HUDSON%EIVAX%UALR.BitNet@vms3.macc.wisc.edu (05/17/91)
>.....number of hunters shot at.... >.....I always were red/orange..... I wanted to comment on these. As a hunter for the last 22 years, mostly in Texas, lately in Missouri and now Arkansas, I have noticed that there seems to be a difference in the perceived number of people shot at during deer hunting. I always hunted wearing camo, green, etc... when out for deer, squirrel, rabbits, or whatever, in Texas. The only time I had any problem was when hunting near Huntsville, Texas in the national forest. I was hidden in a clump of bushes on a high-line and had been there since lunch time, when a van drives up on the adjacent hill. How these guys got that van through the timber I don't know. I don't think they did either, since they were drunk as skunks at the time. They got out of the van and got their cooler and guns, got on top of the van and, I guess, had a deer hunting party? I crawled of down a ditch. They probably would have shot me and asked questions later. Otherwise I hunted leased land and public land, and really never heard of anyone getting shot. Oh, once a guy shot another fellow out of his tree stand, "thought he was a deer", the guy was convicted. Seems the jury felt he wanted to shoot the other fellow, and a hunting accident was the best alibi. In MO and AR, we are required to wear hunter orange. I am told that people get killed here hunting deer, and especially turkey. I think folks here may be a little less carefull when hunting?????? Deer Cleaning Tip: When you go deer hunting, take along a pair of the surgical rubber gloves (cheap, disposable) and put them on before you gut your kill. I have been doing this for several years, and they work great. When your done you won't have to clean blood off of everything you touch, like rifles, etc... Keith Hudson hudson%eivax@ualr.bitnet
slw@uunet.UU.NET (Shoshana L. Wodzisz) (05/30/91)
In article <1991May17.071443.22809@doug.cae.wisc.edu> HUDSON%EIVAX%UALR.BitNet@vms3.macc.wisc.edu writes: >>.....number of hunters shot at.... >>.....I always were red/orange..... > [stuff deleted] > >In MO and AR, we are required to wear hunter orange. I am told that >people get killed here hunting deer, and especially turkey. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Could this be because of the keen eyesight on a turkey - so that you can't wear orange (except when walking to/from your spot) ? BTW - I'm a hunting wife. I've done some myself with my husband but he definetely does more than I these days ! He's basically (99.5% of the time) a bow hunter. The thing that scares me about turkey season is that bow & gun seasons are at the same time. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shoshana L. Wodzisz @ Allen-Bradley Company, Cleveland Ohio ... !{cwjcc, uunet}!abvax!slw
HUDSON%EIVAX%UALR.BitNet@vms3.macc.wisc.edu (05/31/91)
>Shoshana L. Wodzisz stated "...because of the keen eyesight on a turkey... >you can't wear orange..." Yes, that was my point. I believe we are required to wear orange to avoid being shot by other 'hunters'. Anyone who would actually mistake and shoot another human being for game is not, in my opinion, a hunter (at least, not a 'good hunter'). I am upset with the requirement since I feel that the 'hunters' of this type should not be in the woods anyway. When I hunt, I follow the rule of "don't shoot what you can't identify". It has to be a deer, not a COW or PERSON, period. I see no resonable excuses, and I thnk folks that shoot others during hunting should be prosecuted (probably MANSLAUGHTER). While I am at it, how about the media (and just about everyone else) calling people that shoot up property or hunt illegally "hunters"? I always thought that people who shoot up other property were called "VANDALS" and that illegal "hunters" were called "POACHERS". I think both can be called "CRIMINALS". Keith Hudson hudson%eivax@ualr.bitnet
jholand%peruvian@hellgate.utah.edu (John Holand) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.094933.27675@doug.cae.wisc.edu> HUDSON%EIVAX%UALR.BitNet@vms3.macc.wisc.edu writes: >Yes, that was my point. I believe we are required to wear orange to avoid >being shot by other 'hunters'. Anyone who would actually mistake and shoot >another human being for game is not, in my opinion, a hunter (at least, not >a 'good hunter'). I am upset with the requirement since I feel that the >'hunters' of this type should not be in the woods anyway. When I hunt, I >follow the rule of "don't shoot what you can't identify". It has to be a deer, >not a COW or PERSON, period. I see no resonable excuses, and I thnk folks that >shoot others during hunting should be prosecuted (probably MANSLAUGHTER). You said that you are upset with the requirement since it is your opiion that a good hunter wouldn't shoot a human. Well that is rather the point that there are plenty of hunters that are not 'good' hunters. The young ppl learning, the city slickers trying the sport. If we expected that all hunters in the field are 'good' then none of use would ever get to hunt because we all start off as novice hunters and gain knowledge and wisdom to hunt safely with experience. Blaze orange saves lives.... it may be yours someday... just try hunting in UTAH deer season!! John R. Holand
