Doc

I agree with this statement, but how the heck that relates to a term like "self selecting group" still eludes me, but if that statement is somehow what you really meant to say when you started using the "self-selecting group" jargon, that's fine with me. I just needed some clarification as to what the hell you were talking about.

I'm sure there are all kinds of people that will make regulations as complex as possible and be real happy with that thinking they have set up the "perfect" set of rules. I personally tend to think the other way around. The K.I.S.S. principle is a good thing to aim for when constructing laws for environmental conservation law (or any other kind of law for that matter). It is interesting that co-ops and landowner biases can involve such unfriendly disagreements and harsh results, but I don't see any of that negativity being of value to the perpetuation and health of hunting. I suppose it is just two different ways of looking at how hunting should be for the participants. Some like to see it regulated right to death with no care as to how practical it is to abide by whatever law is set up. I prefer to keep it all simple and easy to accommodate without setting land-mines when it comes to practical legal application.

Would anyone care to actually define what is meant by "self selecting group". I am completely confused about what could possibly be meant by that term. It doesn't even make any sense to me.

Yes, there is a lot of combat that goes on here on occasion. Some of it has to do with the passion invested in matters that have to do with hunting and fishing and other outdoor pursuits. I have been a member of a lot of different forums, and find this one no better or worse than the others. I personally refuse to let others ruin a great tool of communication for me, and you shouldn't either. I have no idea what incident or incidents that make you feel that you have to leave, but just remember that for every bad apple that you run across, there are so many more members who are decent and interested in your views and conversation. It seldom makes any sense to be throwing out the baby with the bath water and quitting a great assembly of good fellow hunters and fishermen just because one of the bad ones occasionally shows up. Another thing that has to be recognized is that the internet can be a tough medium for accuracy of expression. Sometimes without the means of expressing tone and intent, things get mixed up and misrepresented, and sound offensive when there is no such intent. At any rate, we all have to make membership decisions on our own, and if it is no longer fun to be here, then we all have to do what we all have to do. I think you will be missed by a whole lot more people than the one or two people that you are having trouble with, and you will leave behind many great potential friends in your absence.

I can see some of the more exotic methods of AR being used on co-ops or as arbitrary rules on private hunting lands. No one is risking fines or public embarrassment when mistakes are made. That's not quite the same as putting such stuff in the state law books. Another thing that I don't like about spread-type AR is the requirement that you must get a look at the deer in a face on situation in order to even see the distance between antlers. My set-ups, or what I generally try to have for a set-up is a stand that is perpendicular to deer trails or the path that I am guessing the deer will take. That gets me the high-percentage broadside shot that I prefer (especially for bow hunting). I have no interest in drawing the deer's attention to myself by using noises or whatever to get him to turn his head toward me so I can determine if it is legal. Another problem is the assumptions borne of frustration at not seeing the deer's spread that some hunters will make that a tall rack is always a wide rack. The internal conversation goes kind of like this: "With tines that big, he has to be a legal spread". Well unfortunately there is no such correlation, and once again there is another opportunity for an unintended violation. And finally, no law should be written hoping that ECOs will "use discretion".

I still have a problem imagining hunters running through the woods with their tape measures trying to catch up with a buck to measure its antlers.....lol. Seriously, the more complex you make the legal harvest system, the more dead and rotting deer there will be left in the woods when hunters find out that antlers suffer that "ground-shrink" because they are not as good at "estimating" antler numbers on the hoof as they thought they were. We already have problems with hunters seeing 3" antlers where there are none.

That is true. Things would be much easier to keep track of with a lot better transparency.

I did, although it is not the first time that I had thought about mistaken perceptions in the woods. That is one of the reasons why I do not support extending shooting hours beyond the current limits. I have seen cloudy, foggy, drizzly days in a dark woods with a dense over-story that had me guessing at a few things that I thought I was seeing. This photo and some others that I have seen over the years of trail-cams point out how things can look like several different things to several different people. It has been a great Rorschach type test that shows that there are occasions and conditions where what we think we see is absolutely wrong.

