Clarification of the Draft Deer Management Plan from the DEC

Will Bow hunters still have the choice of either or tag Buck or doe? Or will that be taken away from the bow hunter and replaced by more DMP for all to apply for ?

Dave

You will have a buck tag and the ability to get a DMP, depending on availability. Thats what I take it to say.

Let me see if I understand this, with my bow tag I will be able to take a buck but not a doe. Question does the AR apply to bow season like it will apply to gun season? With my bow tag will I have to have a buck with at least 3 pts on one side? Will they issue DMP for bow season or only have them available for gun season? Confused??

Dave

Im not confused, and I would say more than likely, yes, AR would apply to your buck tag if you are in an AR zone. Yes, you are correct that you will be able to take a buck only with that tag.

NYbuck, then this would be the end of being able to shoot a doe with the bow? How would they implement DMP in the future? Would you only be able to use a DMP if you were lucky enough to get one in either bow or gun season? I didn't mean you were confused I was.

Dave

Oh, I gottcha. You would have to get your DMPs just like you do now I can imagine, and just like now you could use them during any season. If you have DMPs the way things are now, you can use them in bow season.

How do they plan on handling the life times that were to get free DMP's as part of their license fee if they had purchased before a certain date?

More than likely, you just wouldnt have to pay to enter for the DMP. DMPs are just not guaranteed for anybody.

Think about it, people keep complaining that deer numbers are too low, and that too many does are being taken in some areas. The problem with the current system is, everyone with a bow/ml tag gets a DMP that is good anywhere, so its hard to restrict the number of does taken in a certain area. This move is not a fiscal one, its a move to gain more control over the doe take in each area.

I agree with your point when it comes to ML/Bow and the DEC's intent to control doe harvest in specific areas.It is sound management. What will upset many and perhaps cause them to forego applying/paying for a permit is that they are now in a lottery.

One of the benefits of purchasing a ml/bow license is that it is win win license for all who purchase such a license.

In recent years I have elected to forego  entering the lottery for a doe permit because I like my chances of killing a doe on either my ml or bow tag. For the past several years I have filled my ML tag. Besides, it really irked me that the DEC began charging for the opportunity to enter the lottery for doe permits.

Now you can call me cheap( like FAST Eddie), but the present system is a bargain. Why piss us off any further!

Its still a win win, you can shoot another buck and you get more time in the field. If you are really going to be pissed off about having to draw a DMP, then I dont know what to tell you. Which way do you want it though? You want to see more healthy deer more consistently across the state, or get the guaranteed doe tag and continue with the lack of sound management?

How do they plan on handling the life times that were to get free DMP's as part of their license fee if they had purchased before a certain date?

More than likely, you just wouldnt have to pay to enter for the DMP. DMPs are just not guaranteed for anybody.

Think about it, people keep complaining that deer numbers are too low, and that too many does are being taken in some areas. The problem with the current system is, everyone with a bow/ml tag gets a DMP that is good anywhere, so its hard to restrict the number of does taken in a certain area. This move is not a fiscal one, its a move to gain more control over the doe take in each area.

I agree with your point when it comes to ML/Bow and the DEC's intent to control doe harvest in specific areas.It is sound management. What will upset many and perhaps cause them to forego applying/paying for a permit is that they are now in a lottery.

One of the benefits of purchasing a ml/bow license is that it is win win license for all who purchase such a license.

In recent years I have elected to forego  entering the lottery for a doe permit because I like my chances of killing a doe on either my ml or bow tag. For the past several years I have filled my ML tag. Besides, it really irked me that the DEC began charging for the opportunity to enter the lottery for doe permits.

Now you can call me cheap( like FAST Eddie), but the present system is a bargain. Why piss us off any further!

Its still a win win, you can shoot another buck and you get more time in the field. If you are really going to be pissed off about having to draw a DMP, then I dont know what to tell you. Which way do you want it though? You want to see more healthy deer more consistently across the state, or get the guaranteed doe tag and continue with the lack of sound management?

Buck, thanks for clearing thing up makes sense now. Not that I agree but I understand what the DEC has in mind. So even the bow hunters will feel the pain of AR but at least they get first shots before the gun season. Where I hunt this AR policy will really  be tough to swallow we have over 300 acres to hunt and last year we only got a wide 5pt in gun season and a doe in bow season. And this is with about 12 hunters  who mostly hunt gun. We just don't have that many deer to choose from and now we will have just about none.

