Doc

The fact is that nobody really knows ....... right? As far as I know, nobody has ever kept track, so it's all guess work isn't it? It's not even educated guesswork .... lol. Who knows, maybe the 12 guage shotgun has taken more deer than any other firearm. Actually, I can say that and proclaim myself just as correct as anybody. Ok, I will .... "The 12 guage shotgun has killed more deer than any other". Doc

It's interesting how the outrage grows in proportion to the rack score. I found their "Recovery Value Restitution" kind of interesting in that the value of that particular part of the fine system is related to the Boone and Crockett score. So if the guy had a whole truck-load of does, that part of the system would drop to zero even though a much greater impact to the local herd would have been committed. I'm not sure what should be made of all that, but it is an interesting commentary on how our obsession with rack scores now even gets into the legal system. Doc

Great topic!!! Unfortunately, it's not as easy to answer as I thought it would be. I suppose nearly all of us would agree that it is unethical to break the law. I would hope that goes without saying, and if we agree on that, it gets a whole bunch of items off the table that each state has labled as "illegal". But then there are those things that are not so easily decided by their legal standing. Practices, tactics and equipment that may be perfectly legal, but not up to our own individual standards. Those are the ones where we are sure to get into disagreements over. When you take the legalities out of the discussion, all ethics become personal and individual, and in most cases will cause some pretty heated debate. Just the perfect thing for internet forums ..... lol. I have one abiding rule that kind of guides my own personal set of ethical boundaries. When one begins to get into the act of trying to change the wild characteristics of their prey for the purpose of making their hunting easier, that begins to stray into the territory that I consider unethical. For example: A hunter finds that he can condition deer to come into the sound of an automatic feeder and then hunts that feeder accordingly. To me he is getting into the area of unethical behavior. He has conditioned his prey's behavior to put them in a more vulnerable situation. He has modified the natural behavior of the deer to remove some of the unpredictability that is a part of the species. Anytime a hunter begins to treat their prey like domesticated livestock or tries to apply agricultural practices to them in order to facilitate their hunting, there is an ethical boundary being crossed in my mind. When I see some of these QDM programs on TV where hunting operations begin to look like Joe Farmer managing his herd of cattle, I cringe a bit and start to feel like the line is again being crossed. These people are not treating their prey as wild animals, but are rather trying to grow their animals through animal husbandry techniques and then provide conditions where their hunting is made simpler. I don't know why, but that kind of rubs me the wrong way. To me that's not hunting, but rather it is livestock farming. Is it unethical??? Well, there are a bunch of people that would argue with me that it's not. In fact there are some who think it's an ethical imperitive to nurture the herd that you hunt in this fashion. They see it as an ethical responsibility to the herd. I can understand that too, to a certain extent. However, I think we also have a responsibility to allow a species to evolve as a wild creature which naturally maintains the characteristics of the species so it can develop as nature intends. That too is an ethical choice. That's what makes this ethics thing such a difficult thing to discuss. So many different ways to look at the same thing! All that and I still haven't gotten into the ethics of shot selection, hunting equipment, accessories, technology, safety, and all the other things in hunting that we assign ethical decisions to. Doc

Turkey Vultures ............ Aren't they just the purdiest little birdie you ever seen? Doc

I've always said that if a buck ever figured out how lethal its defenses are, no hunter would ever be safe in the woods. I guess the same thing could be said for the safety of dogs.....lol. By the way, did you shoot the buck? If you did I assume you let him get finished with the deer-eating dog first....lol. Doc

Lol .... I have had the same thing happen with just my normal hunting clothes on. So anecdotal evidence really doesn't mean a whole lot. In fact that's how some of these companies get away with some of their deceptive advertising. They know that nobody can prove or disprove their claims so they just throw them out there knowing that a certain percentage of people will get sucked in by them. Look, I don't know if the stuff works or not. Frankly, I don't even care. Personally that stuff crosses a personal technological barrier for me and I wouldn't use it if it came with an unlimited money-back guarantee. That's a personal decision or limit that I place on myself, and as far as what other people want to do, that's none of my business. What I really don't like though is companies trying to take advantage of hunters (if that's what's happening here). If somebody wants to take one of these companies to task and can prove their case, more power to them. They are probably doing a good thing. At the very least they are putting manufacturers on notice that there really is a line of honesty that should not be crossed and that deception comes with a risk. That's a good thing. As to how much these plaintiffs are getting from all this, I don't know if they are getting anything. I can't imagine that they are going to be getting rich off it. So, without further concrete info, I am not about to question their motives. Doc