See, there is specifically the point I was making. The NRA is (and has been for years) the primary reason that we still have gun rights today that are more liberal than some of the European and even Canadian versions of gun control. No other organization has worked so tirelessly and so effectively for gun owner's rights. But because we can nit-pick and pull out one issue or another that we don't agree with we are in a hurry to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We know from this forum that sportsmen and women find very little that they can universally agree on. And there are no advocacy groups that can exist that do not have to occasionally take some controversial positions. That kind of comes along with the territory of being an outspoken, effective organization. But what really irritates me is when people will seize one or two items and use them as a reason for not supporting good organizations that work for our rights and keep the antis from over-running our rights. The old saying of "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind. Unfortunately sportsmen seem to always be looking for reasons or excuses not to join. And yes, if you take any organization and demand that they align exactly in lockstep with all of your views, you will have all the excuses you need to never join or to ignore and even to badmouth them and do the anti's work for them. It never seems to occur to people to try to change policies from within an organization. How much easier it is to stand outside and take potshots. The antis love it!

Porcupines are somewhat of a rarity around here. In all my years, I have only seen two and they had been killed along the road. However, I have heard all kinds of stories about the environmental damage, and the damage to boat paddle handles, and camp outhouses. I have heard that they regularly girdle trees. I also heard that they taste rather good too. So it seems that there are a couple of good reasons to shoot the little suckers. I have also heard that they make good wilderness survival food for those that are forced to spend some unwanted time in the woods because of emergency situations. Now that is a whole lot of things that I have heard, but nothing that I know for fact first hand.

I keep hearing about how reviled Trump is and how he is hated by everyone, and totally unelectable. And yet the last of the opposition has already dropped out due to the overwhelming popularity of this guy. His wins have not been razor thin. For a guy who everyone supposedly hates, he sure is doing rather well isn't he? However, over on the socialist side of the race, we have little Bernie giving Queen Hillary all she can handle in their little battle of the socialists ..... and has not yet been successful at dispatching him yet. This fabricated picture of harmony and unity that is painted by the champions of cradle-to-grave politics is a marvelous exercise in fantasy and wishful thinking. Apparently there is some sort of comfort that these socialists obtain from the production of self-delusion. But I can only go by results. Trump is not necessarily the kind of candidate that I would have chosen to run, I have to admit that I am getting increasingly impressed as each day goes on. Besides, look at what the disgusting alternatives are.

I often thought that NYS should have a dedicated department that puts all of its resources toward fish and wildlife management. But then, I wonder if that kind of division wouldn't still result in parceling out inadequate resources. There is nothing that guarantees additional wildlife resources just because a new Fish and Game department is constructed. The fact is that the DEC has dedicated those kinds of sub-divisions already. Unfortunately the man at the top is a political appointee whose loyalties are not toward the department, but rather to the governor that appointed them. And there will always be a "man at the top" whose interests may or may not be dedicated to fish and wildlife activities instead of the political interests of his benefactor.

And yet, we have advocacy groups that work for the rights of activities that we all claim to be passionately involved in but refuse to join because of nit-picking of certain policies or positions. Rather than joining and working to change those policies, most simply sit on the sidelines and actually lend assistance to our enemies simply because of these petty disagreements and our choice to turn our backs on organizations that have chosen an issue or two that we don't agree with. The only ones who really benefit from those kinds of attitudes are those that would eliminate the activities that we claim to be involved with. No, I am not talking about just a few people here and there, but the vast majority of outdoor enthusiasts. The fact is that only a tiny few actually put their money and effort into joining advocacy organizations that have shown historically to be of benefit to the rights and opportunities of whatever activity they are advocating for. The rest do indeed find excuses not to join and simply sit along the sidelines throwing stones at those people who do care enough to organize.

I absolutely agree with the mandatory reporting of each tag issued (successful or not), but I think one thing that the DEC is a bit goosey about making the next years tags dependent on complying with the reporting law is that they do not want to be denying antlerless permits because they apparently are already suffering for lack of doe harvest participation. The fine should be a financial one that is designed to sting a little bit. The thing that would make them obey this law is the knowledge that the computer would catch you and there is no way to escape that. A simple sort on tags issued, vs. tags reported would instantly pop out a list of violators. In fact if you wanted to get fancy, you could have the computer issue warning notices after the close of the season, followed up by an actual fine notice if there was not immediate compliance within a two week window.

Joining advocacy organizations is always a good idea if your the type that does not demand 100% agreement with every policy position that they take. If that is what you insist on, save your money and sit on the sidelines, because they do not make an organization that is all things to all people.

It's a piggy.

