Forester says...

On 2/7/2011 9:49 PM, James Steward wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/7/2011 8:51 PM, James Steward wrote:

Some centerfire cartridges can be loaded to remain subsonic, but the
list is very short.

Almost any cartridge can be subsonic with a squib load.

Though not at all useful, and potentially dangerous.

Firing a round with a bullet stuck in the barrel is not good.

Deer hunters ought to know better than to use a .22 LR to hunt deer
(unless your deer are little bigger than a rabbit.)

The warning shot was fired by a person in their yard, while I was on
the public road. It was not deer season.

And some call Australia the redneck wonderland...

Rural and small town Wisconsin is not much better. After all, someone
had to vote for Joe McCarthy, Tommy Thompson, Ron Johnson and Scott Walker.

Some have used 220 Swift and 22-250 on deer and pronghorn. These can
be very effective, but can also just cause large surface wounds if the
bullet disintegrates prematurely.

Yes, grass or twigs can be a pain.

Most states (in the US) require 6-mm or greater bullets for deer hunting.

That sounds sensible.

This may be a slight overkill:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130-spectre-44.jpg.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/7/2011 9:49 PM, James Steward wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Most states (in the US) require 6-mm or greater bullets for deer
hunting.

That sounds sensible.

This may be a slight overkill:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130-spectre-44.jpg.


A .338 Win. Mag. would be overkill on your pronghorn. What you suggest
would be silly.

JS.

On Feb 7, 6:19 pm, thirty-six wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:51 pm, Jay Beattie wrote:



On Feb 5, 6:33 pm, thirty-six wrote:

On Feb 6, 1:57 am, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 5:22 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:

On Feb 5, 12:51 pm, Tºm Shermªn™ °_°""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 2:43 PM, thirty-six aka Trevor Jeffrey wrote:

On Feb 5, 2:29 pm, T m Sherm n _""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI
$southslope.net" wrote:
On 2/5/2011 7:44 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

On 2/4/2011 10:20 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:
On 2/4/2011 4:23 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
[...]
There is a right to mobility. That goes back centuries, if not
millennia. The world just wouldn't function if people couldn't get
around. The public right of way is just that. To deny right of way by
vehicle type puts the burden of justification on the municipality. I am
bordered by a road that is a "private way". It is not owned by the city
or state but I can not bar traffic on it. I must allow free passage.

In the US, there is only the right to travel where there is a public
right-of-way.

Right. That's the relevant point. Hence the name.

In the UK, travel over private lands has to be allowed by the owners in
many cases. Not so in the US.

Flaming idiot. Many more hypothetical journies are not accomplished
in the UK because travel over private land requires owners permission
and cannot "be allowed". Trespass is considered a very serious crime
by some landowners. Lack of co-operation by the authourities means
that punishment can be swift. Ever heard of lime pits?

Is there not right-of-way over the traditional paths on private lands?

And certainly in the past, open access was allowed for certain
activities, e.g. hunting.

Not in the US, although there are plenty of easements over private
lands -- generally given to utilites. Governments can condemn a right
of way if necessary, but in general, one never had the right to cross
on to another's property without permission. There are some
exceptions. In Oregon, for example, the state passed an easment law
that basically gave the beaches to everyone -- which, I'm sure was a
****er for a lot of beach front property owners.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Coast

By the way, an easement or right of way is an interest in property.
If you are talking about a right to cross property or temporarily use
property, that is called a license. You have an implied license to go
in to Muzi's shop 365 days of the year and cannot be arrested for
trespass until the license is revoked, e.g., Muzi tells you to get
out. The old open range laws gave animals a license to wander on to
the highway or graze on your property. Those laws have been trimmed
way back in most range states. I am not aware of any statute or
common law principle giving you an implied license to go on to private
property to hunt game in the US or GB. Private property has always
been the cornerstone of Anglo-American law. The earliest common law
actions were for trespass.-- Jay Beattie.