I have often wondered how many deer are killed by dogs that never actually catch them. Here in the more northern parts of deer country, winter can be pretty rough on the deer herd, even lethal. Often, the very last of the deer's fat reserves are used up just in time for the eventual relief of spring's warmer weather with renewed food sources. Probably the very last thing that they need is to have additional calories needlessly burned up trying to elude dogs over long distance chases, and through some heavy snow. We often think of dog predation as only involving those dogs that actually catch and kill deer. But I suspect that there are a lot of cases where simple pursuit causes the deer's eventual demise because of needed reserves being run off the deer. I have often wondered how big a factor this is with coyotes as well. Doc

There's only one thing stupider than that moose, and that is a hunter that would let a cow moose with a calf get that close. Doc

A different mindset from a firearms hunter? ....... yes indeed. The biggest difference that I can think of is getting used to the idea that bowhunting is all about distance. Yes, under extreme cases, you had to worry about distance with your rifle and shotgun, but never to the extent that you will with a bow. The prime change in mindset is the emphasis on the need to get close (REAL close). You will find that your knowledge of whatever animal you are hunting becomes an essential ingredient that is the most important part of your efforts. With a bow you cannot shoot what you cannot get close to. And you cannot get close to any wild animal that you don't have an extreme intimate knowledge of. So the first thing you need to work on is not necessarily what bow you should get, but what knowledge and tactics will allow you to get as close as possible to whatever it is you intend to hunt. That is the major mindset difference between a bowhunter and a firearms hunter. Another difference in mindset is the understanding of how an arrow works as opposed to a bullet or slug. Arrows have no "knock-down" power. Their killing theory is based completely on lacerating vital arteries and organs so as to cause as much lethal bleeding as possible. Shock-power has no importance in bow hunting. So the ability to place an arrow in the proper and exact kill zone will make the difference between a humane quick kill or a wounding loss. That's not to say that you needn't worry about such things with firearms hunting, but the exactness is certainly more critical with a bow. A third mindset difference is in the way you view the element of challenge. Those that have taken up the bow, do so primarily with the idea that they are purposefully putting the odds more in favor of the animal for the purpose of feeling a greater sense of accomplishment when they are successful. This means that a lot of the high-tech harvesting equipment is being left behind in favor of a weapon that requires a higher degree of skill in the area of hunting abilities and shooting disciplines. true, if you look at today's modern archery equipment, you have to wonder about this idea of forsaking high-tech equipment. But as space age as the most exotic of archery equipment appears, it is still not even close to being a match for even the cheapest rifle. With even the highest tech, wildest looking compound bow and accessories, there still are the same basic requirements of archery to master as there have been for centuries. Their are physical disciplines that an archer must train his body for. There is a required consistancy of form that is required for shooting even the most exotic of today's bows. There are specific muscles that will have to be developed. You will need to become aware of how to properly execute such things as stance, anchor, back tension, follow-through, head position, and all of these things will have to be done with perfect repetition and consistancy. These are all things that no rifle shooter is ever confronted with. Some of these things are extremely difficult to master and any one of them can cause an awful lot of trouble. You will also find that success with a bow will require extensive practice (not that firearms do not require some practice), but because all of the above mental and physical disciplines need to become second nature and flawless, archery practice is even more demanding and important. So all these demands of bowhunting do require changes in mindset. Bowhunters purposefully create challenging hunting environments that require thattheir emphasis be put on much different things than firearms hunters. That in itself is a major mindset change and is what the basic essence of bowhunting is really all about. Doc

