Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.


we are 'the leading edge' I Share on HSO
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PurpleFloyd last won the day on March 29

PurpleFloyd had the most liked content!

About PurpleFloyd

  • Rank
    HSO Legacy Member
  • Birthday 12/12/1966

Profile Information

  • Location:
    In a fish bowl.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,298 profile views
  1. Steel Roofing on the House

    One other thing. It's best to tear the old roofing off of course before installing anything so you can inspect the roof decking and repair any damaged areas, plus it takes weight off the house. But whether you remove the old roofing or not, make sure you put a protective layer of felt, insulation or something to protect the bottom side of steel from abrasion that could scratch the protective pait and expose bare metal because that can cause rust to form from the underside and shorten the life of the roof. Although it is more expensive I would use ice and water shield on the whole roof. If you do get a screw that leaks this will help prevent water damage and because of it's adhesive, you don't need nails or Staples to hold it down that might scratch the pain off the bottom side of the steel.
  2. Steel Roofing on the House

    I've done a few roofs with ribbed steel over the years. When this house needs a new roof it will get it as well. In some cities it won't meet local codes or covenants but if you aren't in that situation I wouldn't hesitate.
  3. Sra or Independent Suspension

    Having owned both the one positive I can say about Polaris is that the sportsman that I owned was the smoothest riding quad I ever had. Much better that the straight axle Yamahas and Kawasaki's. Of course that ride came at the expense of the reliability they others had at the time. You also generally lose some load or towing capacity with irs if you do any heavy hauling or towing.
  4. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    That's an important point. For me the key is to give hunters the option to harvest a deer if they choose and if the population allows. I don't feel one should be forced to pass on an otherwise legal deer if that may be their only opportunity considering they are purchasing a license to harvest. Now, if an area has so many deer and if the season is long enough that you stand a decent chance of taking a specific deer then site,standards may be worth looking at if that's what they choose to do. But if you look at human nature it seems a pipe dream to think you will ever be able to have a herd on public land that will meet the standards annually that some are looking for. For one thing it's a supply and demand situation. Anyone knows that when you get word out of bigger bucks in an area you immediately get a surge in hunters in that area. It's the same way with fish. A lake gets a good class of fish and suddenly the lake s overrun with boats and it gets fished out. That is human nature. Generally speaking when you get bigger deer,human nature turns people greedy and they act differently than they do otherwise and that spoils the experience. Sad as that is.
  5. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    Correct. Can we agree that the state is diverse and it's not in anyone's best interest to try and pass statewide legislation for any group? It seems to me we should put aside anything that deals with how we hunt and focus on providing the best possible habitat for the deer and understanding how the population and patterns deer follow change from region to region and focus on solving problems by area and not statewide.
  6. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    Lol. So did the OP want opinions or to only hear support for one opinion? I was under the impression this country was founded by people who wanted vigorous debate and every opinion heard. It's pretty telling that you pick up your toys and go home when someone doesn't agree lock step with your ideals. And not one person is asking you to change how you hunt, they are merely asking you to not try to regulate how we do as long as we are following the law. I expect these tactics from the liberals who are marching all over to remove our rights through regulation. It's sad when we are having it done by fellow hunters.
  7. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    But there would be more and bigger deer walking around. Probably better age structure too.
  8. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    Well, first off if you are talking public lands it's tough to restrict how people legally harvest game because it's public. And you are right,it's hard to compel farmers to give up income that they rely on just so someone can hunt something. My guess is if you are willing to invest your own dollars into your own personal place to hunt you can manage it more to your liking. It would be good. The other option is to do what other states have done and that is having fewer people own larger tracts of land that they manage privately and you,as a consumer,can pay for the level of hunting you want. Texas has this where you pay based on the size of the deer. I suppose Minnesota could do this as well. Charge hunters per point on public land or something like that. I think we should just move every season to a one week period around Thanksgiving. Archery,rifle, muzzleloader etc. Out of the rut and everyone on the same even playing field as far as time goes. Reducing the time they are pressured will help the herd. Nobody should need any longer than that to hunt. Most of my life we only had two days to get our deer.
  9. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    I like sustainability as well. We party hunting and while that is a dirty word to many of the solitary hunters it's what we do. We never deplete the deer in our area and it's rare for us to fill even half our tags. Nobody gets more tags than one in our area. I did actually make a solid proposal- habitat. But nobody took a moment to even touch that one. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the southern part of the state but here is very little habitat outside of the southeast region. You just can't maintain the numbers to hold the numbers of deer that you need to get to where everyone who wants to harvest a deer can do so. There was one specific post calling for an end to party hunting. Habitat, habitat, habitat. We should be focusing on improving habitat, bringing youth into the lifestyle and providing a positive public image to ensure future generations can enjoy hunting as well.
  10. What the?

    Because they are woodpeckers? Just a guess.
  11. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    So hunters are already in decline and a small group of special interest hunters want everyone to conform to their version of Utopia which includes fewer hunters yet and more regulation. I don't see how that fixes things.
  12. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    I lived in northern Wisconsin for some years. We have land up there where my wife grew up. In the 80's and 90's in that area you could harvest something like 6 deer a year and they had a stable population until they introduced wolves. Actually the numbers are still high but they limit the number of deer you can take from how it was then. Wisconsin from bottom to top has better habitat than much of Minnesota. South of 94 it gets pretty barren and with the southern part of the state tilled for crops and with all the groves,fences and tree lines removed it just cannot support enough of a population to make it feasible to do the whole age structure,herd building thing. But I do know one thing. If you want to protect deer, plant a cornfield in every section and don't harvest until after the season and don't hunt it.
  13. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    Well, I would argue you can't elevate age structure if you shoot all the old ones either. My proposal has worked for the muskie population no? The ONLY way your proposal works is to limit the total number of tags available and hence the total deer harvest. Just a few years ago we had this group pop up on the forums looking to audit the DNR. This was exposed as a scheme to get the DNR to elevate deer numbers so it was easier to push statewide apr. Funny thing is this got passed and suddenly there wasn't a peep from that group about low population after the audit even though nothing changed in the immediate time after the legislation was passed. I find it a bit comical how the most hardcore of those pushing for new expanded regulations for deer hunting are generally the most vocal about wanting to keep government out of our lives in everything else they do.
  14. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    Face it. What you are talking about can only be done through regulation by reducing the numbers of hunters or licenses in the state which means fewer hunters. The APR guys for years told people to stick a doe or two in the freezer instead of a buck because they were ignorant and didn't understand that does drive population and they would have been better off in the long run taking a spike. If you really want to improve age structure then tell everyone to stop shooting the big ones and the age structure will improve overnight. Now,let's cut to the chase- the best thing we can do is focus on habitat development. The more and better the habitat,the better the hunting will be. Focus on that and stop trying to divide the hunters over who can take what and with what. Imagine how the muskie population would look if they took every bug muskie they hooked and left the smaller ones. It would look like the northern population where they do just that. Let the big ones walk to improve the age structure and take a tender,young spike to fill your tag and you will begin to see more deer and bigger deer.
  15. Attn: MN Gun Deer Hunters

    Party hunting is one of the things that biund families together and built life long hunting traditions. Why on Earth would you want to end that and have everyone hunt in isolation? We need more of hunters coming together and sharing experiences and not less. If all you get out of hunting is obsessing over bigger and bigger deer you are missing out on what hunting is all about.