Dave

Buck, thanks for clearing thing up makes sense now. Not that I agree but I understand what the DEC has in mind. So even the bow hunters will feel the pain of AR but at least they get first shots before the gun season. Where I hunt this AR policy will really  be tough to swallow we have over 300 acres to hunt and last year we only got a wide 5pt in gun season and a doe in bow season. And this is with about 12 hunters  who mostly hunt gun. We just don't have that many deer to choose from and now we will have just about none.

Dave

So currently, AR doesnt apply in bow season? If not, then it probably wont after they make the change.

BTW, in areas with a low number of DMPs, under the new plan, more DMPs would be available because they dont have to guess at how many either sex tags get used on antlerless deer, so you would have a better chance at getting a DMP or two.

How do they plan on handling the life times that were to get free DMP's as part of their license fee if they had purchased before a certain date?

More than likely, you just wouldnt have to pay to enter for the DMP. DMPs are just not guaranteed for anybody.

Think about it, people keep complaining that deer numbers are too low, and that too many does are being taken in some areas. The problem with the current system is, everyone with a bow/ml tag gets a DMP that is good anywhere, so its hard to restrict the number of does taken in a certain area. This move is not a fiscal one, its a move to gain more control over the doe take in each area.

I agree with your point when it comes to ML/Bow and the DEC's intent to control doe harvest in specific areas.It is sound management. What will upset many and perhaps cause them to forego applying/paying for a permit is that they are now in a lottery.

One of the benefits of purchasing a ml/bow license is that it is win win license for all who purchase such a license.

In recent years I have elected to forego  entering the lottery for a doe permit because I like my chances of killing a doe on either my ml or bow tag. For the past several years I have filled my ML tag. Besides, it really irked me that the DEC began charging for the opportunity to enter the lottery for doe permits.

Now you can call me cheap( like FAST Eddie), but the present system is a bargain. Why piss us off any further!

Its still a win win, you can shoot another buck and you get more time in the field. If you are really going to be pissed off about having to draw a DMP, then I dont know what to tell you. Which way do you want it though? You want to see more healthy deer more consistently across the state, or get the guaranteed doe tag and continue with the lack of sound management?

Obviously, we want the DEC to get their act together. They are the professionals. What troubles me the most is that the 5 year plan is way overdue. Previous to the issuance of the plan the DEC has seemingly been been inactive when it comes to deer management. Now they woke up!

In any event a plan is better than no plan.

I agree Bill, it should have been changed quite some time ago.

BTW, I fixed your quotes 

Thank you.

I agree with your point when it comes to ML/Bow and the DEC's intent to control doe harvest in specific areas.It is sound management. What will upset many and perhaps cause them to forego applying/paying for a permit is that they are now in a lottery.

One of the benefits of purchasing a ml/bow license is that it is win win license for all who purchase such a license.

In recent years I have elected to forego  entering the lottery for a doe permit because I like my chances of killing a doe on either my ml or bow tag. For the past several years I have filled my ML tag. Besides, it really irked me that the DEC began charging for the opportunity to enter the lottery for doe permits.

Now you can call me cheap( like FAST Eddie), but the present system is a bargain. Why piss us off any further!

I might be cheap but I have bought my share of licenses over the years .........

Ed, you deserve to hunt for free!

I see the good reasoning on going DMP...just wondering if they were going to change the LT and charge....and your right I see where they would have a hard time inforcing a earn a buck in high density areas where you could only use your tag there if you got a doe first....what about earn a doe tag...they pretty much have that in 8-H now don't they?

Hey I'm not perfect but any ideas are better than none... for at least they are out there to be tweeked

See I really don't have a problem with the early ML...just where they want to stick it...It makes no sense to me ...see I ml as well and didn't get my LT because well I'm tired by then and cold!...I can see it being the last week of bow...but then again I never fill my tag then...I always fill it before then...ya ya it's the best time ...beginning of rut so on and so forth....but really how many archers don't muzzle load? and it would be easy for the DEC to compile data on how many deer are taken the last week verses middle of Oct...wouldn't it be?....if the majority of bow kills aren't the last week...then it would justify putting ML then....Gun hunters would tweek and those that didn't ML before just may buy an in line and buy a license ...increasing sales....the whole idea of getting a chance before they go nocturnal...just a thought

What type of hunter satisfaction will the new changes bring?

