there's no sugar coating anything with ted.either you is,or you aint.i like the fact that he's a high profile person who sticks up for hunters rights.the music aint bad either.

"DarDys= With decoys you find the game where they are naturally and set the decoys up. With bait you put it out in an area you want to lure them into."
 
So if geese fly high past the property across the street and never stop, that is where they are found naturally.  Then someone puts out a spread of decoys that makes the high flyers beleive that there is a food source there and they drop in to check it out.  They haven't been baited in general and baited by the idea of food finding in particular?  Since hunters are withing shotgun range of the decoy spread, are they not being lured into the area you want them ot be in?

What about scent lures that smell like apples or acorns?

ORIGINAL: DanesDad

What about scent lures that smell like apples or acorns?

 
 
That would be baiting DD.

i can hunt inside big fences too, i just can't afford it. Nugent's got the right message in that hunting is great, but hunting on a preserve with 16 foot fences around it just aint my idea of fun no matter how big the area is inside the fence

Dardys- not to argue but whenever I've set up deks it's been where there was already food, ex--- farmers cut corn field, grain field, etc, and the birds are already in the area for that reason. Decoys will bring birds in for reasons other than feed, ex-- a spread on a lake or river along a flyway. I've also decoyed them looking for companionship along the Brokenstraw and Alleghney river. Bait would be dumping a truckload of corn in a goldenrod field. It's a fine line sometimes but I tend to agree with the PGC for the most part although small food plots that don't get harvested are pushing the envelope IMO.

ORIGINAL: S-10

Dardys- not to argue but whenever I've set up deks it's been where there was already food, ex--- farmers cut corn field, grain field, etc, and the birds are already in the area for that reason. Decoys will bring birds in for reasons other than feed, ex-- a spread on a lake or river along a flyway. I've also decoyed them looking for companionship along the Brokenstraw and Alleghney river. Bait would be dumping a truckload of corn in a goldenrod field. It's a fine line sometimes but I tend to agree with the PGC for the most part although small food plots that don't get harvested are pushing the envelope IMO.

 
S-10,
 
Not arguing, I just like to see the broader debate.  It kind of goes back to the old joke:
 
Man: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
 
Woman: Yes.
 
Man: would you sleep with me for 1 dollar?
 
Woman: No, what do you think I am?
 
Man: We have already established what you are, now we are talking price.
 
At what point (price) do people consider something, food plots, scents, decoys, etc. baiting?  I'm not even agruing the ethics of it.

ORIGINAL: takeagillpill

hey drake, do you hunt over cut corn fields, or in apple orchords, or in a stand of white oak???, all bait. Do you use scents like mock scrapes or code blue???, all bait. if apples/acorns are falling to the ground 60 yards from my stand what is the diff. moving them to 20 yards? Nugent just calls it like it is. Deer have ALL the advantages!!! they are a master of their terrain, knowing every nook and cranny, every safehaven. they can simply become nocturnal and YOU will never ever see them and then complain you dont see deer. there sence of smell and hearing are amazing and there sight just as good as our own. man should be able to use any advantage they can. Like pork said he is the only true voice for ALL and ANY kind of hunting and 2nd ammendment rights. This is why hunting alltogether will cease to exsist because we dont need anti hunters bad mouthing our sport we have fellow hunters doing that already. between the crossbow whiners, the bait whiners, the use of dog whiners, this, that and so on... its ridiculous! If you have a problem with any kind of hunting your not a hunter you might as well attend the next PETA rally!  

 
Your post is one of the hardest to read that i've seen on this board, so before I respond let me try to summarize your post.
 
Here's what I got from your post:
1. Hunting near corn fields and oak trees is the same as hunting over bait that you place yourself.
2. Because deer have all the advantages, we should be allowed to use anything to our advantage.
3. Hunting and guns would cease to exist if wasn't for Ted Nugent.
4. Because I don't agree with baiting, I should Join PETA.
5. The words "their" and "there" are apparently interchangable.
6. Sometimes sentences should start with a capital letter, and sometimes they don't have to.
 
I'll go in order with my response:
 
1. Most corn fields are at least several square acres, and most are much bigger. I'm guessing a typical bait sight is 5' x 5'. Do you see where i'm going with this? I doubt you do, so i'll explain.
 
Placing bait in a small area allows you to pinpoint where you want the deer or whatever game you're hunting to stand while you make your shot. So, if you are bow hunting, you can place a pile of corn, or a feeder 20 yds from your stand to make for a chip shot. A picked corn field that covers at least several acres does not directly place a deer 20yds away for a shot, and you may be able to do no more than watch the deer as they eat 50 yds away from you.
 
Acorns are no different, since oaks are usually spread throughout a patch of woods.
 