jgd@gatech.edu (John G. DeArmond) (06/03/91)
jholand%peruvian@hellgate.utah.edu (John Holand) writes: >You said that you are upset with the requirement since it >is your opiion that a good hunter wouldn't shoot a human. >Well that is rather the point that there are plenty of hunters >that are not 'good' hunters. The young ppl learning, the city >slickers trying the sport. If we expected that all hunters in >the field are 'good' then none of use would ever get to hunt >because we all start off as novice hunters and gain knowledge >and wisdom to hunt safely with experience. Sorry, I don't buy it. Putting a deadly weapon in the hands of someone not capable of using said weapon safely is at best negligent and at worst, assisting in a homicide. I wear blaze orange when I'm in the woods to help protect myself from the drunk Rambos but I can't legitimize poor hunting practices by saying that I support the use of Blaze. Let me suggest a revolutionary training technique for new/young hunters. This is the technique my father used to teach me proper hunting techniques but I've never seen mention of it elsewhere. The concept is simple. Make the neophyte hunt with an EMPTY weapon until he/she proves himself capable of handling a weapon, properly identifying the target and properly firing. The neophyte still goes through the same motions of stalking, identifying the target, assessing the shot, aiming and squeezing the shot off - only all he gets is a *click*. Meanwhile the instructor can observe all aspects of the process AND be able to give low key corrective instructions (no ear plugs, remember). Once the proper techniques are mastered and after flinching, buck fevor and other ills are cured, then and only then is live fire allowed. Not only does this teach proper hunting technique, it teaches the neophyte that it's not the end of the world if he does not drop every damn deer he sees. He learns that it's OK for one to get away - At first because the gun's empty, later perhaps because he can't fully evaluate his backstop or can't see all of the animal. Even though I'm a gun rights activist and sometimes hunter, were I to find myself on a jury evaluating a hunting "accident", I'm afraid the defendent would have a tough go of it. I just don't see any excuses for shooting someone in the woods. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"
tomfal@tr6.wes.army.mil (Tom Faller) (06/04/91)
I think that John DeArmond has a great idea for training novices to hunt -- letting them go through the motions with an empty gun. We run through a similar sequence when teaching young people to drive - letting them get the feel of the wheel in a big empty parking lot at slow speed, and running past pylons instead of other cars or property. I wish I had been taught this way before my first hunt. I spent my teen years in rural Alabama, having moved from the gameless suburban North around Buffalo. I don't even remember seeing rabbits as a child. When I was fourteen, my best friend, who had been hunting a couple of times with his grandfather, decided to take me along for rabbit hunting. I knew which end of the gun was forward, and how to load and unload it, but I had never been in the field before. He took a single-barreled 20 ga. and I took a bolt-action .22. We were dropped by his grandfather on a dirt road in the county, and pointed in a general direction. My friend went in front, I was in back, slightly to one side, with the rifle in my hands. About twenty minutes into the hunt, a flock of small birds explosively broke cover in front of us. In surprise, we both raised our guns and pulled the triggers. His delayed shot missed all the birds. I pulled my trigger, and the safety prevented me from shooting him in the back. I had pretty much done everything the wrong way, walking around with finger in trigger guard, not thinking about having him in front of me, and not being prepared for the sudden surprise of real game. We both survived by luck, but I unloaded the gun right away, to my friend's protest (I didn't tell him why), and carried it back that way. It took me several years before I carried a gun again, and this time, forewarned by knowledge, I tried it unloaded first. I find that in giving myself "room to be stupid" first, I can evaluate my actions easier, and work out bad habits. There's still no cure for surprise, but I've found that you can "accident-proof" yourself to a great degree by knowing that