality fish. For whatever reason, people hear QDM and it's synonymous with trophy hunting, but QDM isn't a trophy concept, trophies are only one result of it. The biggest detriment to our deer herd is age. If we changed nothing but the average age of our buck take, it would present everyone with better opportunities. I agree with your first part about a shortened season doesn't equate to less opportunity. With the current season layout I can pick and choose when to hunt during the extra long gun season. If it were shorter I would simply hunt more to take advantage of it. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

For the 10th time, the guy holding the weapon is responsible for his actions with said weapon. Changing the weapon doesn't change the blame. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

He would know the difference IF he were trained. The moment you agree to point a firearm at someone, live rounds or not, you assume responsibility. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

In other scenario's, let's put it into context of the recent hunting "accident." Who is to blame? The guy who shot the man? Or the man who was shot who wasn't wearing orange? Again, multiple layers of blame but who is responsible for pulling the trigger? Was it the victims "fault" for not wearing orange? Or do we go back to the simple terms of firearm safety that were clearly violated in order for this to happen? Does anyone blame anyone but the shooter for it?? Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

But ULTIMATELY, were you in possession of the firearm and responsible for the safety of that firearm in YOUR hand? Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

So because it's common practice it should be acceptable?? Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

If I handed you a loaded firearm and said "try out the trigger on this" and you shot something, are you not ultimately to blame for unsafe handling? Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

I never said the armorer didn't also bear some blame but the end all be all is the armorer didn't point the weapon at someone and pull the trigger did he? There were clearly catastrophic breakdowns of protocol. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

Exactly. It boggles my mind that anyone should feel otherwise. Everytime a buddy hands me their new gun to check out, first thing I do is make sure it's clear/safe to handle, your ignorant otherwise. Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk

Anyone who has a gun in their hand has responsibility for it. Period! Sent from my moto g fast using Tapatalk