Doc

The most important lesson to be learned is that there are right and wrong ways to conduct a blood-trailing session, but even when done expertly, there are no guarantees. Lesson number two is that nobody knows everything about deer hunting, and each day afield only serves as another lesson and even the failures serve to educate for the next time. So no time should be wasted with self-pity, or excessive frustration, or destructive negative feelings. Simply accept that you have been taught a lesson from the school of hard knocks and commit what has been learned toward doing a better job next time. Lesson number three is that no matter how convincing detractors may sound, no one has all the answers. And if they are trying to tell you that they do, it's time to start listening to someone else. And the final lesson, is to take any criticism in the vein that it is given. Hopefully there is nothing personal, but if someone has noted a mistake that you have made and pointed it out, weigh the info and if it sounds like constructive advice, use it. It serves no one to recognize a mistake and not say anything about it. These are all points that should be forwarded to the shooter.

And so, who else would be the "motorist" stakeholder that the DEC listed?

The guy came within 80 yards of the carcass. From that I am very sure that he didn't even do the necessary fundamental circles or grid search that is the necessary end to a long blood-tracking job. So he may have done a terrific job of blood trailing, but did not finish it off with the most important part which would have yielded his deer. As for hunter #2, no one has said anything that indicates any intention of claiming it as his own kill. Like I said above, a lot of us collect sheds, antlers, skulls and other items found while out in the woods. Such a hobby or collection does not mean that anyone is claiming the remnants as something they harvested themselves. There simply is personal value to collecting such things. So hunter # 1 may be the one responsible for it being there, but hunter # 2 was the one responsible for actually turning it into something useful. I say offer the guy the opportunity to take pictures and perhaps score it if that's important to him and then put it back with the rest of your antler collection and enjoy it as much as any other item in your collection.

Not to be too critical, but when it turned out that the deer was found 80 yards from the last blood, It sure does strike me as a less than adequate job of tracking. It doesn't matter how much effort was put in prior to losing the blood, those final circles that are really part of a tracking job, should have been done and would have yielded the carcass. In most stretches of woods I can almost see a deer at 80 yards. Certainly with any kind of gridwork, it wouldn't take a whole lot of time to find a deer that was only 80 yards away. That whole situation probably never would have happened if the blood-trailing techniques had had that last final search activity. Quite often that loss of blood sign is an indicator of failing blood pressure indicating that the carcass is not really all that far away. In my mind, failing to do a complete job of blood trailing, the issue of possession goes to the guy that stumbled onto it.

If deer are dipping into your pocketbook, and you let that influence your opinion while serving as a CTF stakeholder, then I would call that an anti-deer bias. I think all of the financial interests that Cornell has established as members (stakeholders) of these CTFs could also be properly called anti-deer biased members. In the one narrow example that you noted, that matter really has no business being a decision of laymen. At one time that decision was made by educated biologists, but now they apparently have seen fit to hand over their responsibilities to laymen who have nothing more than self-serving uneducated "opinions". It doesn't become a question of whether a single isolated decision happened to come out correctly or not. It is the whole process that is flawed. We maintain a Department of Environmental Conservation to expertly study, recommend, and administer true scientific biological principles, not to hand it all over to the financial interests businesses to establish whatever is best for their pocketbooks. The DEC was never intended to simply be a "technical advisor" to a panel of entrepreneurs. And yet, here we are. That is exactly what they have carved out as their reason for being. That entire system stinks and is simply a method of shirking their responsibility and hand the decision-making over to a panel of squeaky wheels.

Yes, I assume that's what they mean by the stakeholders they called "Motorists". And of course they are hoping to come up with numbers that would exterminate deer. Also, we understand what "Farmers" want as far as deer numbers (I don't blame them). And when it comes to "foresters", I'm sure they have no use for deer. They have others that I have no clue about, such as The tourism industry, small businesses, conservationists. I am not even sure how they rate being a stakeholder. But the one thing that seems to stick out is that we seem to have game management by financial interest, and they are really quite blatant about that. It's peculiar that the DEC and their educated biologists are not considered stakeholders, but instead are relegated to a rather passive role as technical advisors.

Yes we see a lot of that mentality in government these days. If someone can imagine a negative scenario ..... Ban it! We see a lot of that in gun control mentality. Get rid of all things that have a potential for negative use or results. Kind of like guilty until proven innocent.....lol.