certain actions predispose you to greater risk. Keeping your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard is probably the easiest way to keep from accidentally jerking off a shot. This works in other areas, like driving and using power tools or big knives. A little forethought goes a long way. On the matter of Blaze Orange, I think that it's a good idea, even if everyone else in the woods were a good hunter, because it addresses the question of how do you know what's in your own backstop? You don't have to be mistaken for a deer to be accidentally shot. All you have to do is blend in with the woods. What if you had a shot, and you noticed an orange-clad hunter in a tree stand across the valley, but just over the shoulder of the deer in your scope? You'd probably not have noticed him without the color, as he wouldn't be moving. As long as it makes no difference to the deer, hunters should use it. I know that it ruins the esthetics of the hunt,( 1/2 :-) ), but with a lot of hunters in the woods, it's practically a necessity. Speaking of mistaken i.d., was it on this list that it was reported that some guy fired shots at a man and his wife, "mistaking them for game"? He hit the man, but was driven off by the man "firing several shots from a pistol to summon help". Right. Remember, Smokey says, "Only you can prevent Firefights!". Tom Faller
patvh%vice.ico.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Pat Van Hoomissen) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun4.093436.19567@doug.cae.wisc.edu> tomfal@tr6.wes.army.mil (Tom Faller) writes: >I think that John DeArmond has a great idea for training novices to hunt -- >letting them go through the motions with an empty gun. We run through a My old man removed the firing pin from my rifle so that I could also get use to handling ammo as well. My wildlife calendar reminds me that young wildlife may be sighted in the woods. Please do not pick up these youngsters. Mom is just off feeding. Well, an exception might be what happened to my partner the other day. Mom plunged into the river where he was fishing, swam across and took off. Minutes later, a VERY young fawn attempted to follow her and damn near drowned. My partner dried the hypothermic little guy off and stashed him in the woods where he went to sleep. I don't think the human smell will keep mom from coming back for him. The calendar also says baby seals appear on beaches. Look but do not touch. They are not abandoned. Well, being a fisherman... nevermind.
petert@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Toth) (06/05/91)
In article <1991Jun3.092243.13558@doug.cae.wisc.edu> emory!Dixie.Com!jgd@gatech.edu (John G. DeArmond) writes: > >[..Description of excellent training method deleted.] A similar idea is to teach hunting with a camera mounted on a gunstock. Granted, the tool used doesn't have the same feel, but gives proof of placement. Now, if bore sized cameras show up on the market, we really have a tool. >Even though I'm a gun rights activist and sometimes hunter, were I to >find myself on a jury evaluating a hunting "accident", I'm afraid the >defendent would have a tough go of it. I just don't see any excuses for >shooting someone in the woods. My sentiments exactly. There may be explanations, but no excuses. Peter Toth
jholand%peruvian@hellgate.utah.edu (John Holand) (06/06/91)
In article <1991Jun3.092243.13558@doug.cae.wisc.edu> emory!Dixie.Com!jgd@gatech.edu (John G. DeArmond) writes: > >The concept is simple. Make the neophyte hunt with an EMPTY weapon until >he/she proves himself capable of handling a weapon, properly identifying >the target and properly firing. The neophyte still goes through the >same motions of stalking, identifying the target, assessing the shot, >aiming and squeezing the shot off - only all he gets is a *click*. >Meanwhile the instructor can observe all aspects of the process AND be able >to give low key corrective instructions (no ear plugs, remember). Once >the proper techniques are mastered and after flinching, buck fevor and >other ills are cured, then and only then is live fire allowed. > Well gee this "technique" sounds really good with one major flaw. A firearm should always be treated as though it were fully loaded and ready to fire. This would take the presumption that the firearm is "safe" for and idiot to use. Taking this asumption is wrong and dangerous and in itself can can cause accidents. The proper techinque is through intesive education. My training in firearms began at age 5 and continued well into my late teens. Most states have Hunter education but that is usually just the tip of what a person needs in the form of firearm safety education. You're "empty weapon" concept stinks and should not be practiced. Treat a gun as if it is always loaded, because there is a pretty good chance that it is. The guns that are "not loaded" are the guns that accidently kill people. John R. Holand
