Doc

I also let those antlerless weeks go without hunting, for the same exact reason. Well, there may have been a slight touch of rebellion stirred into that decision also ..... lol. But the point is that the lack of intelligence behind this antlerless-only fiasco may have provided exactly the opposite harvest results that they were publicly proclaiming. On the other hand, if the intent was to force failure by the bowhunters in order to justify the inclusion of the muzzleloader into bow season (which they have publicly stated they wanted for the past decade), then maybe their brilliant plan worked perfectly.

Ok, with much difficulty, I think I got the gist of this post. And, I believe that I might even agree with it. However at the risk of being called the "spelling and grammar police", I have to say that a little time re-reading some of these posts probably would have avoided a lot of head-scratching. Seriously, I got totally lost a few times as I struggled more with the wording than the topic. I still have not figured out what the thought was when the word "dump" was thrown in to several sentences. What the hell does that mean? I am not trying to claim perfection in the English language, but I do try to make my posts readable. And I do that by re-reading the message before poking the "Post" button and fixing some of the glaring confusion.

I see the coyote in NYS and PA to be a predator at the top of his food chain. As such, being so naturally prolific, I see them as something that requires some form of population control just like any other species. I try to keep the image of cute little puppy dogs out of my thinking when it comes to letting an efficient predator explode in numbers without any other control. Hunting has been justified in society primarily because it is recognized that hunters have a necessary place in the food chain that can help regulate animal numbers. I believe that the same justification can be applied to coyotes. However, it appears that since coyotes have no value as table fare, and the fur prices are not motivating hunters to become that population check, maybe a little cash incentive in the form of a bounty might insert hunters back into the food chain to control numbers of a species that currently has no control. So if for no other reason, I would like to see them go ahead and treat this bounty program as a lab experiment to see exactly how effective (or not) such a program can be here on the eastern side of the country.

So whenever you think you have problems, along comes a story like this one that shows you how trivial your difficulties really are. My sincere sympathies go out to all those affected by this senseless tragedy.

Every year the ground rules change significantly. How do you ever compare apples to apples when that is going on? How do you come up with reliable statistics that have no factual history to base it on? Just askin'

And it sounds like the slump in muzzleloader sales kind of backs up that line of thought.

Perhaps the fact that they have a year around season and it is not working in PA might be an answer to those that think that is the solution for us. I guess the question boils down to whether or not cash is a motivator. I do see trappers that are motivated by cash. I'm guessing that hunters really aren't all that different. So what would it really cost to run a short trial program to put actual numbers to that question.

That is a bit like saying that rising fur prices do not impact motivated trappers in a statistically significant amount. And yet trapper numbers move proportional to the fur market. I have no idea how much of a motivator a bounty might add to a hunter pulling the trigger on a coyote when they see them. I have no idea what a cash motive might have on getting people out actively hunting coyotes, but apparently the PA. DNR thinks there is some merit to the idea. Perhaps doing bounties on a one or two year trial basis would answer those questions. The one good thing is that there would be no harvest reporting difficulties and real numbers would be available for study .... lol. Frankly, I hope they do it, and we'll see if a bounty system really works or not. What they learn might be directly applicable to NYS as well. I'm always up for getting paid to hunt.

Yes, I think there are a lot of people that are beginning to get suspicious about this declaration of catastrophic deer population levels. Sure, there may be pockets here and there of population excesses, but I wonder if the motives for crying about the sky falling may be more motivated by the political concerns of the moneyed interests that are constantly butting heads with deer. Perhaps it is not the deer population that is out of control, but rather the new setting of population goals established by the CTFs that makes it all "look" like things are out of control. Also, the DEC has a history of wanting muzzleloaders and other more efficient implements stirred in with bow seasons. And what better way to make that happen than to trump up some emergency condition to convince everyone that "special challenge seasons" like bow are insufficient to handle some declared population disaster. It sounds like they have found a way to cram firearms into bow seasons.

Well, first of all I have never said anything about what gun hunters shoot or don't shoot, and it is getting difficult for a lot of bowhunters to say anything about gun hunters since so many of them are also gun hunters as well. But I am sure that just like some bowhunters, there are gunhunters who pass on does, convinced that a buck will come trailing along. A doe only situation would coax them into dumping that mentality at least during doe-only days. Of course it is always possible that the doe-only seasons won't work regardless of what season you force it into. Maybe the whole idea of trying to force any hunters into just shooting antlerless deer is simply wrong-headed and doomed to failure.

I assume you have had a sit-down with whoever will be responsible for security, and are feeling secure that they take their responsibilities seriously, and know a bit of something about watching over youngsters. Perhaps you have been able to assess first hand and in person the mindset and maturity of the "watch-dogs" of the program. And of course the number of years and the experience that the people running the program have had. Maybe even a few questions about the facilities and security provided can add to your confidence.