There is yet another possible reason for deer numbers shrinking. That reason is explained on the DEC page on Citizen task Forces. http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7207.html The use of Task Forces have been part of a major effort to involve New Yorkers in the process of determining appropriate deer population sizes. CTFs are a committee of stakeholders who are asked to contact as many people as practical from their stakeholder group in order that they may gain an accurate perspective of their groups opinion of the deer population within the WMU. Task force recommendations are used to guide deer management actions in each WMU. Adult female harvest quotas, for example, are based on the relationship between the actual population trend and the population goal in each WMU. The number of Deer Management Permits (DMPs) available to hunters is, in turn, based on the adult female harvest quota each year. 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. DEC deer biologists serve only as technical advisors to the task force. -STOP- Look at that list of stakeholders again. These are the people behind planned deer densities and harvest targets. Break that list down into two categories: Pro-deer and anti-deer. Perhaps you can see as well as I can the bias in that group. It turns out that the so-called “stakeholders” have been running the show since 1990. Not the DEC, but rather this small, potentially biased, committee within the DEC. Perhaps we have the foxes in charge of the henhouse.

There are a lot of us that have collections of found antlers, and there is some feelings of ownership when you add another antler or skull to your collection. I have seen some pretty impressive collections of found antlers, and I'm sure the guy that found those was very happy to add that rack to his collection. Yeah, I can see where you might have a problem parting with it regardless of the story of failure behind it. In all respects, that deer was totally lost and the guy that found it was responsible for giving the thing any value of ownership that it might have. If it had not been found by guy #2, the thing would have become rodent food. So the only guy that reduced that deer to possession was the guy that found it.

One other thing that you might want to add to your list is the possibility that the DEC has absolutely no idea how many deer are out there and are just winging it with some occasional years of offering too many antlerless permits for the size of the population. A few years of that nonsense, and sure as hell you will be hearing some unanimous negative reports and results.

Here is the problem. I have had people pop out of the bushes dressed completely in camo (face paint and all). Today's camo is super effective, and a guy sitting in amongst some downed tree limbs and such is indeed virtually "invisible". These people have pulled this "gotcha" trick on very busy state property on opening day. And how they ever made it in and out of the woods alive can only be attributed to luck. They are gambling their lives on luck, or as nyantler said so well, they "made killing a deer more important than safety". Am I a believer in blaze orange as an absolutely necessary piece of safety equipment? .... I am fanatic about it !

So now the way the law reads, if you happen to come across some pigs that are ripping up your yard, crops, shrubs, or food plots, all you can do is wave at them and wish them well and send them on their way to breed and multiply and become a real problem, while the DEC sits in their office unaware that there is anything to worry about. It is amazing to hear them cry poverty about their shortage of manpower and all, and out of the other side of their mouths comes the claim that they have time to conduct personal trap and hunt activities that hunters could help with. Well, my question is, that if they really do have the resources to conduct such trapping expeditions, where are the numbers that show that they really are capable of exterminating these invasive critters. I don't want to hear some years later an apology for over-estimating their abilities to handle the situation without hunter help. That shrug of the shoulders and embarrassed expression on their faces is not going to put the genie back in the bottle if they are wrong.

Yes, that was my point. There seems to be a whole lot of government activity these days that focus on being "proactive" even without any science backing them up. When was it proven that urine transmits CWD? Being proactive has become the code word for "now that we have a panic to work with, let's quick slip all these agenda items through under the guise of being proactive". We see it all the time in the gun control world. My view of all this is that we do not try to put businesses out of business simply based on unproven, unscientific hunches under the pretense of being proactive. That works well as long as we are not the ones being involved in those businesses, but I believe in an individual's right to conduct business until it is proven that such business is harmful..... not guessed that it is harmful.

As long as we are into a guessing mode, I would put my money on the fact that nocturnal movement is caused by the fact that they are getting shot at and there is a huge home invasion underway by all the orange critters taking over the woods. Warm ... hot .... cold .... frigid, probably doesn't really enter into it unless perhaps when you hit extreme record numbers that have the critters laying down and panting to breathe. It occurs to me that deer down south eat, and it isn't always nighttime either. Out west you get the sun burning down so intense that humans can't hardly stand it. And yet it is not necessary for hunters to use lights at night to do their hunting. So I have to believe that temperatures are not really a factor at all and the nocturnal situation is due to a more obvious reason of safety more than a need for comfort.