1. Before AR

    a. we could shoot bucks with less than 3pts on one side.

    b. with bow tag could take a buck or doe .

    c. Could take a doe on DMP during gun season. If you were lucky enough to get a tag.

2. After AR

    a. Must only shoot buck with at least 3pts on one side

    b. During bow season can only shoot buck with 3pts or more on one side.

    c. Bow hunters must apply for DMP to take doe in either bow or gun season. Only if they get a tag?

So far I don't see anything to benefit the hunters unless you are a trophy hunter.

Why would I want to buy a bow tag anymore? Especially if you know your area isn't an area with large deer population and very few bucks to begin with. Who ever advocated this plan at the DEC didn't have hunter satisfaction in mind. I don't see how this is going to bring in more hunters into the ranks if they have nothing to hunt. Unless they use a camera!!!!!!! This type of plan should have been done on a unit by unit basis not all DMU are the same.

Dave

DEC says more DMPs will be available as a result of the proposed change, but there will, in fact, be cases in some units where a bowhunter will fail to secure a DMP.....

DEC says more DMPs will be available as a result of the proposed change, but there will, in fact, be cases in some units where a bowhunter will fail to secure a DMP.....

My opinion is it should be done unit by unit, not treating them all the same.

Dave

As is the case now, not all units will be treated the same....DMP allocations will be based on what DEC is looking for in terms of antlerless harvest....the only difference would be now the DEC will have to factor in bowhunter and muzzleloader numbers....their theory is it will give them better control of the antlerless harvest, since a DMP is an antlerless tag while right now a bow/muzz may or may not be used to take an antlerless deer.....

I see the good reasoning on going DMP...just wondering if they were going to change the LT and charge....and your right I see where they would have a hard time inforcing a earn a buck in high density areas where you could only use your tag there if you got a doe first....what about earn a doe tag...they pretty much have that in 8-H now don't they?

Hey I'm not perfect but any ideas are better than none... for at least they are out there to be tweeked

See I really don't have a problem with the early ML...just where they want to stick it...It makes no sense to me ...see I ml as well and didn't get my LT because well I'm tired by then and cold!...I can see it being the last week of bow...but then again I never fill my tag then...I always fill it before then...ya ya it's the best time ...beginning of rut so on and so forth....but really how many archers don't muzzle load? and it would be easy for the DEC to compile data on how many deer are taken the last week verses middle of Oct...wouldn't it be?....if the majority of bow kills aren't the last week...then it would justify putting ML then....Gun hunters would tweek and those that didn't ML before just may buy an in line and buy a license ...increasing sales....the whole idea of getting a chance before they go nocturnal...just a thought

Yeah it would probably turn out to be way too complicated for most to figure out. The last thing we need is more confusion from the DEC lol.  ;D

Ideas are good though, obviously DEC is reading the site, so you may be giving them something to chew on, which is always good. 

DEC says more DMPs will be available as a result of the proposed change, but there will, in fact, be cases in some units where a bowhunter will fail to secure a DMP.....

My opinion is it should be done unit by unit, not treating them all the same.

Dave

They will allocate DMPs unit by unit, like they do now. Like I said though, you will have a better chance at one because they take the either sex tag factor out of the equation. If you dont get a doe tag for your area, it will be because the population is too low. If the population is too low and anyone could shoot a doe there anyway (how it is now), how are you ever going to improve the herd? If you dont improve the herd, hunter satisfaction will only go down. With everyone not getting a DMP, satisfaction may go down for a couple of years, but when the herd grows, and DMP availability goes way up, satisfaction will be there again, and with proper management, will be there to stay. You have to look at the longer term with it.

Really, we shouldnt have gotten into this situation, but you can second guess it all you want and it wont help. It is what it is right now, and it needs to be fixed.

No, I knew what you said, I was just asking the question, what do you think should be done to up the effectiveness of hunting season without having to selectively expand gun seasons in areas that need the herd thinned out.

Personally, I do not want gun seasons expanded. As I have said before, I think they should be shortened or reconfigured to take some of the pressure off of the deer. I believe that could make the season more effective, because deer wouldnt be going into lock down mode for so long. The added bonus is that hunter satisfaction would possibly go up because more people are seeing more deer as a result of less pressure. Just an idea though. I kind of wanted to hear what ideas might be floating around in your mind about it.

