FoxPro's new Open Country Caller

[THO Game Calls]

First Stu, it's not on Me.  It's on FoxPro.  They put the garbage out, and they let one of their Field Staff take the heat for it.  Rich put it out there - like a hanging curve ball.  I swung at it and now you want to beat me up for it?  Give me a Break.  It's bogus and it needs to be shown as such.

Or maybe you want that we all should just sit around the camp fire and sing Koom Ba Ya and smoke some weed?

Get mellow with the world man,  Be cool man, Don't worry about it man?

Please - since when did we all start wearing pink camo and holding hands in the woods and taking warm showers together aftetwards?

You're a good guy Stu, but when we can't say nothing about anything, what's the point of having a discussion board?  If all we can say is nice things about Fox Pro why not just rename the place to PM Revisited?

I wouldn't even have made a post if Rich had not said what he did.   And through all of this, the last few pages, not one response from Fox Pro, not one shred of proof that their claims are true, not one retraction of the statements they made trying to scare people into not using the old WT caller.   Maybe we should just leave it out there and let people belive it?  

FoxPro makes a fine caller - I dont like everything about it, but I didn't like everything about the Bandit and I dont like everything about the WT.  It isn't about the caller - it's about the statements made to sell the callers that are misleading at best.

My suggestion to you is, if you do not want to participate in a discussion among men, go somewhere and participate with the sheep.  It wont keep you up at night trying to figure out how to change the world so it will be a better place and we can all get along.  

With that said, based on your post over the last few months, I am just going to ignore you from now on, and maybe you should ignore me too.   You're not really adding anything to the discussion and I am not a hand holder by any means.

Have a nice day Stu and Happy Easter to you and your family.


Hey Snowcamoman

Shoot me an address - I have something you might like I want to send you.





She's white acrylic with a decorative stainless steel band  :)

I think she will fit in your collection -

Al

[The Bandit]

I guess since 90% of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic it would be the perfect place to say Happy Easter to everyone.

[THO Game Calls]

Geez - you just gave me flashbacks of Weasles bunny -

Now I have to go wash.

Al

[The Bandit]

Geez - you just gave me flashbacks of Weasles bunny

Heck I totally forgot about that I wouldn't want to do anything  like him.

[snowcamoman]

THO,
Thanks a ton, that beauty needs a home in the Arctic.
Here's my guess on what might have happened with FCC, only speculation though. Maybe WT paid a fine direct to the IRS and nothing will or can be found about a citation. FCC probably said that the product cannot be sold anymore with that type of remote and whenever possible, try to get or trade old models with that type of remote in and do not re-sell them. End of story, WT is happy, FCC is pacified.

However, there are/were more things going on with that remote that would not keep it in compliance with FCC. The first thing and the one that would keep any customer from knowing what it was he/she has is the lack of a service type with the  FCC ID sticker on the remote. Typically remotes have to list the FCC ID and the type of service. All of my old WT's just have the "LIGHT YEARS AHEAD" sticker with a small FCC ID: NWKAS-2000.
§ 95.194   (FRS Rule 4) FRS units.
(a) You may only use an FCC certified FRS unit. (You can identify an FCC certified FRS unit by the label placed on it by the manufacturer.)

So from there, nobody would even have a clue that the remote they hold is operating as a FRS. If you go to the original FCC Certification for the device:
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=92451&fcc_id='NW6KAS-2000'
Look at the ID label shown there. That's what should be on the remote.
Also look at the photos for that remote in that link. If you compare those to any of the newer/older FRS style remotes, they're not even close to similar. That's a definite violation of FCC regulations, no matter what kind of "loophole" somebody thinks they found. You can't even change the antenna on a FRS radio and stay in compliance. So the item which was used for so long to market, was in reality a non-compliant FCC item. That was a strong selling point that WT used, I guess if I was on the other side of the fence, I'd fight that one too. If I was going to a knife fight and the other guy has a gun, I'd scream bloody murder to make it fair.

Quick funny story:
I was out testing one day and two guys were driving down the road and stopped to check out what I was doing. I showed them all of the callers and then the one guy asked me specifically about the WT remote and why the range was so far. When I told him what the design was based on, his eyes perked up and he said, "That doesn't exactly comply with FCC laws now does it?" I was amazed that the guy said that and after he told me that he works for NOAA on their communication transmitters I realized why. It was comical that out in the middle of nowhere some guy with far more knowledge on FCC and RF devices dropped by.

Anyways,
Dissecting Mike Dillons statement can be broken down like this in my opinion:

The other problem is that anyone using this system could also be subject to the wrath and fury of the FCC, including fines:
This again goes back to the User not knowing what they're using. Technically you're using a FRS radio and fall under Part 95 regulations of FCC, which states:
(b) You are responsible for all communications that you make with the FRS unit. You must share each channel with other users. No channel is available for the private or exclusive use of any user.
So based on that statement from FCC, I would not be complying with the laws and I'm assuming could be issued a citation if it came to a head in court with lawyers. Of course, at that point WT would be brought up on charges as well I would assume since compliance with the FCC ID sticker was omitted. Typically claiming ignorance in court doesn't go very far.


