Since I am recovering from recent heart surgery, I thought it would be a treat to subscribe to the outdoor channels on my cable. I won't be able to shoot a rifle well into the current season and I was hoping to see some exciting hunts to keep me going. NOT! Many of the hunts are over baits or planted baits and accomplished from the comfort of enclosed stands. What I don't understand is why those "hunters" even bother to wear camo.
This fall when the hunters bring me their deer, I promise to listen to all those long-winded stories of their FAIR CHASE hunts. No bait here in NY
Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu
Jerry, the only shows that are really worth watching on the Outdoor Channel are Primos, the Drury Bros. Dream Season and Jim Shockey. Knight and Hale and American Archer also have some good fair chase hunts.
If you want to really get sickened try watching shows like Outdoor Moments, Babe Winkelman, American Hunter and Keith Warren. Talk about canned garbage!
...it's their sponsor!
Jerry, you should be ashamed of using it. With hunting under ever increasing pressures and the numbers of hunters dwindling, I find it sanctimonious at best, condescending at worst for any "hunter" to pass judgments against another using LEGAL and ACCEPTED METHODS. Get over it. YOU hunt over bait and don't split hairs and try to tell me you don't. Hunting an oak thicket? edge of a corn or soybean field?, travel route to an alfalfa field? persimmon tree, apple orchard? Your buddies whose cause you've now taken to as heros for the "fair chase", don't they use stands? How about the drives that are so common across the northern tier? Or maybe just one of the lucky souls who stood in a sea of other "pumpkins" and had the good fortune to have had a deer spooked towards them? Or you could do like the Lovestein clan and have a thousand cameras set out so you can "pattern" your deer to know that exact minute it takes a crap by a certain fencepost. Some of us CHOOSE to hunt from stands while others are physically unable to get around the woods as we could when we were like you: full of piss and vinegar. As I've said before, when I finally meet the hunter who runs his deer down in his bare feet and chokes the deer to death with his bare hands, I'll start believing there is such a thing as a "fair chase". Until then, it's just another misguided term that alienates one group of us hunters from another. That's the LAST thing we need today from you or from anyone else who claims to be a hunter.
To use a rifle and scope, or shotgun with a riffled barrel with sabot slugs and scope, that's no contest. Archery is so hi-tech to day that it's only fair to an animal if the hunter doesn't practice shooting. That's fair chase? The Drury brothers make me sick on how they brag about how they only hunt Fair Chase. Yet they grow their own deer and force feed them on their multi acre ranch. You never see them hunting you're State Game Area do you. They manufacture their hunts; it's their business. Why don't they use Traditional Archery if they want to call it fair chase?
I'm glad there are both kinds of shows available to watch.
What do you call "Fair chase"? You didn't mention where"YOU" draw the line in your post. Remember, these are shows that were filmed in the out-of-doors in as close to reality as possible. Have you ever taken a movie camera or camcorder out in the woods and tried to capture even a five minute segment that would represent an actual hunt with the chase, the stalk and the kill? That camera crew probably spent two weeks filming under optimum conditions so you can enjoy a thirty minute hunting show as you recouperate.Going to these ranches to hunt on is pretty much the only way to get these shows on film.Imagine trying to film a segment where other hunters are always walking in on the action and spooking the game.You could never get enough action on film to put a show together.So don't go "fair chasing" these people too badly, 'cause if thats the only type of shows you want to see, you better get used to Desperate Housewives.
Hope you get better.....JL
If you need a few laughs while you are on the mend see if you can
find a couple video's by T.K. & Mike. Those two are funny. They remind
me of the hunters I see up here in the adirondacks. Get well soon.
Heck with TK and Mike it is still not fair chase because the DEER have WAY TOO MUCH ADVANTAGE. But they sure will give you plenty of laughs.
One of that duo died of cancer almost 5 years back I think. All the tapes are old ones, I fear.
Ive been running them down with a knife, barefooted for years, its really the only challenging way to hunt. Espicially elk! I think they should start selling Barefoot tags.