If the hunter numbers continue to drop and eventually reach the point where the DEC really does have an inability to correct over-populations, then I have to say that they will have no options other than replacing chunks of bow seasons and perhaps even muzzleloading seasons with more regular gun time. That's my honest opinion. I believe that that will happen long after you and I are gone. But if hunter numbers continue to decline or if certain mis-ques by the DEC regarding excessive regulations begin an even more serious decline in hunters it may happen even faster than we could imagine. I also believe that it will come in incremental steps with the introduction other weapons into bow seasons trying to make bow season more productive. Crossbows followed by muzzleloaders and eventually other firearms. Given their obvious attitude toward bowseason as a wasted harvesting opportunity, I believe that these changes are quite predictable

However, let me point out that there is absolutely no evidence that I have seen where there is a general inability to stay ahead of over-population other than special unique areas of urban or suburban deer levels. I have yet to see any areas in NY where the numbers look like an out-of control situation that multiple permits wouldn't handle. I've seen it in 8N where the herd size was ridiculously high, and the issuance of even more permits quite quickly caused them to over-shoot their targets to the point where recently they had to reduce permits here.

So my belief is that they are looking far into the future and are setting things up for forcasted hunter declines. They know that even though there is a fairly active archery lobby, bow hunters are still the easiest target to attack without unleashing a firestorm of protest. It is generally recognized that bowhunters cannot or will not organize themselves to the point where they can pose any serious political problem. So obviously this is a timeslot that can be quietly tampered with and changed up to be turned into a more effective deer harvesting time. It's all just a matter of time. How much time? ...... I wouldn't even hazard a guess. Maybe a lot less than we think.

I would agree there are no unit-wide overpopulation problems, just sections of a WMU where deer are overabundant....the real problem is DEC's inability to access deer for management purposes....too many pockets of posted land where deer can quickly take sanctuary, often for an entire season.....I don't have the answer to that one, but I truly believe that in many cases DEC is forced to attempt to manage whitetails they (hunters, the management tool) can't get to....

the real problem is DEC's inability to access deer for management purposes....too many pockets of posted land where deer can quickly take sanctuary, often for an entire season.....

And that is a problem that is entirely independent of season locations, season lengths, weapons used, and all these proposed changes. And there really is no practical solution to that problem.

I'm afraid that if these proposed changes cause all the confusion that they seem to be doing now, and bowhunters and muzzleloader hunters start missing out on doe harvests because of it, this whole thing of "more effective doe harvests" will completely backfire.

Also people who have been confused right out of applying for permits are not people who will be looking too happily at any new AR areas being established. And the same things will apply for those who normally would have automatically received the ability to harvest a doe, but who have lost that ability due to some fluke of the lottery system. Just the fact that it is a "lottery" means that some will be denied even if they "up" the numbers. It also puts bowhunters and muzzleloaders now in competition with the regular gunners for those permits. I'm having a hard time understanding how any of this will improve the doe harvest as the DEC claims that they want. It seems like they are asking for doe harvests and then throwing all kinds of frustrations in as far as actually accomplishing that.

Also in a different aspect of this thread, I guess I am not all that in tune with the attitude that I have heard from a few that basically says that producing a 5 year plan is a wonderful thing even if some or all of it is wrong. Change, just for the sake of change is NOT a good thing. It can result in aimless flailing around that does more harm than good. I think I detect some aspects of that in this plan.

I find it rather hard to believe that the day will come when the dec starts dipping into the archery and ML season to manage the deer herd.  They are not going to loose the income from bowhunters licenses and Ml licenses period. They however very well can extend the guns season beyond its closing date now.  "Given their obvious attitude toward bowseason as a wasted harvesting opportunity"  love how people can twist the living heck out of something.  Care to tell me who and when the DEC has said this?  And indeed if this is there true feelings care to tell me why they are proposing an Oct 1 opening in southern tier extending the bow season and also why is the bow the only effective weapon the dec has chosen in certain WMU"s? And save your energy throwing the xbow into that.  Xbow does not put the deer under your stand to get the kill the hunter does, its effective range and power is comparible.  Dont get confused it is not all about deer management its about gaining revenue so they can manage the deer.  Addding x bows is an avenue for funds, charging for doe permits is an avenue for funds, longer seasons are avenues for more funds with as few losses to the number of hunters afield from their efforts.    In the current position this state is in they need to seek out every avenue they can for funding.  Why?  to manage the wildlife in NY or I should rather say to manage the hunters in NY. 