Please note that in the UK, hunting refers to chasing after foxes, not
shooting or otherwise obtaining game.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

FFS hunting is hunting, "fox hunting" with hounds is considered a
sport. Deer is wild and wildly available, should you have permission
from the landowner. We do eat the stuff along with hare, rabbit, hog,
pheasant, partridge, pigeon. It's all hunted because trapping is
mostly illegal. It's just that 98% of the poulation hun ttheir
chicken down in the supemarket. The Hunt means a fox hunt with hounds
but hunting is still widespread.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

David Scheidt pointed out to me in an e-mail that the trespassing
while hunting issue is handled differently in different states. I
found this wiki-like entry that summarizings the issue:

A hunting license is not a license to trespass, but state laws treat
hunters differently when it comes to trespassing. Some states have
laws that specifically address trespassing while hunting, and others
rely simply on the general trespassing statutes of the state. In about
half of the states posting is not required to prevent trespassing;
that is, it is against the law for hunters to trespass on private
property without the landowner's permission even if the land is not
posted. Where posting is required, some states have laws specifying
how to post land. In some states, trespass while in possession of a
firearm is a FELONY punishable by IMPRISONMENT for up to five years
and/or a fine up to $5,000. A few states have laws that address
hunters trespassing to retrieve dogs or wounded animals. In most
states, however, hunters may not retrieve dogs or wounded animals if
they cannot legally hunt on that land.

Oregon law is:

ORS 498.120 provides:

“(1) No person shall hunt upon the cultivated or enclosed land of
another without first obtaining permission from the owner or lawful
occupant thereof, or the agent of such owner or occupant. No
prosecution shall be commenced under this section except upon written
complaint filed with a magistrate. The complaint shall be verified by
the oath of the owner or lawful occupant of the cultivated or enclosed
land, or the agent of such owner or occupant.

“(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) of this section, the boundaries
of ‘enclosed’ land may be indicated by wire, ditch, hedge, fence,
water or by any visible or distinctive lines that indicate a
separation from the surrounding or contiguous territory, and includes
the established and posted boundaries of Indian reservations
established by treaties of the United States and the various Indian
tribes.”

Like open range laws, it places the burden of fencing or boundary
marking on the owner. The statute is not cross-referenced in the
criminal trespass statute, which I think is a little odd. -- Jay
Beattie.

Very interesting. Any comments made by me have been pertinent to the
situation in the UK (Britain specifically).

One World is the answer. (This would also solve the bike lock
problem.)

On Feb 7, 9:53*pm, James wrote:
T m Sherm n _ wrote:

On 2/7/2011 9:49 PM, James Steward wrote:
T m Sherm n _ wrote:
Most states (in the US) require 6-mm or greater bullets for deer
hunting.

That sounds sensible.

This may be a slight overkill:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130-spectre-44.jpg.

A .338 Win. Mag. would be overkill on your pronghorn. *What you suggest
would be silly.

Speaking of silly [or insert your own adjective] things when hunting
in Wisconsin ...

http://www.buckstix.com/howitzer.htm

DR

On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:30:47 -0600, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Wes Newell appears to believe summary execution for petty theft is
morally correct.

I hate to keep this OT crap going, but I never said that, nor do I
believe it.

On 2/7/2011 2:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 6, 3:20 pm, Peter wrote:

I guess it's possible really anywhere for local authorities to put any
kind of restrictions on cycling.

Not anywhere. Ohio recently enacted laws prohibiting local
authorities from enforcing bicycling laws that fundamentally violate
Ohio traffic law. This happened after one cycling advocate pointed
out the existence of laws in certain communities that (for example)
required cyclists to dismount and walk across all intersections (!),
prohibited cyclists from using quite ordinary roads, required sidewalk
riding, and other silliness.

That sounds like a very positive development. Here in MA, local laws can
be challenged, but that probably requires more resources than can
usually be raised. Fortunately, odd local restrictions are pretty rare
in this state.


For many decades now, the US has followed a transportation policy that
has favored/subsidized motor vehicle traffic. Traffic engineers have
been more concerned with delays than anything else, and road designs and
policing policy has reflected that priority. This creates a sense of
moral high ground on the part of motorists when encountering slower
traffic. That in turn generates a certain amount of self-righteous
intolerance.

