Gator

I had a buddy like that growing up. He'd pass on a buck to take the small doe. I was lucky enough to get an occasional seat at his table

I have no affiliation with Larry's, but I do believe in recognizing a job well done. I took a deer into Larry on Wednesday evening. He cut out the tenderloins and packaged them for me on the spot. Within a day, the deer was done. Larry went to the trouble of packaging the meat, which I wanted chunked for Costanza sausage, into three separate bags according to the "desirability" of the cut. He said that if I didn't want to put all the meat into sausage to keep the third bag, because it contained the best cuts. He also butterflied the loins and packaged them separately. Finally, he saved the head, thinking that I might change my mind on a European mount (I was back and forth when I took the deer over wed nite). Sure enough, my wife convinced me it would look good, and Larry saved me by having the head whole when I got there. He was courteous and professional. I've used Larry's before during gun season, but it's so busy that it's hard for anyone to get really personal attention. The service that I experienced during this less busy time (he only had twelve deer hanging) was just fantastic.

Sometimes you just stupid into them...this guy wandered in within five minutes of me being in the stand. If I'd been ten minutes later I would have had the local farmer plowing less than 60 yards away. Go figure. Timing is everything. The ST blew through the heart and buried itself in the ground (lots of angle on the shot). The only disappointment is that I didn't have my daughter in the stand with me. She hunted Sunday and Monday, and we passed on some smaller bucks, but she wasn't able to go Wed. nite.

I suspect that any broad head would have worked equally well from inside of 10 yards, but I used a ST to take a very nice 8 this week and the arrow blew through the chest and buried itself 6" into the ground...the shot was ~60 degree angle, as my stand is 20 ft up. Direct heart shot and the deer went <30 ft. Again, probably any broad head with the correct placement would do the same. Still, better than having to report that I lost a deer because my BH failed.

What I don't get is, if you add 10% ethanol but get 10% less mpg, how are you "saving" any gas? Driving from my house to Sandy would still take the same gallons of pure unleaded. Then factor in the return on corn alcohol, ie how much gas does it take to produce ethanol? Seems to me like a bunch of flash and mirrors. Anybody know differently?

I agree with the comment on Charlie. The guy's a legend. I had the privilege of growing up as he was rising in popularity, right around the corner. In fact, both my Dad and a buddy of mine's Dad have posed for Charlie in some of his hunting photos. It's always interesting to see how highly folks regard him. To me he was always just "that deer guy", but you know what they say about familiarity... I've come to the conclusion that the best time to hunt is when I'm not in the woods. Busted out all of my deer this morning from the back of a neighbor's lawn on the way in; not a single post-dawn sighting. Across the street, my buddy saw 34, but only one with bone. At them again this pm.

Well, I've got lots of banged up arrowheads...a few even have traces of blood on them If anybody's used the guillotines, feel free to chime in.

So, I've seen those guillotine heads at Gander and I thought, "That would be the trick for turkey", but you'd have to switch arrows in the stand while you're hunting deer. Anyone have comments on the guillotines?

So, no solid updates on the broadheads...sorry. I've been hard pressed to even shoot practice lately. The only thing that I can add is an observation that at a high angle of impact the Rage deflects rather than opens. Lost an arrow trying it, too. So, that's an n=1, and I'm not going to try it again. The ST heads shoot fantastic, though. I'm sure that under the appropriate conditions either head would work fine. At great distances or extreme angles I think that I would want the ST on board.

Years ago at the UofR there was an incident where a pregnant lady was the first one in to work and filled two liter water bottles from the fountain after it had been sitting in lead pipes all night long. This was at a time when UofR was working hard to replace all of the existing lead pipe, maybe fifteen years ago. Anyway, there was an immense amount of concern over the baby's health and subsequent development. I believe that the kid turned out okay, but it certainly highlighted how serious the issue was and what the potential ramifications could have been. I think that there are some good points being raised through this discussion. The only conclusion that I really disagree with is that if it isn't the biggest problem, then we shouldn't try to fix it. Banning all lead immediately seems to be an overreaction, but the problem is worth talking about. I think we're going to find strong opinions on both sides of issue. For anyone who's read this thread, I suppose that's a "duh!". But arguing is the first step towards a solution. Tom--hope you didn't take offense at the "knee jerk" comment. Your threads are well thought out and I think you have a good handle on the problem, even if your final take differs from my own. I was referring to the fact that as sportsmen we're used to being persecuted by the antis and I think that we feel sometimes like we need to resist any change and stand our ground. But if do it without thinking about how solid that ground is first, we're sunk. Sorry for the goofy analogy