Actually, these shows have become non-stop infomercials as the peddle one product after another. Even the hunting parts of the program are being blended with close-ups of various logos, and special attention to listing and labeling each miniscule item and gadget used during the hunt. Its never anything instructive or anything that adds to the story being portrayed on the show ...... just blatant, unabashed advertising. I can't even say that they are even clever about it anymore as the hawk their wares. But then that's where the money and desperation come from that drive these illegalities that are becoming common-place in the headlines, and making hunters in general look like unprincipled outlaws killing animals at any cost and without restraint. It's not the sort of thing that will strengthen hunting as more and more hunters drop out in disgust.

Every year it gets harder and harder to shop for me ..... so says wifey. And she is right. when I want something I just go out and get it. And now I have reached the point where I have everything that I want or need. I think the only answer is gift cards.

Gee, there ought to be a law. What's that you say? Such action already has layers and layers of laws to cover those sorts of reckless acts involving firearms. But that doesn't matter. Following the logic of anti-gun fanatics the only solution is to keep passing variations of the same laws until magically it all stops.

I love that last sentence. That puts it all in real perspective.

One big difference between the ostrich/emu/llama farms and the deer farms is that in one case it is legitimate market forces that might cause their demise and in this case it is the government putting them out of business based on some rather questionable science (more like a hunch)...... Unless there is some major break-thru in the research on CWD that I am not aware of.

Oh, there's no question about it. Someone has leaked a copy of the syllabus out to the deer population, and has supplied them with calendars and wristwatches. Anyone who doubts that, just check my front lawn on the day following the close of the season. If there are deer grazing there, it will not be the first time that has happened. That doesn't bother me so much as the thumbing of the noses and the raspberries. Last year one of them gave me the hoof. That was uncalled for.

Yeah, Sunday ends it for me. Anything that has made it through the major part of the gauntlet so far deserves to make it the rest of the way. Have at it guys, but leave some seed for next year....lol.

Apparently the DEC is convinced that bowhunters are reacting to a perceived deer shortage, as they believe that bowhunters are fighting this problem by shooting bucks only, and are not doing their part at wiping out the deer herd through doe harvests. Hence the punitive measures taken by the DEC this year on bowhunters. So apparently the DEC feels that there is a protective reaction going on among the ranks of bowhunters. That is why bowhunters were punished this year with an antlerless only chunk of the bowseason.

And on and on it goes as one celebrity after another gets arrested for game violations. Imagine the pressure-cooker stress of having to produce a successful show every week. It provides a pretty urgent motive for stretching, bending and breaking game laws, doesn't it? We all know that hunting is seldom that easy week after week don't we. It is obvious that something has to give somewhere.

So, is the new DEC ruling against using hunters to control feral hog populations working? Has the fact that hunters have been banned from dispersing hogs so that the DEC can successfully hunt or trap them been working? How many hogs has the DEC removed from the landscape. Where are the numbers? How many man-hours has the DEC devoted to the control of this invasive species? ....... Any??? Is the plan for eradication really working? Where's the story? How about it NYON, any plans for an investigative report to follow up on this story? Just wondering.

Actually, the overwhelming preponderance of responses on this site says that members are not seeing anywhere near as many deer as in the past. And then there are a handful of people (damn few) that for whatever reason seem to have fallen into pockets of decent population. Now that is not a very scientific survey by any stretch of the imagination, but it does seem to be saying something contrary to what the DEC is trying to sell. I will say that the membership of this site probably represent some of the more serious and dedicated hunters, and it seems inconceivable to me that they all of sudden got stupid and are unable to interpret what they are seeing and hearing. I do see the DEC as having a motive for making their management practices look successful. I do not see much of a motive for hunters to band together to paint a bogus picture of the reduced herds in their areas. It seems a bit arrogant to try to impugn the abilities of so many hunters to understand what they are actually witnessing in their hunting areas. I know it makes all feel all warm and fuzzy and completely full of ourselves to imply that if you don't hunt in the center of over-populated areas, there just has to be something lacking in your hunting abilities. That warm and fuzzy feeling is usually very short lived.....lol.