archer36

The episode stressed the importance of removing the "fatty" flesh. That's where the "muddy" flavor is. The guy owns a restaurant so he should know. I guess it's important with bigger fish.

Terrific! An episode of Meateater talked extensively about how to fillet Catfish for the best table fair. Did you see it?

Terrific!!!!!!!!!

Yup. Some guys were ready to do that.

You are going to "give me a pass"???? Who designated you judge and jury???? Who gives a CHIT. I won't sleep better because YOU give me a pass.

Let's ALL agree that the term "stalking" is B.S. It's subjective. The only CLEAR case of stalking would be if a guy belly crawled across an open field in broad daylight toward a flock of Turkeys that were fanning and mating. Everything else is SUBJECTIVE. Do it or not at your own risk and judgement. The disturbing thing I get out of this whole discussion is why is there a few fellow hunters so hell bent on maligning another hunter when it's unclear and subjective as to what he did.? Even if it was clear in their own mind but not concrete. No benefit of the doubt and others have expressed a lot of doubt as to the clarity of the regs. It would have been better to PM the fellow hunter and advise him that what he did was questionable and he should modify/clarify his post. That's the DECENT thing to do. Makes me question the motives of some people on here. I have to think about this going forward. Pitiful.

Another guy that Turkey Hunts for purposes of NOT taking or attempting to take the bird. Just does it for exercise.

"the bird was approached for the purpose of taking". WTF? Oh, you approach birds (whether seen or unseen) for WHAT PURPOSE??? Take pictures??? Pet them???? Anytime you walk around in the woods, you can be considered "approaching" by your definition. The ONLY way you would be able to legally hunt by your definition is to pick ONE SPOT, call, and not ever move. Where is that in the regs?????

It was getting quite boring on here. I'm glad I stirred up some good discussion..

You have a very vivid imagination.

You usually cannot move in that close in the early part of the season because there is little foliage on the trees and they can spot you from a great distance. So, if the cover and terrain allows you to get within 60 yds of a roost, that's illegal? Some people can shoot to that distance. Maybe there should be a specific distance stated in the regs. You are making an arbitrary decision that because I was a certain distance, that made it "stalking" That's a little absurd. Everyone attempts to get in to the roost as close as possible. If you encounter another flock of birds while pursuing the first, what then???????

You really getting silly man. What the hell is the difference what you call it??? If you move in on a roost you would be stalking by your understanding.

You are thick man! Mazz ends his post by saying "it's up to a CO or Judge not us" because the definition is too vague and subjective. Why can't you understand that if the stalking reg was strictly enforced, locating and moving toward a roost would be ILLEGAL. That's why it's subjective for the MOST part.

vdep217, read the whole post. It states at the end that 'It's ultimately up to a CO or Judge" to determine it. It's not CONCRETE. Why is it you are so HELL BENT on confirming that I did something illegal????? Why can't you just agree that's it's big grey area?????????

So everyone that locates a roost in the dark and moves in on them is hunting illegally. Case closed????????