If someone is using this caller, and there is an emergency that someone is trying to get through on the same channel, it will not go through. Are you condoning illegal activity?
-This one just breaks down into simple safety and knowledge. If somebody knows that their caller has what FCC would consider an illegal remote, then their own morals should direct their path. If a customer has no knowledge at all on how that remote works and it's legality, then how in the world would they know that their posessing an illegal product? Whenever I take an old WT remote into the field, guess what else I take? I take an FRS radio hooked up to a ear bud. That way, if there is somebody with an emergency trying to get help on their FRS radio I can hear them on my radio. By using the ear bud, it also keeps the FRS radio from beeping and spooking critters. Only my left ear hears the light beeps as I mash on the buttons.

Statements made to sell callers goes both ways though. WT obviously has some false advertising going on to pump the product.  I mean this chart is a joke and at least if you're going to update your product, update them all and make it legit.
http://wildlifetech.com/pages/advert.htm
-They all use the same RF chips, why would WT be able to be so superior in range anymore?
-Most of the new callers are using digital sounds. How else could I view and edit .wav, Mp3, fxp files? I don't have an analog player in my computer.
-This is the one that really gets me. It's fairly obvious to anybody who has the new e-callers in their hands that there are better remotes around. I'll say it again for those who won't. PUT A LANYARD LOOP ON THAT REMOTE!!!
-Are Animal Sounds Real and Labeled Correctly: WT is about the only company I know of that re-names sounds under different categories. I have a Bobcat Baby and Lynx Baby that are the exact same sound. Does it matter to the animals? No, but to pump a library to make it appear larger isn't exactly honest sales. There are more sounds re-listed, but I won't go into it.

The list goes on with the deception and false claims by WT, but I won't get into it. It's a big industry and keeping on the cutting edge and getting products out that guys want and use only benefits Us. Any company that isn't going to deliver things that the consumer wants is going to lose sales, plain and simple. Imagine if WT made a programmable caller with open source sounds? I'd venture to guess that the sales would probably increase.  I'm not a field staff for anybody, but I'm a heavy user and product tester of e-calls. I use what works for me and even use those that don't just so I have a well rounded opinion on what they can/cannot do. Guys who only think one caller is king of all are still in denial I say. The new FoxPro Mark II sounds on the old Programmable WT sound better than many of the WT sounds, plain and simple. Even at the 16bit, 32kHz format (Non-CD quality), they sound great.

Nice Bunny, does it scream if a Microphone is put by its face????

[The Bandit]

Nice Bunny, does it scream if a Microphone is put by its face????

Only if you find that sweet spot and they all don't have it :shck:

[CCP]

Spent a lot of time trying to get caught up on reading this thread whew a lot of reading.

On the original topic I still go with my original statement.

I have read thread after thread about how they say the FX5 is better than Minaska's  Big Country All In One and now they go and make one just like it. confused

I have used a lot of different callers through the years and have settled on the Minaska All In One. I like the remote better, The built in decoy, The type battery and the built in TOA speaker. One extremely good plus about the speaker is they used a metal one. Before owning the All In One I used the foxpro 416 and then the FX3. I always connected a metal speaker to them and turned off there speakers. I personally like the sound of a metal speaker better than the plastic.

I know Foxpro probably has a chart somewhere saying I am wrong there caller is clearer. Thing is I don't need a chart or computer analysis to tell me if what I am hearing is good or bad. Me and the coyotes will determine that on our own.

Maybe a chart showing what sounds and frequency's run off coyotes with real world in the field data would be better served.

As far as the FCC thing "I don't care" The range of the remote didn't effect the sound or durability of the caller. If there ever was a FCC problem real or imagined so what it appears to have been solved and what effect did it have on the callers ability to call coyotes.

There are a hell of a lot of good callers on the market now days so finding one that fits your type hunting is easer to do now days. I see where guys using the casscreek walmart caller are killing a few coyotes and if it works for them great.

In my limited E-caller experience I have found the All In One to be just the ticket for me.

[THO Game Calls]

Thanks Snowcamoman,

Interesting read on the FCC situation and your take on things with the WT callers.   Not sure I agree with it 100% but interesting take on it anyway.

Al

[Skoal38]

My personal best is being banned and deleted at PM on my first post.  TWICE in two days.  Beat that.

"how long do you think there would be wild places to hunt if they were just opened up to anyone from anywhere to hunt?"  they call it Arizona

[THO Game Calls]

I recieved the following E mail from


bsnarp@yahoo.com

Kinda got your peepee spanked eh big guy??

At least now you know what people really think of jerk offs like you.

Semper Fi. what a discredit to the corps

He did not sign it -   for what ever reason    :roflmao:   :roflmao:   :roflmao:   :roflmao:   :roflmao:   :roflmao:


A casual reading of the Test Report at

https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=15363&native_or_pdf=pdf

shows that while Snowcamomans's thoughts on the subject are interesting, and present a good threory, they are contrary to the facts.