scott@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Larry Scott) (06/07/91)
>>same motions of stalking, identifying the target, assessing the shot, >>aiming and squeezing the shot off - only all he gets is a *click*. >>Meanwhile the instructor can observe all aspects of the process AND be able >>to give low key corrective instructions (no ear plugs, remember). Once >>the proper techniques are mastered and after flinching, buck fevor and >>other ills are cured, then and only then is live fire allowed. > You're "empty weapon" concept stinks and should not be practiced. >Treat a gun as if it is always loaded, because there is a pretty >good chance that it is. The guns that are "not loaded" are the guns >that accidently kill people. > >John R. Holand John, The only thing that stinks is how blind and/or uncomprehending you are! Proper gun handling, (including treating ALL guns as if they're loaded), is exactly what the previous reader is professing! And if, at any time, the "student" DOESN'T treat the empty gun properly then the lesson would end right then and there, with explanation of what the error was. I have a 7-yr. old son who I'm just starting to introduce to guns and shooting. I think this is an excellent concept. Larry Scott
jholand%peruvian@hellgate.utah.edu (John Holand) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun7.083629.7871@doug.cae.wisc.edu> scott@bierstadt.scd.ucar.edu (Larry Scott) writes: > >>>same motions of stalking, identifying the target, assessing the shot, >>>aiming and squeezing the shot off - only all he gets is a *click*. >>>Meanwhile the instructor can observe all aspects of the process AND be able >>>to give low key corrective instructions (no ear plugs, remember). Once >>>the proper techniques are mastered and after flinching, buck fevor and >>>other ills are cured, then and only then is live fire allowed. >you are! Proper gun handling, (including treating ALL guns as if >they're loaded), is exactly what the previous reader is professing! > >Larry Scott Well I do agree the he was professing proper gunhandling. The point I disagree on is his method of teaching this. To claim you can take a new comer to guns and give him an "unloaded" gun and allow him to think he can safely make mistakes is wrong. This would give the handler the idea that it is ok the treat an "unloaded gun" differently than we would treat a loaded gun. This is the point I made and one I stick by. If this is the method by which you chose to teach your son I guess that is your decision. I feel that by allowing kids to think that they treat a gun as "safe" you are place a seed for an accident to happen. The education needs to start long before the child ever picks up a gun. They need to know that a gun can and will easily kill you and others, that it is not a toy and should be treated with respect at all time. Respectfully John R. Holand
n8741753@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Clifford Chapman) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun10.130721.2029@doug.cae.wisc.edu> jholand%peruvian@hellgate.utah.edu (John Holand) writes: >> [Discussing training new hunters with an unloaded gun...] > >Well I do agree the he was professing proper gunhandling. The >point I disagree on is his method of teaching this. To claim >you can take a new comer to guns and give him an "unloaded" >gun and allow him to think he can safely make mistakes is wrong. > This would give the handler the idea that it is ok the treat >an "unloaded gun" differently than we would treat a loaded gun. > This is the point I made and one I stick by. If this is the >method by which you chose to teach your son I guess that is >your decision. I feel that by allowing kids to think that they >treat a gun as "safe" you are place a seed for an accident to happen. > The education needs to start long before the child ever picks >up a gun. They need to know that a gun can and will easily kill >you and others, that it is not a toy and should be treated with >respect at all time. >Respectfully >John R. Holand > The point is it would be better to have a new comer make a mistake with an unloaded gun and correct that mistake, rather than have him make the same mistake with a loaded gun. It is important to educate a new comer before they ever handle a gun, but after that initial education nothing beats actual practice with a real unloaded gun. One of the important things that you should teach a new comer is only load a gun when it is necessary. One should never have a loaded gun in a car, for example. My brother almost got his foot shot off that way, but thats another story. -- Please excuse my grammar and spelling errors for I had a difficult childhood Words to live by. "Do onto others as they would do onto you" "Do onto others before they do onto you" - B.H.