And indeed if this is there true feelings care to tell me why they are proposing an Oct 1 opening in southern tier extending the bow season and also why is the bow the only effective weapon the dec has chosen in certain WMU"s?

I think they are expanding in order to lengthen the gun down the road. wouldn't be past them to give with one hand and take with the other. Tsome  WMU's around me a archery only because of the human population. Don't think for a minute they wouldn't let the guns go if the local laws werent there on firearms discharge. I don't think anyone can argue that the gun is a more effective weapon. it would solve some of the over population problems in these areas bu tthe possible costs would be too high.

No, I knew what you said, I was just asking the question, what do you think should be done to up the effectiveness of hunting season without having to selectively expand gun seasons in areas that need the herd thinned out.

Personally, I do not want gun seasons expanded. As I have said before, I think they should be shortened or reconfigured to take some of the pressure off of the deer. I believe that could make the season more effective, because deer wouldnt be going into lock down mode for so long. The added bonus is that hunter satisfaction would possibly go up because more people are seeing more deer as a result of less pressure. Just an idea though. I kind of wanted to hear what ideas might be floating around in your mind about it.

If the hunter numbers continue to drop and eventually reach the point where the DEC really does have an inability to correct over-populations, then I have to say that they will have no options other than replacing chunks of bow seasons and perhaps even muzzleloading seasons with more regular gun time. That's my honest opinion. I believe that that will happen long after you and I are gone. But if hunter numbers continue to decline or if certain mis-ques by the DEC regarding excessive regulations begin an even more serious decline in hunters it may happen even faster than we could imagine. I also believe that it will come in incremental steps with the introduction other weapons into bow seasons trying to make bow season more productive. Crossbows followed by muzzleloaders and eventually other firearms. Given their obvious attitude toward bowseason as a wasted harvesting opportunity, I believe that these changes are quite predictable

However, let me point out that there is absolutely no evidence that I have seen where there is a general inability to stay ahead of over-population other than special unique areas of urban or suburban deer levels. I have yet to see any areas in NY where the numbers look like an out-of control situation that multiple permits wouldn't handle. I've seen it in 8N where the herd size was ridiculously high, and the issuance of even more permits quite quickly caused them to over-shoot their targets to the point where recently they had to reduce permits here.

So my belief is that they are looking far into the future and are setting things up for forcasted hunter declines. They know that even though there is a fairly active archery lobby, bow hunters are still the easiest target to attack without unleashing a firestorm of protest. It is generally recognized that bowhunters cannot or will not organize themselves to the point where they can pose any serious political problem. So obviously this is a timeslot that can be quietly tampered with and changed up to be turned into a more effective deer harvesting time. It's all just a matter of time. How much time? ...... I wouldn't even hazard a guess. Maybe a lot less than we think.

While I agree with most of this, I dont see the proposed changes as anything other than what they are at this point. Very limited use of MLs in area where they need population control, and the current set of seasons isnt having enough of an impact.

Still waiting to hear your opinion on what should be done. 

And indeed if this is there true feelings care to tell me why they are proposing an Oct 1 opening in southern tier extending the bow season and also why is the bow the only effective weapon the dec has chosen in certain WMU"s?

I think they are expanding in order to lengthen the gun down the road. wouldn't be past them to give with one hand and take with the other. Tsome  WMU's around me a archery only because of the human population. Don't think for a minute they wouldn't let the guns go if the local laws werent there on firearms discharge. I don't think anyone can argue that the gun is a more effective weapon. it would solve some of the over population problems in these areas bu tthe possible costs would be too high.