Scare tactics are sometimes necessary to counter knee-jerk reactions. Nobody likes to be told someone is going to take away their toys, myself included. Education is, as Matthew stated, the key. But in order to bypass the default reaction (ie nobody's going to ban my stuff!) and make folks think about educating themselves sometimes we need to consider the worst case scenario. I don't think that lead fishing lures are going to kill anybody (except maybe my boat fishing partner, but that's another story ), but I wouldn't bet the house against their having an impact on cognitive potential. And I applaud Matthew for having annual lead testing performed. That's smart. I think that so long as people take the time to consider the issue rationally, maybe look through some of the data, then we can have an intelligent conversation about pros, cons, and alternatives. Fish or swim had a good point about the lead in fishing tackle paling in comparison to other sources. He also has a great attitude regarding responsibility and social/environmental awareness. I guess my own attitude is that I'm willing to give up lead if it will make a difference. I'm not convinced either way as of yet, but I'm not going to take the knee-jerk reaction.

I've said my piece on this issue, but I will include a link to the request for legislation as submitted to the EPA, which includes many, many pages of references in respected scientific journals that support their view: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... 6480b37fc2 I suspect that the proposal is purposely broad in scope in order to elicit a reaction from sportsmen and the fishing industry. Oftentimes it takes the threat of legislation for folks to recognize which way the wind is blowing and start to police themselves. I seriously doubt that the legislation as proposed will pass muster, but it will certainly put the subject on the radar and perhaps lead to some voluntary compromise in the future.

If you are reading this the day of your wedding, then you're in deep, pal. Getting married was the smartest thing I ever did. Selling the boat is the smartest thing I never did. Go figure. Have a great wedding!!

Love those trailcams! Only a couple weeks now...

Ha! It's a trick question...it all depends on which amino acids are coded for by the nucleic acid, whether we're talking DNA or RNA, and codon choice for any given amino acid. I'm with On the Lam...10990.

I'm always amazed that the same comment and reply comes up every year

Hang in there, the both of you! We're pulling for a fast recovery.

So, here's an interesting tidbit: in the past they've induced what's called "polyploidy" or extra sets of chromosomes by heat shocking fertilized eggs. Normally we have two sets of each chromosome. Heat shock results in three sets (no extra DNA, just more copies of our normal repertoire of chromosomes). This results in fish that grow big fast but are sterile. It's likely that we've all caught and maybe even eaten these fish from Lake O. As for the reproduction issue, I actually think that the Frankenfish, unlike the heat-shocked fish, is fertile. Inserting new DNA into the genome isn't as simple as it sounds and can't be accomplished en mass yet. This means that in order to get a population you have to be able to breed. For example, when we're talking about transgenic mice (where something's been inserted) or knockout mice (where an endogenous gene has been removed) they can generally reproduce, so I would think the same applies to fish...got to admit I'm not 100% certain since I'm not a fish biologist but it's tough to envision genetically how they'd be sterile...you'd have to "engineer" each subsequent generation. Not cost effective. Maybe they heat shock the Frankenfish eggs, leaving a few carefully regulated breeders? Still, if there are some escapees from the sterilization process or the holding tanks, it's certainly possible that these fish could enter the wild. That's what's happened to a few genetically engineered crops in the past years. aka Jurassic Park, "Nature will find a way".

If the fish are growing that much faster, there must be metabolic differences that would be reflected in the nutrient value of the fillets. However, these differences are likely to be less significant than the differences between swordfish and tuna. In point of fact, your body does it's own "genetic engineering" every day to allow you to respond to environmental stressors, turning on or off different programs that allow you to survive and adapt. The bottom line is that, in my opinion, these fish are certainly safe to eat. Gator

Yeah, I don't suspect being roadkill is a fast-track to lots of offspring. I've got to tell you, I know the numbers and I see the data, but you're right: there's a line somewhere between what's reasonable and what's not. I can't say where that line exists. I guess as long as folks are aware that there's an abundance of information out there on the effects of lead then you can't say we made decisions based on ignorance. Regardless of what we personally decide.