I never implied that I haven't driven deer in the past, or hunted an apple orchard. The point I was trying to make is that setting out piles of buckobran or some other bait doesn't seem to me to be exciting. Several years ago I experienced a bad heart attack which ended my "piss and vinegar" days as George so aptly put it. Here in the Adirondacks, one must still-hunt mountainous regions most of the time to see any deer. The mountains are just too vast to support concentrations of deer, so an all-day stalk might only produce tracks or a nice long walk in the woods. Now that I can't hunt the mountains any longer, I have resorted to stand hunting, but only on likely trails, not over bait of any kind. If there is an apple tree around, this is a natural occurance, not vitamin=enhanced and spread around in front of my stand. I'm sorry if several of you,George included, don't agree with me. I will be "fair-chasing" it as soon as I can get around, since this is the first year for my FREE hunting license.
The older we hunters get the more we are willing to over look.
The older I get, the better I was.
...do NOT see eye to eye on. I too see a difference between drawing a deer to a 5 gallon bucket of apples planted everyday as opposed to hunting field edges, etc.
Rather than get into another LONG debate over the subject all I will say is everybody's definition of "fair chase" is different. I now hunt some private property in SW Wisconsin. And now I will be set up with a scope. Which will probably put a few more percentage points on my side as far as success goes. Harvesting a deer should not be a problem. Harvesting a quality buck will still be challenging in the terrain we have to deal with.
Years ago (when I had all that piss and vinegar George speaks about), I use to hunt public land here in Illinois. There were several years I went w/o seeing a deer the whole shotgun season. It certainly was much more challenging to take a deer let alone a quality buck. It takes a lot more skill to consistently take big bucks on public land than it does on private land, and a little luck doesn't hurt either! But, I too am getting too old to go that route again. The way I look at things now is I'm doing the herd good by helping keep it in balance. The "fair chase" is still in the deer's favor I believe, but the odds are better for me now. I won't do the bucket route if I could (illegal thank you!) Because that is where I draw the line. But, that's just MY line. Everybody's line is different and if they're legal that's their choice. You did the right thing by switching the channel...
Marty, do you truthfully think that the only reason you see deer at a bait pile is because that single bait pile is the ONLY FOOD AVAILABLE IN THE AREA. I hate to break your bubble, but deer only stay in areas where there's food. A bait pile is but a diversion. And you're still sanctimonious about your interpretation of "bait". It's OK to hunt the edge of a corn field, but not plant a food plot in the woods? EXCUSE ME? Then maybe the farmer shouldn't be allowed to grow corn where deer are present. Does that sound stupid enough? All it takes is replacing a few nouns and verbs and you're right back to your statement. What part of "there is no such thing as fair chase" can't you comprehend? It's just a gimmick to look down your nose at others with. BOTH OF YOU, hunt big woods areas. Wanna hunt the cactus of the southwest for awhile? How about the swamps of South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia where only a good pack of dogs can run deer from their bedding areas to where hunters can shoot them? Ever hunt the palmetto swamps of Florida? It all comes back to what I said before: YOUR ideas are the only ones that aren't cheating. It's do it my way or you're unethical. (Stop me when I tell a lie, now.) And by passing that kind of judgment on your fellow hunters, you've sided with PeTA and HSUS. (And you both know that those groups frequent this site.) You can't have it both ways. And if your state doesn't allow baiting, so be it. Salve your souls by justifying hunting over "natural, un-enriched food sources" instead. If they do allow it and you don't like it, DON'T DO IT. But remember opinions about LEGAL and PRACTICED METHODS are just the ammunition the anti's use when they want to eliminate hunting bears over bait. "We have hundreds of hunters who agree with our contentions" they spout. Well, they're talking about YOU! (Marty, wasn't it you who's so adamantly opposed to dove hunting?) I don't fox hunt or coon hunt, but if thats the enjoyment of someone who can legally do it, so be it. Personally, I'd like to see open season on any cat that wasn't on a leash, but no one thinks that's OK except some great people in Wisconsin.
I do not see the difference. You will have to excuse my simplistic attitude but I just can't see it. Some profess to be fare chase hunters. Yet they take up a stand on a well defined trail between a bedding area, and a field some farmer has planted with soy, or alfalfa. They condemn others, or feel the practice of caring a bucket of corn, or apples out to a station near their stand to be unethical, or at least unsavory. as I see it the guy calling himself a fair chase hunter is in all actuality a lazy hunter. Why you ask? Because he does not even put forth the effort to put out his own bait. But rather uses the bait put forth through the efforts of others. having a bait pile Only slightly increases ones odds of taking a deer. To do so one is hoping to entice a deer to chance its routine in such a manner as to come to a designated area. during daylight hours. it works fair for young dear. and even some mature doe. but a real quality buck is not that easy to fool. the shows that utilize this feeding technique. are in places where the deer population is so High that supplemental feeding is necessary. and truth be known the hunter would have just as high a success ratio without the bait.