Oh im not going to argue the gun is more effective at all.  What I was argueing was the choice of words used that the DEC considers bowseason as a wasted harvest opportunity.  With 35000 deer harvested by bow and the 100's of thousand of dollars it brings to the state does anyone really believe that.  LIke I said without the income there would not be any money to manage anything and if they start messing with such things they are going to lose those monetary funds to manage.  I hunt with all the weapons we are allowed minus the crossbow and Im sure I will own one of those as well.  As far as the archery only zones I partially agree as well but a bow is a weapon also and I know in my village it is illegal to hunt with a bow let alone a gun inside the village limits.  So they improvised on those laws in some areas to get the deer population under control.  Now I was once told by a DEC officer in a town meeting when this very question came up and the he said the biggest factor was not to disturb the community with the noise of guns going off and it was more or less if you cant hear it people arent (anti's) abt to complain near as much.  A bow is an effective weapon in the right hands as well as a gun.  You can put either one in some city slicking once a weekend a year wannabe hunter and make it more of a danger to other hunters and wildlife full of holes running around that eventually suffer and die that never get tagged or reported to the DEC.  So like I said before I do believe the big goal by the DEC is to get as much money as they can to fund them in order to manage the wildlife in NY without losing any more hunters.  It is truly sad in my honest opinion that there are hunting groups fighting each other and constantly bashing there methods of harvesting an animal and the greed that  it all entails is rediculous.  They all should be working in unisom to better our hunting on a whole. 

I find it rather hard to believe that the day will come when the dec starts dipping into the archery and ML season to manage the deer herd.  They are not going to loose the income from bowhunters licenses and Ml licenses period. They however very well can extend the guns season beyond its closing date now.  "Given their obvious attitude toward bowseason as a wasted harvesting opportunity"  love how people can twist the living heck out of something.  Care to tell me who and when the DEC has said this?  And indeed if this is there true feelings care to tell me why they are proposing an Oct 1 opening in southern tier extending the bow season and also why is the bow the only effective weapon the dec has chosen in certain WMU"s? And save your energy throwing the xbow into that.  Xbow does not put the deer under your stand to get the kill the hunter does, its effective range and power is comparible.  Dont get confused it is not all about deer management its about gaining revenue so they can manage the deer.  Addding x bows is an avenue for funds, charging for doe permits is an avenue for funds, longer seasons are avenues for more funds with as few losses to the number of hunters afield from their efforts.    In the current position this state is in they need to seek out every avenue they can for funding.  Why?  to manage the wildlife in NY or I should rather say to manage the hunters in NY.

There is no place that they have proposed extending bow season without first introducing firearms into it as well. What they are proposing is creating a longer "early season". What those extra days in that longer "early season" are eventually used for is anyone's guess. But right now to temporarily keep peace in the family they have thrown bowhunters a bone while at the same time establishing an acceptance of deer hunting with guns mixed in with bows. Pretty clever I might add.

In terms of the DEC adding money to their resources, we have all seen that they are not bashful about cranking up fees. They don't need additional kinds of licenses to do that. Also, as you just pointed out, they are very resourceful and clever at coming up with other ways of making money. So when the time comes they will make heroes of themselves to the majority of hunters (gun hunters) and for a small increase in gun licenses will offer them all kinds of additional hunting days ..... and in much nicer weather as well.

Look, I am not going to say that bowhunting and muzzleloader hunting is going to go away, but the length and quality of bowhunting may very well see some severe concessions to gun hunting that we bowhunters may really not like. In fact the changes may make many question whether bow hunting is worth doing after they finally get through with the changes. And it sure seems like the DEC is primed to go ahead and do whatever they feel is necessary to get more efficient weapons into that prime segment of the hunting year.

As far as sources are concerned, there was an article in NYS Outdoor News where one of the DEC hotshots was quoted as saying that bowhunters have essentially become buck hunters. I don't know whether it was Hurst or Stang, but it was one of the major players in the game management end of the DEC that was being interviewed. The implication being that bowhunters are not doing their job as herd-control tools. Also, there was a conversation that I overheard at one of the DEC deer management meetings where a biologist was (supposedly privately) discussing bow hunting as an ineffective harvest activity. Beyond that, anyone who pays any attention to what any one of the DEC people say, it is obvious that they are constantly searching for new ways to increase their ability to harvest does and impact deer populations. If you take note of the changes of recent years, there is an obvious pattern of re-regulation that assists in making doe harvests for effective. From the rule that allows signing over of permits, to the increases in permits, rules changes always seems to look like a frantic effort to implement new tools for hacking on the herd. It's not so much that they are hacking on the herd as it is that they are putting in place more tools for doing that when they wish to do so. My theory is that all this activity is geared toward a forecasted day when hunter numbers become so small that they need every trick in the book to control deer numbers. I think that is a very logical theory. And I am not saying the DEC is wrong to develop that kind of attitude and take steps to strengthen their ability to do their job. That's what they do. I am just saying that bowhunters had better be prepared to fight against hostile attitudes and actions, or face losses in things that make bowhunting practical.