2. Deer do have the advantage over hunters. I like it that way. I spend a lot more time bow hunting than I do rifle hunting. The reason is simple; it's more of a challenge. You see, some of us prefer the challenge, and consider a kill more rewarding if we truly have to work for it. Some of us put in endless hours scouting, shooting our bows, and spending our spare time 20 ft up a tree in hopes that at some point in the short 6 week archery season the buck we've been looking for shows up, and we are somehow able to make a clean shot, with all odds against us.
 
On the other hand, there are guys like you who want every advantage, so your hunt will be easier. That's fine, but you have to understand that when we make said advantages legal, such as adding crossbows to archery season, or inlines in flintlock season, or making piles of bait legal to hunt over, you'll likely increase the harvest. That being said, it's likely the season will have to be shortened to compensate for the increased kill rates, and you'll likely upset the majority of PA hunters, just to please a few.
 
3. Your quote: "Like pork said he is the only true voice for ALL and ANY kind of hunting and 2nd ammendment rights. This is why hunting alltogether will cease to exsist "
 
There are others who fight for our hunting rights and gun rights, and hunting and guns would still be here without Ted. That being said, I do have a lot of respect for Ted, he fights for gun rights and hunting non-stop, while most of us do no more than talk about it.
 
4. If you really believe any hunter who doesn't believe we should allow baiting, crossbows, etc.. is comparable to a PETA member, you need your head checked. I think it's fine that hunters don't always agree with each other, and feel we are better off being free-thinkers than blindly following the ideas of one particular person. 
 
5. If your going to make such a bold post, you'll want to use the correct words so people can understand you.
 
Use the word "there" when referring to a place. For example: I'll place my bait over there.
 
Use the word "their" to indicate possession. For example: Deer will use their sense of smell to find my bait.
 
6. This one should be self explanatory.
 
 
 
 
 
 

whoah!!! we got an English Teacher here!!! its a forum... on the internet... with smiley faces??? it looks like you understood it pretty well to respond so thats all i care about.

what's wrong with crossbows???

they have a shorter range, make alot more noise, are heavier and bulkier to carry around, are more easily seen by the deer, and you only get one shot b/c you cannot****the bow and get a second shot like you can with a regular bow.

The way I see it, a crossbow is tougher to use and because you cannot have magnified sights, the only advantage is that they take less practice to shoot accurately with. I would much rather have people be more accurate and wound less deer than have the satisfaction of knowing they practice 8 hrs a week and still wounded a deer.

I would love to see a logical debate that debunks the argument I made.....

no, but I have heard guys say they bought them b/c they dont have time to practice 8 hrs a week and their wife wants to hunt but is too weak to pull back a real bow and doesn't have the time to practice appropriately, so the husband cocks the crossbow and sends her out to hunt.

I don't think grain weight is as much of an issue as is the length of the bolt. The longer a bolt/arrow is the more stable they will fly. It is a matter of aerodynamic properties.

Despite the 150lb+ draw weights, they don't have higher speeds either because the draw length is so much shorter that the crossbow doesn't have as much time to accelerate the bolt as a compound bow does.

I think you just answered your own question. They are easier to shoot, they are more accurate, anyone can shoot them with minimal practice. They are as deadly as a bow at longer ranges with a well placed sharp arrow.They can be used with a scope. They are noiser than a bow but are fast enough that a relaxed animal doesn't have time to react. It may have been Bings that posted some video on the shot noise vs hit on this site. If they were not all of those things there wouldn't be much of a market for them. You don't buy them for the added challenge but for the advantages over a bow they offer in archery season.

S-10

I think you misread my post... the crossbow is a DISADVANTAGE in all those areas. You cannot shoot them past 25-30yds, less accurate, NO magnified scopes allowed, most are slower than a compound bow.

Again, the only advantage is that it is easier to shoot, not neccessarily better. it shoots like a rifle and the shooter doesnt have to hold the string and worry about his eye placement on the string and stuff like that. It creates a simpler shooting action, although one that is less accurate and no more deadly than a compound bow.

Please work on your reading comprehension a little bit. If you are in 5th grade or less, it will be covered in the next couple years.

ORIGINAL: hiclassHilbilly

what's wrong with crossbows???

they have a shorter range, make alot more noise, are heavier and bulkier to carry around, are more easily seen by the deer, and you only get one shot b/c you cannot****the bow and get a second shot like you can with a regular bow.

The way I see it, a crossbow is tougher to use and because you cannot have magnified sights, the only advantage is that they take less practice to shoot accurately with. I would much rather have people be more accurate and wound less deer than have the satisfaction of knowing they practice 8 hrs a week and still wounded a deer.

I would love to see a logical debate that debunks the argument I made.....

You need to do a little research on the new crossbows..
What you say is false.
Here is an old thread comparing the 2..



I’ve heard many people state to me on the subject of crossbow performance that a "a crossbow doesn’t carry as far, they drop off faster, they are a hinderance in a treestand, they’re loud, there is no performance advantage vs a compound, the ranges are the same” etc etc so on and so on.