Under normal circumstances taking a stand along natural deer travel routes is more effective than is that of baiting. Personally I bait for nearly every Tom, Dick, and Harry that hunts within 5 miles of my house. I have 700 acres of farm land. Every field that has a wooded southern end. has the 30 feet north of the woods planted in Chufa, chicory, biologic, or some type of deer/Turkey attractant. That 30 feet is useless for crops, so I feed the wildlife that helps pay my bills. My neighbors hunt around these fields. and when they kill a gooden. guess who gets the work!
But still a hotly debated one! Of course theres no difference between baiting and "natural" baiting, except ones conscience. We ALL know that, some just cant say so, lol.
Even the law sees some sort of difference, because the law sees fit ti babysit us all, and define what we think and do. Thats too bad.
Whether your local hunt club pays a farmer to leave some crop behind, or landowners and lease members plant plots, or whether we go and prune old apple orchards, its the same result. In fact, anyone who really knows deer figured out a long time ago that a farm field or orchard attracts a helluva lot more deer than a bag of anything you can buy at a store.
Jerry, I know the type of hunting you guys do up there in the 'dacks, and I dont envy you, thats tough hunting. Especially when the beechnuts fail...ahem. Regardless of our different views of baits, etc, I hope the old ticker ticks strong and gets you back out there whichever way you wanna do it. Just do it! Good luck.
The point George is making is a very logical one. The animal rights activists stand united aginst us while we bicker and vote against one another...A camp divided so to speak.
We are all individuals, a fact Im grateful for. Personaly I still hunt with a recurve bow and shoot instinctivly, something I consider challenging, but I never the less hunt where the deer are...Food.
Some days I hunt from a portable stand other times I stalk for them. I havent taken a buck with the bow in 3 seasons. During firearms I use a muzzle loader, In my mind when my shooting opportunities are limited I make my shots count. Ive really noticed this squirrel hunting, when I take my old Ithica 16 (it holds 5 shells) I miss more than when I use the old single shot 12, Im damned near perfect with it.
"Baiting is illegal here in Indiana, and I doubt I would hunt over bait if it were legal, but thats just the way I choose to hunt.
My point is challenge yourself if thats the way you want to hunt but we, as hunters on the whole really need to stick together.
The NRA does not support fully automatic assult weapons because they are blind to terrorism and other illegal uses of such weapons, they fight to keep them legal because they understand the big picture. Give an inch to the anti's and they will take a mile, and as hunters and sportsmen we absolutely MUST STAND TOGETHER.
If hunting over bait is not for you then dont do it.
The only thing I really take issue with is this new thing Im hearing about where you shoot a deer with you mouse from the comfort of your computer desk. But, if its legal then I will not voice an opinion against it.
As for good hunting shows, I like Tred Barta. Now there is a guy who likes a challenge and he knows how to laugh at himself too. He can be seen on OLN Friday nights.
Some people like to use every advantage they can get.
And a very few of us are true hunters.
We scout and find natural food sources, it is not always an easy task to find a good stand location around a natural feeding area, and when you do find that premo stand site, there is no guarantee that it will produce every season.
We don't need the latest gadget or the worlds fastest crossbow or magnum rifle to put meat in the freezer.Yes, I use a 12 year old compound but if I was limited to a recurve , longbow , or just a sharp stick, rest assured in a few seasons time I would be one of the deadliest humans on the planet with that tool.
YES, I DO NEED A TOOL TO KILL. GOD DID NOT EQUIP ME WITH SHARP CLAWS AND POWERFULL JAWS TO KILL.
HE DID GIVE ME THUMBS AND A LARGE BRAIN SO I COULD INVENT TOOLS TO USE IN THEIR PLACE.
I am not opposed to food plots, high-tech bows, super acurate rifles, treestands, etc.