I do think that the best way to approach the truth is through discussion. After all, we're all in the same boat and I think that we're all working for the greater good. It's just a matter of becoming educated on the subject and not believing everything that you read, particularly on the internet (no offense intended to anyone). I respect the fact that there are people out there who's opinions differ from mine and I highly encourage debate, if for no other purpose than to bring light to the issue. And I sincerely hope that nobody has any underlying "agenda" other than the fact that, as regards this issue at least, a ban on lead would be a real pain in the posterior for most of us. I know that my fishing arsenal has more lead in it than a nuclear bunker. I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that the most recent studies, some of them run right here in Rochester, highlight just how nasty lead can be. If the EPA thinks there's no reason to reevaluate the position they've held on this issue since 1995 then they haven't kept current on the literature. And again, I reiterate myself here, if "1% of all waterfowl and eagles are killed by lead ingestion"--which is an acute toxic effect--then you can bet the farm that there's a whole lot more animals out there that are displaying chronic effects of exposure such as a loss of reproductive capacity. I'll end by saying that I honestly don't know whether the benefits of banning lead in say, leadcore line, outweigh the cons. Banning lead sinkers made lots of sense at the time based on the evidence...some of the other items on the table maybe less so. But that's where we as a community need to step forward and become proactive on this issue. If we adopt the stance that we won't back down even in the face of logic and evidence, then somebody else is going to tell us what we have to do. I realize that the sporting goods industry needs to be intractable in their opposition to a ban on lead. It's part of their business plan. But we as sportsmen have the option of looking at things from a more rationale perspective and deciding ourselves the risks and our willingness to assume them. If you've educated yourself on the subject, bravo. My work here is done. Tight Lines, Gator

Hi Jet Boat Bill Your bias is clear...it's just your science that's a bit fuzzy. Other than your typing in capital letters, do you have any evidence for the "safety" of metallic lead? I will agree with you that organic lead compounds, which can be readily absorbed into the body, cause diverse pathophysiological effects. However, let me point out that ingesting metallic lead is FATAL (see, I can use capitals, too ) I'm not part of any movement to ban guns and I don't play the political game. As many on this site can tell you, I'm a diehard hunter and fisherman. But I'm also willing to listen to folks who are trying to save my life, the life of future generations, and our wildlife as well. No doubt there are factions who are delighted to hear us trying to protect our use of lead. It's an untenable position and makes us look like a bunch of gun and rod toting yahoos who can't think past the end of our weapons. This isn't an attack on anyone in particular, but rather a plea for sanity. If you know lead is bad, why try to defend its use? If you don't know lead is bad, just go to wikipedia and check it out. When you lose lead sinkers, lead gets into the water. Lead in ammunition can potentially contaminate the game you eat. I'd love to be able to defend lead, but in the face of EVIDENCE to the contrary, I can't. To my mind, that means we have to be proactive as a community and regulate ourselves before the antis come in and tell us how it's going to be. I'll fight to defend my right to hunt and fish, but I won't lift a finger to save lead. There are alternatives. All you've got to do is look at non-toxic shot for waterfowl. As much as I hate "internet controversies", this is not an issue where I'm willing to sit on the sidelines. I've never heard any actual evidence that lead is not harmful (not anecdotal, but based on real scientific studies). In point of fact (and I quote), "there is no known amount of lead that is too small to cause the body harm".

I went online yesterday and ordered two packs of the tricks. I will test them head to head against the Rage 2-blade and 3-blade both straight-on and angled entry using two backstops, one to emulate bone and the other flesh. I'll post the results in the next couple week.

Two problems with your argument, Jaychuter. The first is that you suggest the stuff has been around forever...before we were even on the planet. That's a naive view. Yes, lead has existed as long as the world. But not in a concentrated and purified form. Moreover, it's the accumulation of lead in the environment and chronic exposure that's thought to be a problem. Try sleeping, eating and breathing lead, then make the call. Second, the biggest problem with lead is birth defects. Forget about the fish and game. Let's talk about a kid who might have lived a normal life, but instead was born with a debilitating illness that requires constant care and breaks the bank. It's one thing to say, "when it's time to go, it's time to go". It's another thing entirely to sentence someone else. Finally, I'll add an interesting take on this subject: I read lots of old issues of Outdoor Life from the 1960s that my granddad gave me. There's a bunch of articles in there from around the time that the use of certain pesticides was being associated with fish and bird kills. The industry reps argued that the pesticides had no role in the kills and that there was no evidence that the cost of using the pesticides outweigh the benefits. Of course, I'm talking about DDT, one of the most well-recognized carcinogens on the planet. The use of DDT probably saved as many lives from malaria as it killed, so it's use was somewhat justified. How's that compare with lead? Has lead saved many lives lately? Seems like a crime to me to ignore the facts for convenience sake.

Yeah, it's all just a bunch of bull. I doubt there's anything to this whole "lead is bad" craze. Same goes for PCBs. And mercury. And arsenic. Let's test your theory. You first. Whatever, right?