No disrespect intended Snowcamoman.

The test report shows that the FCC KNEW up front what the remote consisted of, knew up front what the reciever consited of, what it's intened use was, and still certified the remote.

With that in mind, it appears that my Pee Pee did not get spanked. Though I am sure bsnarp@yahoo.com is probably into that kind of thing.   

Kiss Kiss sweat heart   :roflmao:    :roflmao:    :roflmao:    :roflmao:    :roflmao:    :roflmao:   


Al - not afraid to sing his name or take a position like SOME poeple we know    :roflmao:   :roflmao:   :roflmao:   :roflmao:    :roflmao:    :roflmao:    :roflmao:    :roflmao:   :roflmao:   :roflmao:

[FinsnFur]

Look at the IP in the internet header of the e-mail, lets see who it is.

[snowcamoman]

Yeah, let's see whose sneak attacking you THO.

I agree that FCC did certify that old WT remote and it was certified to operate "lights". Whatever lights it controls are beyond me, but they did certify it and that's that.

That would all be find and dandy IF that remote was the model that was sold the entire time. Different models were sold with different boards, which is a direct violation of FCC. That's a tough one to argue, I'd love to hear the argument for it though. I can post all of the photos of my WT remotes if that helps.

I wonder who the Pee Pee spanker is????

[THO Game Calls]

Well, with out going into too many specifics, he has a 417 area code and lives in Springfield MO.

Now who do we know that has a 417 area code and lives in Springfield MO.  Hmmmmmmm.  I wonder   :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:




Snowcamoman,

If Bill was selling different remotes with the callers, and not getting each one recertified, then shame on him big time.

If you want, I can run over and kick his ass for ya.     

And if you want one of the new ones, not a problem either.  I'm sure we could work something out and get one to you.

Al

[snowcamoman]

THO Al,
I'm telling the truth about the various remotes and boards, it is a shame that happened and just a case of blatant disregard for FCC regulations.  I'll just take one of the new callers if you get one. All of the rabbits and moose sounds please. A few small critters, Pileated Woodpecker and a few Yotes to boot would work. 

You got me on the Pee Pee spanker from Springfield, I'm clueless on who that could be.

[THO Game Calls]

Here's the header  -  - It  might have actually come from someone in BC Canada  :roflmao:   :roflmao:  But I'n not sure.

I just did a google search on the BSNARP part of the name and came up with soneone in Springfield MO, and since I just had a conversation with someone in Springfiled MO  - well - I could be wrong on this one.



Return-path: <bsnarp@yahoo.com>
Envelope-to: al@thogamecalls.com
Delivery-date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:09:51 -0400
Received: from n3.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.127.223])
     by copenhagen.hostgo.com with smtp (Exim 4.68)
     (envelope-from <bsnarp@yahoo.com>)
     id 1JdA2J-0003OM-0A
     for al@thogamecalls.com; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:09:51 -0400
Received: from [68.142.200.226] by n3.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Mar 2008 20:09:56 -0000
Received: from [68.142.201.65] by t7.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Mar 2008 20:09:55 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp417.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Mar 2008 20:09:55 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 990228.70630.bm@omp417.mail.mud.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 37818 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Mar 2008 20:09:55 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
     s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
     h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID;
     b=oBJoyFUE7CcT/D3ckQK3bgF8I+EcbtEJu3jCKm8cqdvS4pE+K4oQF+mynPtcRvi8v4p4zH5n2ChylXu8ZetfHB3ITK/vnyZwzmskNIGrw6Dt7IIKAjC6B83xS6peZ51I3kuYRzICu8GAloZLjLyix5IGy5rGFTCvhqEQnmdMKow=;
X-YMail-OSG: QzCgMesVM1nA0QGx34oSAjV0x62ZzEEIT8HdWwjQadvT7A8Wxv.ZqD9NnWafH3zbZQ--
Received: from [206.75.43.182] by web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:09:55 PDT
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/902.38 YahooMailWebService/0.7.162
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 13:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: bart snarp <bsnarp@yahoo.com>
Subject: FNF
To: Al@THOGameCalls.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1272626595-1206216595=:34028"
Message-ID: <439102.34028.qm@web45816.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
       

[FinsnFur]

It's from Redfrog
Without a doubt.

Well, now we know where he's spending his time dont we?

[THO Game Calls]

Well, now we know where he's spending his time dont we?

Spanking PeePee's?     

Al 

[KySongDog]

Looks like it came from Burnaby, Canada near Vancouver.

[HaMeR]

Well, now we know where he's spending his time dont we?

YEP!! On the best little insignificant board on the net!!     :roflmao: :roflmao:

[snowcamoman]

THO AL,
Was the email from bsnarp in regards to this thread? If so, what exactly does he think you got your Pee Pee slapped for? I don't see anywhere in here where that happened. Strange to say the least, but I get those type of emails once in awhile from clowns too afraid to say who they are.

The Moon's still pretty full tonight and I'm guessing the guys on the East coast might be asleep or heading to bed. I'm off to find an Easter Yote. Chat with  Ya'll later.