I have an older PSE Fireflight crossbow downstairs right now with a 125# draw weight with it’s old round wheels that I would ABSOLUTELY classify as accurate based upon the above statements. It’s slow, it’s so loud it should come with ear plugs and my 2009 compound will shoot circles around it IN MY HANDS anyway with respect to performance.
If I absolutely needed to make a shot at 50 yards with either I wouldn’t even glance at that crossbow. It’s a flat out turd. Advantage compound by a wide margin.
That turd might also be what many people see a crossbow being nowadays.
Those people would be wrong.

Let me throw some raw performance numbers out there for you comparing the highest performance crossbow made today The "Stryker" vs the highest performance compound Bowtech makes right now in the Bowtech 82nd Airborne.

These are the facts on what a top of the line crossbow of today will do and how it compares to the same top level compound. (Not top vs average or vice versa)

The Airborne 82nd compound bow out of the box comes factory pre-set at 29” draw length and 70# draw weight and will shoot 312fps with a 425g arrow and a kinetic energy of 92ft lbs. (This number is also before weight is added to the string in the form of peep, nock accessories etc which will lower performance)
That 29”/70# is also above the industry average bowhunter in North America with respect to draw length and draw weight. 425gr arrow was chosen for comparison with the Stryker.

The Stryker out of the box with it’s 175# draw weight will throw the same 425gr weight projectile at 405fps for a KE rating of 155ft lbs.

I ran their ballistics through a program to extrapolate what they would both be doing at those controversial “Impossible” crossbow distances that people talk about for comparison and say they can't or won't do.

The numbers:Pray my math is correct.

Bowtech Airborne 82nd (point blank) 29”/70# with a 425gr arrow = 312fps and 92ft lbs of KE
(By all rights an extremely high performance bow)

At 90 yards it is doing 284fps and 76ft lbs of KE
At 100 yards it is at 281fps and 74.6ft lbs of KE.
Impressive performance to say the least!


Stryker Crossbow- (point blank) with the same 425gr arrow = 405fps for 155ft lbs of KE
At 90 yards it is still going 341fps with a KE of 110ft lbs. (at 90 yards it is still 16% more powerful than the compound is at point blank
At 100 yards it is still going 337.8fps with a KE of 107.6 (at 100 yards the crossbow is still 14% more powerful than the compound at point blank)
Think about that.

What does this longwinded nonsense illustrate exactly?
For one it directly compares the top end offerings in both categories no BS, it's todays best performance in each category. It also dispels the myth that crossbows somehow are “less efficient” or offer no performance advantage over a compound.
Remember the average bowhunter is shooting a compound bow with far less performance than I illustrated which widens that gap considerably.....anybody can shoot the Stryker with the performance listed.

Sure there are old style roundwheel crossbows out there, middle of the road crossbows out there, outdated crossbows out there, that performance wise at long range are ballistically even with or below the better of the compounds. That’s a fact. There are JUNK crossbows just like there are junk compounds.
But to argue a lack of performance advantage for today’s crossbow on top of the obvious pre-****ed one and the use of true optics is being flat out silly.
Make no mistake about what is available and what is also on the way. Page through a Fall Cabela’s master catalog and look at the pages of crossbows and you’ll quickly see that these aren’t your daddy’s crossbows.
You let in the bottom end crossbows which in spirit I'm sure many guys are arguing for………you’ve also left in the top end one as well.
And I’ve shown what that what will do. And they aren’t done yet. There is much more room for advancement in performance on crossbows than there is currently with compounds with an already wide performance gap between the 2.
You want an eye opener? You guys who THINK you know what the story is with ALL crossbows?
Get your hands on a Stryker like I illustrated above with its 3 dot scope which can be set for around 60-80-100yards and head to a bench rest and shoot some groups. Bring along a buddy to help pull the bolts if they didn't pass right through your target.
I can shoot groups at 100 yards right out of the box with the Stryker that I could only DREAM about shooting with a compound and do it with more energy than my bow puts out 2 feet from the bow....... and I’m a National Champion 3D archer.
I can tell you for a FACT that with a rest I could kill a deer standing still everytime at 100 yards if I had a rangefinder and a Stryker. Would you consider it unethical or irresponsible? It's totally capable of making clean accurate pass through kills to 100 yards with ease. The numbers don't lie.

Don’t look at the dusty rusty round wheel crossbow in the corner and think you know crossbows……..because you don’t.
Let one in and you let them ALL in and they will get even better, count on it.

The crossbow manufacturers don’t see some happy world where crossbows and compounds belong together for some higher good, where we should all sit around a campfire singing pretty songs despite what it could do to our seasons and game management………what they see is the holy grail of crossbow manufacturing and that’s simply Pennsylvania the state. We are nothing more than a huge untapped resource consisting of hundreds of thousands of hunters who know guns, but not bows.