Which is better ..... from what standpoint? What are you expecting to get out of your hunting? Why are you choosing bowhunting over other forms of hunting? Are you wanting to get into bowhunting primarily for the challenge, or tradition, or the ability to get an earlier crack at the herd than everyone else, or to use a weapon that is the easiest to use and gives you the best technical advantage in your hunt, or some other reason? If you are looking for the most functionally efficient weapon, perhaps you might do better in the gun season where you can use the ultimate weaponry in terms of efficiency and technical superiority. There are so many considerations that affect your question, and probably a whole bunch that I haven't even thought of. So, a lot of the evaluation that you are asking for has to do with what you expect to get from your bow season. That's a personal choice that nobody can decide for you. Doc

And perhaps they all should if they are in the business of peddling products based on deceit and fraudulent claims. Personally, I don't have sympathy for scam artists and I equally have the same disdain for people who base their living on suckering in hunters to spending their hard earned money on products that do not do what they say they will do. In my opinion, if the rest of these companies are deceptive in their claims, I will be grateful to those who put their own time and money on the line in an attempt to stem the attitudes of contempt for honesty and integrity. There seems to be a feeling here that these guys are the "bad guys". Frankly I haven't heard anybody offer a good reason why these people bringing the lawsuit are doing anything wrong, or have some kind of evil motives. I'm for anyone who wants to make manufacturers think twice about their language and honesty in their claims. Actually, we can only take the manufacturer's word as to just how well ANY of these products actually work or whether or not they work to any extent at all. Try to prove it one way or the other.....lol. We are completely at the mercy of the integrity of the manufacturers when it comes to these claims. Yes, I think it is obvious that there is nothing yet that fulfills the claims that Scent-Lok was putting out. Further, they knew that when they created their ads. They were obviously willfully lying to sell their product. The law says that you cannot do that. I agree with the law. Doc

Well, I guess everyone likes to play with words, but I think the intent of the phrasing was to convince prospective buyers that purchasing and wearing scent-lok clothing would remove scent concerns from hunting (especially when taken in context with the rest of the advertisements). To me that was a deceitful marketing tactic. I can't comment on the legal aspects of this battle over the word "eliminate", but the motivation for choosing that particular word is pretty clear to me. Doc

Well, just look at the old critter. Who wouldn't fall in love with such a fine piece of history and class. I bought one years ago just to have it. We have not been allowed to use rifles for deer where I hunt, so I can't really offer an opinion on how it is for a deer rifle. But I will say that it is one of my more prized guns in my cabinet. Doc

Don't we all get just a little irritated when we read or hear some manufacturer making outrageous claims that we suspect deep down are completely bogus? Isn't it just a little bit of an insult to our intelligence that some of these characters think that we hunters as a specific segment of the population are so gullible and stupid that with enough slick marketing, they can sell us anything? Don't we all get just a little upset that there are predators out there trying to take advantage of fellow hunters? If this lawsuit does nothing else, perhaps it can provide just a little satisfaction and reinforcement of the fact that there are limits as to how much manufacturers can ignore honesty and integrity when dealing with the public. Sure, the actual impact will be tiny, but it does make one feel pretty good when someone finally gets called on this kind of fraudulent activity in a public and official way. This lawsuit also provides a strong reminder that manufacturers and resellers are not above lies and deceit, and it just may put a lot of these claims under a more powerful light of scrutiny by the hunting public, rather than just accepting claims that sound official and scientific and are designed basically to flim-flam the public. Doc

So someone has finally taken these manufacturers to task for treating us all like a bunch of dummys. Well, good for them. Over the years, I have seen more than a few product makers simply trying to throw products on the market, make outrageous claims about what they will do and rake in the money of the gullible for as long as they can keep up the charade. Sure, that old phrase "Let the buyer beware" does apply, but outright lying and deception in marketing practices is not right either and should not be condoned by anyone. I know, hunters just like fishermen, are natural born suckers who will buy anything that promises easy success. That still does not make it right for these predators to take advantage through dis-honesty. Unfortunately, I would not expect any of this to all of a sudden bring honesty and integrity into marketing practices. Quite to the contrary. I am sure that most of them rely on the fact that they will never be caught or that no one will ever take the time and money to make an issue of their deceitful motives and practices. And when they do get caught, it is merely a cost of doing business. So this kind of tactic of deceit will undoubtedly continue. But at least we can take solice in the fact that in this one case, it appears that justice will be done. Hoo-ray for that! Doc