I do have a problem with the big beerbellied slob with his butt crack showing backing the Co-Op truck down in the woods 20 yards off the four wheeler trail and dumping 500 pounds of corn on the ground under his 30 foot high shooting house, then sittin there with a crossbow (not because he CAN'T draw a REAL bow but because he is too damn lazy to) and killing his limit of spikes and 4 points.
I have a problem with those type deer killers being lumped into the same bunch of guys that actually put the time in and develop the SKILLS that are required to truly HUNT an animal and cleanly,and efficiently kill it.
I have never tresspassed to kill a deer
I have never spotlighted a deer
I have never shot a deer from a vehicle of any kind or from a public road
I have never killed a deer over a pile of corn or other type of "bucket bait" ( It is illegal in my state)
I am NOT saying that you are morally or ethiclly wrong for choosing to hunt with the above methods.
I am saying that you are not the same calibre "hunter" as someone who chooses to pursue a beast on a more level playing field
I still don't think you grasp that your comments are more of the same "hunter against hunter" mentality. You last sentence contradicts all you implied above it. If a hunter doesn't live up to the standards you've set for yourself, he's not as good as you.
Most of us probably feel that way, but in a public forum, you aren't BSing with your buddies around a campfire. We have wolves feeding on our weak here.
...it would be illogical for him to make an illogical point - logically speaking!
George, your definition and my definition of "fair chase" are obviously different. If it makes you feel better about plugging that deer besides that pile of apples you've been placing out there for weeks then go ahead and justify it (IN YOUR MIND) by saying it's the same as plugging a deer on the edge of a 500 acre field. Sorry, you're wrong! There's a huge difference!
Personally, I've never had the luxury of hunting in any fields or edges of food plots. Traditionally, I've hunted escape routes and mostly on public land. I've said this before, if you really want to push the definition of "fair chase", come on down to Illinois here and try hunting public land. It's quite a bit different than paying some guide up in Saskatchewan to put you on deer in a nice comfy blind. Personally, I've never been able to comprehend the challenge in letting somebody else find my deer for me. Pull the trigger and smile for the camera!
Now, toss in the FACT that baiting helps spread disease. (And do NOT try to say that it does not. Although there is no specific data that can PROVE this, the statistics point to it as being probable) It is COMMON SENSE that when you concentrate animals together there is potential to spread disease much quicker.
"Hunter against hunter" mentality? This is one issue where hunters are pretty much split on. Personally, I could care less if the anti's DID use me against the pro-baiters to get it banned in all states. It's stupid stuff like this that gives these organizations ammunition!
Tenbears - supplemental feeding is NOT necessary. Nature and hunting will balance the herd. Also, see above comment on how it intensifies the spread of disease.
And Bill, puuuullleeeassse! Again, you can justify the difference in your mind if you wish. But, let's face it, you have a vested interest in being politically correct on this one. How many of your clients do the "buy a buck program" via guide services? And how many use concentrated bait to attract those deer?
Stating that something is "legal" doesn't necessarily mean it's RIGHT either! Geeeesh, SLAVERY was legal at one point in this country!
Now the only reason I've fired back is because you all OBVIOUSLY missed the statement I said SEVERAL TIMES in my above post: "Everybody's line is different and if they're legal that's their choice". That statement is PRETTY CLEAR that I don't really care what others do as long as they're legal. (Well, at least I've realized that there's NOTHING I can do about it). But if you guys are going to spewl out your opinions on the subject, then I'm going to regergitate my opinions as well.
And, no George it wasn't me, I am all for dove hunting. I've never shy'd away from hunting an animal just because they're purdy or it's not politically correct. (MY definition of) "Fair chase" on the otherhand IS a reason why I shy away from some aspects of hunting. You know where my line is drawn. You may not agree with it and that's your choice but don't pull me into the "we hunters must stick together" crappola argument. It just doesn't float with me. I see stuff like this as ammunition for the antis regardless of what my stance is on it. I'm not jumping off a building just because everybody else is...
Posturing, That is what it all boils down to. Propagation, perpetuation of ones own gene pool. MALES! It makes no difference the species. they all like the whitetail, have an inbred instinct to try to make themselves leek superior in comparison to others of the species. Natural selection will then cause the best females to desire them in which to mate. we have the baiters and the non baiters. The baiters believe the non baiters are lazy. Look ladies lazy hunters can't carry full buckets. wile the non baiters portray the baiters as having less skill.