I would agree if it wasn't an idea that so many apparently feel can be refuted so easily. I'm not sure I really buy that thought. As was pointed out, there is a public aspect to all of this that I'm sure the DNR wouldn't really want to find themselves in the middle of unless they thought they could back up their position. And as far as them being driven by hunters, that I not the impression I get after hearing all the years of outcry over their severe attack on the deer herd down there. I get the impression that they are determined to do what they think is the right thing (as they see it) regardless of how it plays among the hunters. No, I think this is genuinely supported by whatever coyote management research they could dredge up. If we say they are all screwed up about this idea, then we have to put the blame where the buck stops. This is not something that can easily be blamed on hunters.

And yet these guys refuse to even mention any doe only seasons during the regular gun season where it might have a real impact. Their take on it is that bow season is the place to manage deer populations. If their agenda of cramming muzzleloaders into bow seasons is not clear to everyone by now, then I don't know what to tell you. Now they are so desperate to cover up bow season with muzzleloaders that they are even foreshortening their antlerless season trial and jumping right into what they really wanted to do for the past 10 years.

Another observation is the fact that the coyote in eastern parts of the country are for all practical purposes at the top of their food chain. So am I hearing that a species with no predators other than automobiles and disease should simply be allowed to multiply totally unchecked? I'm not sure just when or if the "bounty card" should be played, but it does appear that hunters and trappers are not really doing much of a job on them in some parts of the state. I'm guessing that the PA. DNR is feeling like there is a lacking of motivation to hunt coyotes. If they are correct, extending the season to year around probably won't have much of an impact. I really do not know what the answer is. I guess that's why I asked the question.

So, are we saying that PA. Department of Natural Resources does not understand coyote management and frankly are incapable of reading scientific papers, studies and research. After all, this is a DNR backed idea. I really don't know. I don't have any dealings with them, so I am just asking. If bounties don't work, one would think that they would not be proposing such a thing. If killing coyotes does in fact make more of them pop up, why do you think the PA. DNR has never come across that info. Or is it possible that they have actually found contrary studies that debunked that notion. Again, I am just asking if these guys are simply inept, or might they have better sources of coyote management data and research than we do.

Yeah, the article caught my eye because we have had so many discussions about coyote vs. deer and small game and whatever. And now into the act pops the PA. DNR. I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about the workings and capabilities of these people to our south, so I don't really have any axe to grind one way or the other. But I assume that just like our own DEC, they probably think quite highly of themselves and probably have a lot of paper and credentials that back up the credibility of their actions. And this bounty thing seems to be their idea. So naturally I had to ask the question. Who really has it right. I know that NYS outlawed all bounties unless health concerns can be demonstrated, so we needn't be expecting this thinking to migrate north. But I really am curious as to what us laymen think about all the stuff flying around about coyote control.

Actually I think I said what I said very clearly and it doesn't need any editorializing or spin from the likes of you. It would appear that it isn't only your guns that are full of air.....lol.

This is what happens when you cram things down people's throats using the same tactics that brought us the Safe Act. The early clandestine hurry to jam something in before any opposition can be mounted struck again. Of course there was rebellion. What did they expect? Treating bowhunters like errant children being punished for not harvesting enough does to balance the deer populations wasn't exactly the right thing to do either. These people are beginning to disgust me, and apparently others as well. What wasn't complained about quite as loudly was how the muzzleloaders were also being screwed. It sounds like they went farther than the bowhunters with some of them not even buying a license.

Plus, it's just fun shooting. For me bowhunting is only part of it. I really do like shooting the bow.

I don't really know how to do that. My super moderator powers are limited .... lol.

Sorry Grow ...... I think this is in response to my "coyote bounty" reply that I deleted and moved out into its own topic. I didn't really want to keep moving this thread any farther off topic. I guess I wasn't fast enough ......lol.

Not all that unusual. There's are lot of people that like to keep the archery muscles tuned up year around. When I was a member of Avon Bowmen, we used to have an indoor range over in Caledonia for winter league competition. I finally had to get out because it was a 70 mile round trip on winter roads (ha-ha .... that was dedication). So I took their target face, made it a 3/4 scaled down version and started shooting in my basement at 15 yards instead of the official 20 yards. I still do that just to keep my hand in the target stuff a bit.

Did anyone notice in the last issue of NYON (New York Outdoor News) the article on Pennsylvania working on a $25 bounty for coyotes. Money well spent, or a waste of money for them? What do you think?

On the DEC page that discusses CTFs, they had the following description of "stakeholders": Stakeholders are people affected by deer who have a particular concern or interest in the overall population of deer in a WMU. Farmers, hunters, foresters, conservationists, motorists, the tourism industry, landowners, small business, etc., are all considered as potentially distinct stakeholder groups. Apparently when they list Motorists, they must be referring to AAA .... lol. By the way, the people on these CTFs are the ones that canvass whatever financial interests that they represent and input their combined recommendations about desired deer densities and harvest goals. So if the Motorists stakeholder category listed is referring to or including insurance companies, then indeed, the insurance companies are not only "approaching" the DEC, but they have an official part in dictating the deer densities around the state.

Well, it's time to move a couple of items and uncover the bow target in the basement. It's only 15 yards, but all I do is use a smaller bulls eye .... lol. Sure is better than standing out in the snow with a temperature in the teens. Anybody else doing some winter shooting (in home or a commercial range)?