rrubert@cisncc.intel.com (Rod Rubert) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun6.084215.2023@doug.cae.wisc.edu> John Holand responds to a suggestion about learning to hunt by hunting with an empty weapon under supervision. He responds as follows: >Well gee this "technique" sounds really good with one major flaw. > A firearm should always be treated as though it were fully loaded >and ready to fire. This would take the presumption that the firearm is >"safe" for and idiot to use. Taking this asumption is wrong and >dangerous and in itself can can cause accidents. > The proper techinque is through intesive education. My training in >firearms began at age 5 and continued well into my late teens. Most >states have Hunter education but that is usually just the tip of >what a person needs in the form of firearm safety education. > You're "empty weapon" concept stinks and should not be practiced. >Treat a gun as if it is always loaded, because there is a pretty >good chance that it is. The guns that are "not loaded" are the guns >that accidently kill people. >John R. Holand I was taken back by John's reaction. The original poster did not imply any unsafe practices. In fact, the concept was that the student treat the rifle as if it were loaded (as is proper). I would like to point out that empty weapon drills are a common training technique. I always operate every function of a new firearm, many times, unloaded at home, before I go to a range. Practicing firearm technique, unloaded does not imply that saftey rules are being violated. What is the problem? Rod Rubert
picou@convex.com (Michael Picou) (06/14/91)
>> The proper techinque is through intesive education. My training in >>firearms began at age 5 and continued well into my late teens. Most >>states have Hunter education but that is usually just the tip of >>what a person needs in the form of firearm safety education. >> You're "empty weapon" concept stinks and should not be practiced. >>Treat a gun as if it is always loaded, because there is a pretty >>good chance that it is. The guns that are "not loaded" are the guns >>that accidently kill people. >>John R. Holand It is agreed by most, that intensive education is the best method for hunting safety. For those young starters, a seasoned adult hunter should be able to teach safety. It makes no sence to place a high powered rifle in the hands of a child. The empty gun theory is not a stupid idea, but unneccessary. A child should be started with a B.B. gun. Start them out with a `Red Rider' or equivalent. Teach the child how to fire the gun, aim the gun, look beyond the target, etc... Take him in the feild with this gun, and let him shoot at game, this low power gun will not harm any animal.(even at close range) As the child proves himself as being a safe hunter, move him up to a larger rifle. The reason these B.B.guns are made is for the purpose of educating our young to be safe, and prepare them for hunting. If the trainer works with the child, this method will sprout a safe and competent hunter. It really works!!! If the new hunter is an adult, they shouldn't be hunting without proper training. Hunting safety isn't something you learn overnight. A new hunter should watch dureing the hunt and learn, no gun in hand. Parks and Recreation Departments can be of great help. They can tell the trainee where and when the hunters education classes are. A new hunter has no buisness bein in the woods, or brush with a gun, without the successful completion of safety courses, and strong knowledge of what he is doin. And one should never be left alone. An adult can absorb the training faster than a child. It shouldn't take long to get a new hunter properly trained, and safe to hunt with. > I was taken back by John's reaction. The original poster did not >imply any unsafe practices. In fact, the concept was that the >student treat the rifle as if it were loaded (as is proper). >I would like to point out that empty weapon drills are a common >training technique. I always operate every function of a new >firearm, many times, unloaded at home, before I go to a range. >Practicing firearm technique, unloaded does not imply that saftey >rules are being violated. What is the problem? > Rod Rubert Well this subject has aquired enough miles to go across the country. ";') Hunter education is relatively simple. There are several different methods that can be exercised. Educating new hunters is not the problem. The problem is those who don't care, don't think or are drinking while they hunt. There is nothing we can do to stop this. Like the old saying, `You can lead a horse to water, but ya can't make him drink it!' Educate them all you want, but that won't stop the ones that are already out there. Hunting is a privledge! If we don't take care of it, we loose it!!! Respect it, and enjoy it! Mike Picou
pfeiffer@NMSU.Edu (06/15/91)
picou@convex.com writes It is agreed by most, that intensive education is the best method for hunting safety. For those young starters, a seasoned adult hunter should be able to teach safety. It makes no sence to place a high powered rifle in the hands of a child. The empty gun theory is not a stupid idea, but unneccessary. A child should be started with a B.B. gun. Start them out with a `Red Rider' or equivalent. Teach the child how to fire the gun, aim the gun, look beyond the target, etc... You're being too conservative. My son started with click-click guns at about 3, rubber darts at about 4, and now (6 1/2) has his first BB gun. All his guns have been kept in the safe right next to mine, and he has never moved up a notch until he was behaving himself safely. He didn't get the rubber dart gun until he was big enough that I thought he could learn to aim, and he didn't get the BB gun until he behaved safely with the rubber dart gun. He moves up to a rimfire when my wife and I aren't nervous about it! My daughter (3 1/2) seems about ready to start with the rubber darts now... It should be pointed out that even with the click-click guns, they have never been allowed to point them at each other. There are people on the net who won't let their kids have toy guns on the grounds that they might mistake a real gun for a toy someday; this is a valid argument but I take the opposite tack. I teach them to treat even a gun made of see-through green plastic like it was real. Oh yes, why click-click and not caps? Cap guns are so &*^(&*!!! loud, and we have an old terrier who's gun-shy. I just bought a pair of cap guns, to go with the new golden retriever puppy who came home today, so she can be taught better. Take him in the feild with this gun, and let him shoot at game, this low power gun will not harm any animal.(even at close range) As the child proves himself as being a safe hunter, move him up to a larger rifle. The reason these B.B.guns are made is for the purpose of educating our young to be safe, and prepare them for hunting. If the trainer works with the child, this method will sprout a safe and competent hunter. It really works!!! Disagreement here: my children aren't going to shoot at any animals until they're big enough to be hunting for them. Shooting animals with a BB gun because it won't hurt them is far too close (to my tastes) to teaching them that a gun can be misused... -Joe.