We do tend to demand an awful large say in what the goals, attitudes, and motives of other hunters are, don't we? We want to tell others why they should be hunting, what kind of animals they should be taking, how big, how old, what gender... We also want to tell them what they must feel about the animals that they take, what ones should go on the wall, or even if any should be displayed at all. So, we have assigned names to the different styles and attitudes of hunters. There are those who despise the "trophy hunters" who tend to be a bit arrogant and judgmental. And we have assigned the term "meat hunters" to those who forsake antlers and are simply out there like going to the grocery store to bring home some meat. They too have been accused of arrogance and judgementalism. Each camp seems to view the other as some kind of inferior. It's funny how it all works. There doesn't seem to be a lot of room left for the rest of us who appreciate a good rack, but will cash in on opportunities for a bit of meat gathering as well without a whole lot of strings attached.

Yes, that is one thing that has not really been talked about all that much. The conflict between the sanctity of private property ownership rights, and the fact that the transient property (deer) that wanders from one owner's property to another also has to be managed. That is a management task that is unlike anything that other government agencies are challenged with. I think when you look at how the DEC has to juggle those two conflicting tasks and the fact that so much of that is completely out of their control, perhaps they really are not doing that bad of a job.

So, you guys went off spending the kids inheritance eh? I'm working on that myself ..... lol. So does guinea pig taste like chicken? Is that country as tough to get around as it looks?

I have been watching this campaign and noted how frequently people have declared Trump an absolute joke, and loser, and impossible to elect. And then I see that he continues his march of success past all the nay-sayers not just by little margins, but by commanding victories. And it's not in just little regional struggles, but universally across the nation. So, I wouldn't be too quick to write this guy off. He is tapping into a frustration that is nationwide and has been festering for decades. Like myself, people are starting to look at their politics and looking for a departure from business-as-usual government that promises cradle to grave benevolence. That was tried in Russia and as predicted, it imploded. And that is the engine that runs the Trump phenomenon. I don't think it can be stopped, and I don't think it should be stopped. I see where the libs are taking us, and I think there really is a silent majority that sees it also. I think we are all finally tired of being silent.

Oh now there's a comforting thought. Picture that ...... a rabid bobcat. He would have your face removed in 0.75 secs.....lol. Next fall when you are walking to your bowhunting stand in the pitched dark, let that thought rumble around in your mind when you hear a twig snap. A drooling, slobbering, rabid bobcat coming up behind you in the dark and all you have is your bow and some arrows.

Well, good luck to all of you. I am not a turkey hunter anymore. This time of year I have more on my plate to do than I'll ever be able to accomplish as it is. But for all of you that are into hunting the turkey-birds, I want to wish you all luck. And by the way the military gave out wonderful things called ponchos that have to be available at some surplus military store somewhere. They will keep you adequately dry-ish. Even in a downpour you should be able to keep things manageable. Go git them critters!

I can't say that I have any longing for the "good ol' days" when it comes to autos. I remember when a car that had 100,000 miles on it was a noteworthy miracle. I remember my Dad having to park at the top of a hill in the winter and hoping that the family car started by the time it hit the bottom when he popped the clutch. I will say that driving was a challenge and a lot of luck. So auto technology has brought us a long way in terms of reliability. Today, I don't even think about whether any of my cars will start when I get into them. It wasn't always that way. And I will say that I would absolutely love to get into my "transport pod", type in or voice command my destination, and sit back and read the paper or catch a few winks. For me cars have always been simply a necessary means to get from point A to point B and absolutely nothing more. I have no romantic love affair with them or with piloting them around. It pretty much is a necessary pain in the neck.

I always thought the system would be operated by a sensor strip buried in the macadam or concrete pavement.

I can be as harsh a critic of the DEC as anybody, but even I have to recognize what a difficult job it must be to take on some of the major problems that have developed over the years. Just looking at the diversity of conditions, habitat, culture, and populations kind of points up the difficulty factor. And then consider that the majority of NYS that the DEC is responsible for is privately held properties that they have no direct management of. Lately, I tend to soft-pedal my criticisms quite a bit. The only thing that still can get to me is the arrogant attitudes of infallibility that comes out at most of these kinds of communications to the public. When you listen to their presentations, they seem to be selling the fact that they have everything under control, and it is only the stupid sportsmen who are too ignorant to understand how perfectly they are able to manage all things concerning the environment. Sometimes I think they would get a whole lot more support if they would drop the arrogance and admit that they don't really have everything under control and likely never will have that capability. Anyway, I will once again listen to their story and try to sift through what has a high likelihood of being fact vs. what is wishful thinking.