Now take a look at what's happening to your fletching! Those wavy vanes are not a good thing. When your shooting starts getting that good, it's always a good idea to have one target for each arrow. Otherwise it won't be long before you are smashing up arrows, and that can get pretty darn expensive. :no: Doc

I would really like to put a scope on my Model 94 Win 30-30. Of course the problem is that it is a top-eject lever action which would throw the ejected cartridge right into any scope that would be on the gun. Has anybody ever seen an acceptable solution to this problem, or is that gun just destined to never have a scope on it? Doc

Too late ....... I already bought it. They claim on there package that it is for both mosquitos and black flies. But then who ever accused manufacturers of being totally honest ...... lol. Well, maybe I'll get a chance to try it out today. Doc

I'm heading out today to get one. It may help working out in the garden. I'm still a bit concerned about the black flies and gnats because right now they are the prime offenders. I'll see what the package says. Doc

Do they also work on black flys and those little gnats? How do they work? Is it a scent driven system, or sonic or what? How long do the refills last under constant use? You guys are getting me interested. When guys from down south start claiming they have a cure for bugs, I pay attention .....lol. Doc

I'm looking at the top arrow in the picture with the splayed out front end, and cannot imagine any other scenario other than "impact damage". That arrow definitely has had something driven up inside it and even though the insert and tip were not left in the arrow, That doesn't mean that they weren't what created that damage. As far as the nocks blowing out of the arrows, that is definitely an impact result. Neither of those things could possibly be related to arrow spine or bow performance. Or maybe somebody could explain something I'm not seeing about how those kinds of problems could cause the front end of an arrow to open up like that and the nocks fly off the arrow. Doc

That is truly one heck of a classy looking reloading area! Doc

So how did they fix the warped limbs? Did they replace the bow? And by the way does it seem reasonable to anybody that anything on the bow could drive tips and inserts up inside the shaft? I assume the flex testing of the arrows was done using a spine tester and a chart telling what the spine deflections under standard loading is supposed to be. See that's one of the problems I have with buying archery equipment from "general sales" outlets. The staff behind the counter seldom has any better understanding of bow set-up, and problem analysis than any of the customers do. I have run into this kind of thing more times that I ever should have. Good fortune with running into someone with proper training and experience at the archery departments of almost all of these kinds of places, amounts to just plain luck. And usually the luck is all bad. I will say with all kinds of confidence that the damage depicted in your photgraphs had absolutely nothing to do with your limbs or any part of the bow timing. Those are clearly impact damages ....... very clearly. Also, there is nothing about arrow spine that will drive a tip and its insert up into the shaft as was clearly the case on two of those three arrows. It is good that Dicks is willing to make good on their mistaken notion that they have a product problem that needs warrantee satisfaction and are willing to get you some replacements for the damaged arrows. But, I will guarantee you that if you continue to shoot into the same target, hitting in the same place that caused the damage, you will simply continue to mangle some perfectly good arrows. As I said before, straighten out a coat hanger, stick it into one of the holes made by the destroyed arrows and try to feel whatever is in there that is demolishing your arrows. My guess is that you will likely encounter some steel or other hard material somewhere in there. If you do encounter some arrow-breaking material in there, then your conversations should be with the Glen-Del people ....... not Dicks. Doc

Do you have exclusive use to this property or will you be sharing it with other hunters? Doc

Frankly, I don't find those results surprising at all. It kind of supports my contention that additions of crossbows will have no impact on the declining hunter numbers. It's simply a re-distribution of existing hunters. Even though the survey could only be conducted in the states that currently have legalized cross bow use, one does have to question the credibility of a survey based on 1637 hunters. Also the fact that the survey was conducted by a crossbow manufacturer doesn't exactly allow us to ignore that they just might have a slight stake in the outcome and a possible bias in terms of how the survey was conducted and analyzed. But even if we accept the results without question, I really don't see anything here that is unexpected. Doc