I agree that we need to remove motorists' sense of entitlement. But I
don't think it's caused entirely by transportation policies; I think
it goes both ways - that transportation policies evolved to confirm a
sense of entitlement among the early (elite) motorists. For example,
I read about a wealthy British motorist in the 1920s or 1930s who
referred to cyclists as "road lice." I imagine that someone riding in
a coach and four in 1800 would feel that the lowly peasants should
scatter when he sped through. Both policies and attitudes need to
change.

Motoring was promoted politically via some pretty powerful industries.
Post WWII, the exodus from the cities to the suburbs created the
desperate climate for "urban renewal", much of which involved making
cities much more accommodating to motor traffic. It wasn't until the
70's that the tide turned and people started resisting those changes. We
just spent billions restoring a small part of Boston.

Comparatively speaking, there's just no money (profit) in bikes. What
there is, really only in cities, is the opportunity to significantly
reduce costs -- it's a cheap way to move people, even with some
investment in facilities.


I think a good part of the disagreement in this NG is people
misunderstanding or not appreciating the local context. What seems fair
and pragmatic on the streets of Boston may not be so in a hamlet in
Ohio, or among the hog farms of Iowa.

Please keep in mind the particular "hamlet in Ohio" I write from is
part of a metro area with a population of over half a million. And a
lot of the points I make regarding bike facilities are based on
principles built into the Uniform Vehicle Code and standard traffic
interactions - that is, design principles and physics that don't vary
much from town to town.

It's not so much the absolute population size that makes one place so
different from another as population density.

Peter Cole wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Please keep in mind the particular "hamlet in Ohio" I write from is
part of a metro area with a population of over half a million. *And a
lot of the points I make regarding bike facilities are based on
principles built into the Uniform Vehicle Code and standard traffic
interactions - that is, design principles and physics that don't vary
much from town to town.

It's not so much the absolute population size that makes one place so
different from another as population density.

There is also the difference between a pre-motoring grid (or pre-
industrial irregular mesh) layout, and a post-WWII dendritic layout
where alternate routes have been eradicated by design. That is less a
function of density and more a function of age. It makes a huge
difference in the relationship between motor and non-motor traffic, as
you know but as some others are slow to acknowledge.

Chalo

On Feb 8, 1:58*pm, Chalo wrote:
Peter Cole wrote:

It's not so much the absolute population size that makes one place so
different from another as population density.

There is also the difference between a pre-motoring grid (or pre-
industrial irregular mesh) layout, and a post-WWII dendritic layout
where alternate routes have been eradicated by design. *That is less a
function of density and more a function of age. *It makes a huge
difference in the relationship between motor and non-motor traffic, as
you know but as some others are slow to acknowledge.

I think the grid vs. dendritic layout may be more important (and I
like the word dendritic to describe that). For one thing, this metro
area is, rather famously, losing population. The density is way down,
particularly in the older areas, but the cycling is great because of
the grid layout. In that context, reduced density actually helps.

As it happens, I live right on the border between grid and dendritic.
Fortunately, I don't have to deal with much of the latter before I'm
out of town, at least in two directions.

BTW, in addition to "grid" and "dendritic" I'd like another word for
describing Pittsburgh. Something that conveys a dense, intensely
confusing tangle of streets with few right angles and super-steep
hills in every direction. Old, dense, and damned hard to ride a bike
in! Pittsburgh cyclists have my admiration.

- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 8, 2:16 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


BTW, in addition to "grid" and "dendritic" I'd like another word for
describing Pittsburgh. Something that conveys a dense...

Rich?

... intensely...

Passionate?

... confusing...

Easily confused, are you?

... tangle of streets...

Lot's of route alternatives?

... with few right angles...

Right angles are boring.

... and super-steep
hills in every direction. Old, dense, and damned hard to ride a bike
in! Pittsburgh cyclists have my admiration.


How about "Whjee!"

(Seriously, I thought you were uber-competent ;-)

On 2/7/2011 10:53 PM, James Steward wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 2/7/2011 9:49 PM, James Steward wrote:
Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:

Most states (in the US) require 6-mm or greater bullets for deer
hunting.

That sounds sensible.

This may be a slight overkill:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ac-130-spectre-44.jpg.


A .338 Win. Mag. would be overkill on your pronghorn. What you suggest
would be silly.

So use the 40-mm Bofors cannon instead of the 105-mm howitzer on the
pronghorn?

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.