Northcountryman

Looks like a Tiger lol

Oh ok , Mostly a stillhunter then ? Do you ever hunt out Of a blind Al ? I’m just wondering if you would sneak in when it’s still dark as opposed to just walking in to get to your spot .

I’m going Tomorrow but it’ll be in southern N.Y.!! Gonna try the Ramapo first time ever . Good luck to all that choose to wet a line Tomorrow

I agree thatc it depends alot upon how condiioned theyc are to human presence too. Theres probably places up in the ' 'Dacks where the they would bolt no matter how you went in just cuz theyve never seen a human before.

Damn Homie, you a BIG DUDE !! lol

How about when youre going to your stand in the dark for an early morning hunt--do you still try to sneak in or just get there best you can?

I was reading my F&S Deer Hunting Manual yesterday and came acroos a tip that I believe someone on this forum mentioned back during the season--to walk casual while deer hunting. The author points out that deer encounter humans often in the woods-- that which include hikers , campers, bike riders, etc .--and become accustomed to said encounters; intime, they learn that these groups of humans are non-threatening and associate them as such. Conversely, the other group of humans that are indeed a threat to them (US!!) --the hunters --flood the woods each fall in the hopes of tagging a buck and behave much differently than the aforementioned group. In contrast to the devil-may-care gait and demeanor of the hikers approach thru the woods, hunters will tend to stalk as stealthily and silently as possible. This alarms deer profoundly as they clearly detect a major difference in the style of approach. Considering this , the Author recommends that when walking thru the woods and not still hunting, try to walk "casual", i.e., like the hikers would.--Dont necessarily be intentionally or unusally noisy, but also, dont be furtive in your approach either. Quite often, when walking along a trail and encountering deer, if you just move along with a careless "hikers" gait, they will watch you but not move. If, however, youre snealing along, thats when they get spooked and you end up seeing their butts and tails following the "snort wheeze", Im not sure if this is entirely true, but I think it generally is and seems to mkae. My hunting mmentor back in the day firmly believed in this principle and advised that when you go in to your stand in the dark (i.e., early am), just "walk" in. Dont try to be quiet or excessively noisy--just get there!! He said that if deer are in the vicinity, more than likely theyll watch you and not move--maybe trot away a bit but often return. But if you sneak in, youll scare the beJesus outta them--what do you think?

I like that!! I've never heard that before --how do you know ?? Also, can you explain why (if possible). Thanks

What is the scale for the blue-line transect? I like your potential setups posts , but agree w/ Rob that probably would only wok when prevailing winds are generally easterly. Is it doable to slip in somewhere on the east end and setup somewhere near the end of that bottom orange line on the map?

They need to revise that aspect of the law to allow for subjective reasoning when considering whether a waterway is truly considered "navigable". To me, navigable should mean "readily navigable" for a significant part of the year--what that means currently, IDK , but I'm sure they could establish parameters/guidelines for its delineation as such.

I agree , there was no doubt , verbal abuse , In addition to something being thrown at him and some form of liquid squirted at him — that’s assault .

None of them ? I don’t believe that . I think that, in certain cases you have a valid point but across the board — no . There’s plenty of well written laws on the books too that balance the ineffective/ foolish ones .

No arguments here but again , the punishment should indeed , fit the crime .

Correct , and that is called justice ; that’s what I’m saying exactly . Im Afraid that if you adjudicate entirely from the Vantage point of meting our justice based on perceived intention, you’ll end up under punishing some perps too, ironically .

This thread is discussing infringing/modifying/restricting a Constitutional right. What you just discussed is a law. Yes , correct , but digressed a bit when we started taking about crime and capital punishment. I can’t remember who brought it up first — me or you — and I don’t feel like looking it up but , needless to say , we digressed lol.

How can you be sure

I hear you but I dont think its justice if you were to terminate his (or her) life when no life has been taken; in fact, no harm was even done to intended target.

Is that justice though? You have to remember that THE most impt objective of the Criminal justice Sytem in general, is to ensure that Justice is served. Determining what kind/degree of punishment is suitable due to the commission of a crime is is an integral part of that equation and the calculus involves BOTH intent and RESULT of said crime. Even if someone is attempting to murder someone else, the fact that they didnt--the other person being alive due to a mistake, stroke of luck, etc.--is an impt element to this equation IMHO and should be considered when meting out punishment. In a case like that, I most certainly would not sentence them to death; rather, I would put them away for quite a long time. I do not consider that justice when --despite your bad intentions-- the other person is still alive AND completely unharmed. Some people may see the situation quite differently and I respect that but for me, thats where I stand as of right now.

Yes, that is true, good point--so maybe a basic firearms safety course for all guns no matter what kind or none at all then? I would be very uncomfortable with NO course but hey, maybe you guys are right and its overregulaatory and/or ineffective anyway.

Really, I figured they all required it; you know any of them top of your head? Well, , maybe there is data that does and maybe there isnt, IDK, but it certainly cant hurt as a precautionarymeasure. I agree completely last thing you said; some of the guys in my club could use a good handgun safety refresher course!!

Yes, thats a Good point , but judge doesnt have to let them out ; they can be sentenced to life without parole or at the very least, be put away for a very long time.

I certainly would throw their butt in jail for a very long time--maybe even for life-- but again, if noone died , not sure I would impose the death penalty. However, I'm not saying a judge COULDNT sentence somone to death under these circumstances -- theres a big difference, as Im sure you know, between mandating a minimum penalty vs having the flexibility to impose it, mitigating circumstances dictating its , of course. in your example, youre talking about shooting at someone in a drive by, missing , and then accidentally hitting and killing aneighbor kid in the next house? Is that right ? If the kid died , then yes, impose the death penalty because a death resulted from an attempted murder, even if the victim was not the intended target. If no death, then no death penalty--period.

I was thinking more for negligent homicide because I believe you said death penalty I ALL cases resulting in injury or death from a gun . Based on your example though — I’d have to think about it more —but As of right now , I think that even in that case, yes , no death penalty because , even if he intended to kill , he did not so , depending upon how one looks at it , he “ got lucky missing or a misfire occurring , etc. “ On the down side though , if he truly intending to kill and missed , I guess he would consider that unlucky lol. I could be persuaded to change my mind on this one btw , as it’s not a for unshakeable position I subscribe to by any stretch.

For commercial use , I would agree but private ? Nah !!

Good point , no doubt