It is an endless rivalry between every man on the planet. They cannot help themselves. it is a primal need for them to drag home a carcass to lay at our feet. So we will know what good providers they are, we will be reminded of what a bargain we got. The truth be known guys. Us gals prefer you were not successful. That way we won't have to listen to the story over and over again every time you come in contact with someone who has ears. But we love you anyhow.
The main reason we have so many problems out of the antis is our image as a group is being desicrated by the slob hunters and poachers that call themselves sportsmen.
Someone who doesn't know anything about hunting thinks we are all the same.
We need to be more worried about changing what information is given to the non-hunting public.
FOR EXAMPLE highschool textbooks will read something like this...
The black rhino's numbers have been dwindling at an alarming rate, if the programs in effect to help their numbers don't get the support from the government ,they will all be gone in a few short years. The main cause for the declining population of the rhino is hunting.
WHAT THE? HUNTING? We all know that HUNTERS are not killing black rhinos , POACHERS ARE.
The non-hunting public doesn't know the difference, so when one of them is touched by the despair of the rhino,s situation and the books and what they see on the animal planet all tells them it's the hunters fault, they join PETA in one big ignorance orgy against HUNTERS. ---Not against POACHERS ,the real problem---
Then they meet one or two redneck slob hunters, and it just seals the deal on their opinion of hunting.
As usual, you folks all raise valid points about the issues that divide our pasttime. My main gripe is this; whenever I sit down to one of these show, two things become apparent, 1 is this, we are treated to approximately 8 minutes of footage compared to 22 minutes of advertising for each 30 minute segment. Some shows are worse than others in this regard, you know which ones they are. Secondly, we have the "star" of these shows frequently shooting inferior specimens just for the sake of having a kill for the show. If this isn't bad enough, they then show almost no attention or respect or reverence for the animal. Again, some hosts are worse than others in this regard. Also, I don't appreciate having my intelligence insulted when some "sport" tries to tell us that his little 14-inch 8-pt really scores 145!
"Fair chase" is just a buzzword (Tina, I loved your description and I agree with it.) It's a contrived word carried by PC yuppies to look down their noses at others. It fits right up there with "gay" instead of "homosexual", "coke" instead of cocaine, "grass" for "marijuanna". Innocent words with contrived meanings applied to them to castigate their original intend. Baiting is legal here in Delaware and with increasing regularity, more and more states. But I hunt over bait just like you do. I don't carry the corn or the bucket of apples when I can set on the orchard or the corn field. Makes no sense to me, HOWEVER, I'm not condescending to my fellow hunters as you are. It's hard to believe a person with a modicum of intelligence can split the hairs that you insist on splitting. YOU DO HUNT OVER BAIT, and trying to reconcile it the way you are only makes your points look more ridiculous. For every conceivable argument for the use of "fair chase", I can find a glaring exception. It's a term that never should have begun and it certainly needs to be eliminated. And I can see you're doing your part to help the anti's as much as you can and then you'll be the one crying about how we've lost our enjoyment.
I also see that "poaching" term in here as "ruining hunters". I teach hunter ed and one of the first things I tell people is they should NEVER allow that in a conversation. A poacher is a hunter the same way a drunken driver is to you and me in the family car. Don't allow anyone to interject that poachers are, in any way, related to hunters. They are criminals who are stealing from all of us and if you want to say that a thief is part of your family, I want to hear about it.
Most men won't agree with this, but in my teaching, I've found that women make far better hunters and outdoorsmen that men consistently. They listen to reason and pay attention to detail. Men assume just by carrying balls that they have an inherent ability to not get lost or do stupid things in the woods. Woman seldom if ever do. They act on logic and reasoning where men need to "prove something".
...the definition of baiting. In a nutshell "normal agricultural practices" does not constitute baiting. Even by YOUR definition, I PERSONALLY don't hunt over or near crops! And I'll bet my life that most hunters out there if you asked the definition of "baiting" they would NOT say anything about hunting over or adjacent to crops. "Baiting" to most people is the bucket definition I posted! Now, I'll bet the "bucket people" might try to include crops in their definition to help them sleep better at night. But I am not one of those "bucket people". And I actually take offense to that (as you probably can tell - lol!) Besides George, now you're splitting hairs!