auden@daisy.wichitaks.NCR.COM (Alan Uden) (06/15/91)
In article <1991Jun10.130721.2029@doug.cae.wisc.edu> jholand%peruvian@hellgate.utah.edu (John Holand) writes:
-
- This would give the handler the idea that it is ok the treat
-an "unloaded gun" differently than we would treat a loaded gun.
- The education needs to start long before the child ever picks
-up a gun. They need to know that a gun can and will easily kill
-you and others, that it is not a toy and should be treated with
-respect at all time.
-Respectfully
-John R. Holand
-
I agree with John I think a unloaded gun could lead to problems.
When I was younger I carried a loaded daisy BB gun I could then
learn proper gun handling with out to much danger.
Alanspf@hoqaa.att.com (Steven P Frysinger) (06/18/91)
> picou@convex.com writes > > a stupid idea, but unneccessary. A child should be started with a > B.B. gun. Start them out with a `Red Rider' or equivalent. Teach the > child how to fire the gun, aim the gun, look beyond the target, etc... > > Take him in the feild with this gun, and let him shoot at game, this > low power gun will not harm any animal.(even at close range) As the Apart from contradicting one of my "gun commandments" (don't point a gun at something you don't intend to kill), this is probably illegal. In some states, BB guns are firearms, and going into the woods with a firearm during hunting season will require a license and a minimum age. This latter point is mostly a nit. By basic objection is the first. Steve
picou@convex.com (Michael Picou) (06/21/91)
spf@hoqaa.att.com (Steven P Frysinger) writes: >> picou@convex.com writes >> >> a stupid idea, but unneccessary. A child should be started with a Boy, ya really made that line look bad!!! Steve, I like the way you are bringin up your children in referance to proper gun handling. Keep up the great work. I think we should jump to a new topic! How about wildlife habitat. At the rate the population is growing, and the cities are expanding, soon we wont have any place to hunt, or game to hunt for. Stop and ask yourself this question: Am I doing anything to restore what I take away. Am I taking and never giving back. The money we spend on our hunting licenses isn't enough to put back what we take away. Lord knows that the new home builders, and building contractors don't care what they destroy. Only what is good for them!!! For example: Katy Texas. The City of Houston wanted to build an airport on what they considered worthless wetlands. This area of Houston is a large portion of Texas duck and goose wintering grounds. Hundreds of thousands of geese roost in this area every year. And they could care a less about the geese, just the money!!! We already have thousands of geese die each year of colera. The water supplie is too small, and this causes over population in the wetlands in that area, which is why the geese suffer and die. I have been to several of the roosts around the Katy Hockley area, and the beauty of these graceful birds is astounding. But I have also been out there and watched TP&W pick up trailor loads of geese that have died >from colera. What a waist of beauty!!! I may hunt these graceful and beautiful birds, but I respect them also! I do my part to help their fight for survival. I can, and have spent hours at a time just watching these birds take off and land on these roosts. It's a sight never to be forgotten. So take some time and think about the animals of your sport. Join a local organization that helps them. Take some time to see the real beauty of these animals, and it will make every trip more rewarding. I'll step down now and leave the podium open! BTW Before you start flaming me, think about what I wrote! Mike Picou