I fully unberstood your point George, I just don't agree with it. And the only reason some states are starting to allow baiting is NOT because of ethics, it's to help trim the herd! Throw in the FACT that most Americans are heavier (and lazier) than they've EVER been and one could see HOW some states might be changng the rules.
And another thing, this whole "we need to stick together to fight the anti's" thing is such a CROCK! Think about it. Other than minor issues, what have the anti's accomplished over their lifetime of existence to harm our sport? I can answer that - very, very little. "Anti's" are but a mosquito on our behinds. The REAL problem that will be the demise of hunting is loss of habitat. Not only from a development standpoint but also loss of habitat via Outfitters and the rich buying up the land so that only the rich will be able to hunt. I don't necessarily blame the outfitters because they're just trying to make a buck. But it IS a huge problem that will only get worse. Where can somebody hunt unless they have a relative or a friend that has access to land? Nowhere. Even public land - the prime locations are very hard to get into.
But I digress. Let's just agree to disagree on this one. And PLEASE don't say I hunt over bait. Even if you believe that, just humor me...
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Edition.
bait n., (1) FOOD or lure used in taking fish,birds or animals (2)Any enticement or temptation (6) To feed an animal on a journey (Origin: Old Norse "beita, to hunt in a pasture.)
Now I didn't see a thing about "normal agricultural practices" in that definition but I DID see where the word originated and what one of its meanings is. I'll make a deal with YOU now. You stop trying to badmouth people who hunt over buckets and I'll stop telling people you hunt over BAIT.
I pulled my definition from a source that is much closer to the application and NOT a GENERAL definition taken out of context. And that would be from most any DNR website pertaining to deer baiting. Specifically, the Wisconsin DNR website. (I tried cutting and pasting the verbage but it's a photo and it doesn't work). Don't know the URL off the top of my head but I'm sure you can find it if you wish to call me on it.
I won't TRY to bad mouth people who bait, I WILL! And AGAIN, I DON"T HUNT OVER OR NEAR CROPS EITHER! So my situation DOESN"T even apply to your warped definition of baiting!
"To hunt in a pasture" - BOY we're REALLY reaching now aren't we George? Where's the BAIT in a pasture? You SURE will go to whatever lengths to ATTEMPT to win an argument - lol!
Now I copied that right out of the dictionary and gave you the gap between individual definitions and you STILL argue. Sure sounds a lot like Cecil.
AND YES YOU DO HUNT OVER BAIT. I guess acorns, beechnuts,and south facing grass patches aren't "crops" by YOUR definition. If it waddles and quacks, it's a duck. Calling yourself a seagull when you're an ostrich may work for you, but you're still an ostrich.
First off, you evidently do not know me! I have more people dislike me then like me for the simple reason that I DO say it just as I THINK, not what others wanna hear. How you glean that from what I posted is reminiscent of Cecil posts. First of all, I know damn well that most of the guys like you dont do enough hunting to even know, or youd never make such silly claims. I know so many guys who "dont bait" but have a pile of apples in their woods, or a pile of corn, whatever. And you know what? They never get a decent buck off it anyway. Not even a hundred yards downwind of it. Know why? Because baiting just isnt that easy, and no guarantee, thats why. But guys still despise it, not even knowing. Yet theyll hunt near that apple tree, or oaks, or any other "natural" situation that gives them any kind of advantage. Any natural situation that you take advantage of is the same as creating it. Show me a guy thats so against baiting that he would avoid that apple tree, clover plot or oak ridge, THEN I might believe hes a purist. This isnt about me attempting to justify my stance, and Ill tell you why. I dont bait either. Obviously I know its not that effective in most locales. But I know why you think Im trying to justify it. My opinion intimidates your definiton of fair chase. Heck, I dont give a crap about how folks define fair chase. The more I think about that, the more I find that concept comical.
So, the purist bowhunter spends all summer planting food plots, altering fencerows for "natural" crossings, cutting shooting lanes, paying the farmer to leave the first ten rows of corn standing, rakes the leaves and twigs from his pathway to his stand, makes mock scrapes, freshens these scrapes daily with bottled lure, drags a scent drag in behind him on opening day, squirts every kind of pi$$ out around the perimeter of his stand, blows some freeze dried scent powder into the wind... and turns his nose up at the thought that his neighbor has a pile of corn 50 yards from his stand. Unbelievable!