Doc

Yeah, that's a bit of a youngster. I kind of like to wait until their back sways down enough so the belly is dragging on the ground. And if they still have any teeth left, they have been taken way before their time. Also, that one still has way too much antler. They are not ready for harvest until they have begun to lose mass and points. I kind of like to see the legs starting to bow and buckle significantly too. But I guess that's only because I am such a great hunter that I only take the super-mature ones. There .... how does that sound? ..... Anyone impressed yet .... ha-ha-ha.

Some good points here that might make some great questions and statements at the next DEC "state of the herd" meeting if they dare have one ..... lol. Quote: "Some action is better than no action they say." Lol.....I hear that a lot on this forum. Never mind if the action is significant or likely to make any difference in the goals or cause any problems .... Right or wrong, just do something!

I just realized that I didn't address the whole first part of your reply. The part about objectives. First off, I do agree with your assessment of the DEC's primary objectives. Perhaps you did leave out a couple big ones that involve assuaging the political demands of the job, and pandering to the financial interests that surround deer management these days. I guess I first have to say that my objectives probably do not exactly parallel those of the DEC. Their objectives are career and political driven. Unfortunately that is also part of their job. I take a bit more laid-back approach to my hunting, and generally hope and wish that the DEC really does their job in a professional way. Unfortunately that thought is certainly severely strained these days .... lol. I do understand the need for population control in tune with habitat. That balance is a requirement for having healthy deer to hunt that are in good rig and still taste edible. I do share that objective with the DEC. Hopefully their methods and statistical activities are up to the task, and they will provide hunters the necessary tools and regs to make all that a success.That may be where I start parting ways with their objectives. I am blessed with not being a pawn of political pressures with my boss a political appointee by the Governor. I am not influenced by anti-deer financial interests that basically make population targets for. Also, I am not influenced by those demanding that I turn this state into some kind of trophy deer hunting destination. I am not effected by those that use political pressure to demand DEC activities that make trophy hunting easier. So that part of my objectives are completely different from the DEC. I am still of the opinion that trophy deer should be a rare and treasured achievement that actually has some uniqueness to it and I do not feel entitled to a trophy. And I do accept that not everyone should be guaranteed a trophy. To me that is not a problem, and I apply absolutely apply no priority toward trying to do something about making trophy harvests an entitlement. Is the DEC making moves to achieve their goals? I believe they are. I think they now are on board with successfully pandering to the trophy interests. I think they are working diligently toward getting decision making power from those financial interests that want deer number substantially reduced and perhaps eliminated. I believe that they are on the right track with identifying population problems, but are way out in left field in terms of expecting bowhunters to balance deer populations. I do believe that they see bowseason as a terrible waste of good deer-whacking hunting days and are intent on making the inclusion of firearms in that time-slot whenever they get a chance. Those goals are gradually being met. As far as their buck management programs, I have very little interest in that as long as the population problems are still out of control. So I have no opinion as to whether they are doing an effective job in that area or not. I believe that this resource-challenged agency really shouldn't be taking on new challenges until the more fundamental ones are brought successfully under control. And so I give them low marks for priority setting. Oh my! All this sure will put me in the hot seat for a while. But then I am not one to avoid controversy. excuse me while I duck for cover ..... lol.

Actually, I have for years tried to top my archery buck with a real bruiser in gun season. It is a powerful motivator when there are all kinds of fall chores back at the house that really need doing. But neither the first buck or the 2nd buck-attempt ever stopped me from taking does. I am usually looking for a target of opportunity. I really don't think I am alone in that. If I have a doe license in my pocket and any doe larger than a fawn comes by, I would be a fool to ignore that opportunity. That's why I apply for the permits. But a prime motivator for staying afield filling doe tags is that vision of some beast possibly walking by. I am sure that is a motivator that keeps many hunters afield filling tags after that first bow-buck. Take away that daydream, and all the other more practical activities that are always pulling at you while you sit in the woods begin to look much more necessary and I believe that a lot of guys would begin to think of all kinds of reasons why the fall chores around the house are more important than hunting in a buck-less situation. And yes, it is all just opinion, but I do watch a pile of hunters around me. And I do take note of how hunter activity, motivation and enthusiasm seems to drop as the season wears on. And I am convinced that it is primarily the hope for a buck that keeps the few guys still plugging away later in the season, still hunting, and still filling antlerless tags. If they have taken that one and only buck and they are faced with no more chances at a buck, it is likely that a lot of them will succumb to other needs and other interests. I truly believe that.

Well, I cannot help it if you don't understand the answer, or understanding it causes you a problem. I have made it as clear as possible. I am assuming that you most likely don't want to hear it. Now, as far as all these benefits that you have stated for OBR, I have to tell you that you don't really have a clue as to whether it will help with doe take. It is just as likely that hunters will fold up camp after that first and only buck is taken and without the lure of possibly running into Mr. Big, will be out of the hunting numbers where they maybe could have filled an antlerless tag or two. So that may even wind up a negative. More bucks making it to maturity..... Yeah, according to the numbers of successful double buck harvests, I have to say that it approaches insignificance. So I have to say ..... Big Deal! Will hunters even notice a difference? ...... According to the numbers, the answer is probably "no". Hunters being able to "choose what buck they care to shoot?" .... Well, it looks like you are counting a situation as being positive that already exists with the current system. So where is the real change that will be a positive that has any significance. There is none. And for that you would take away an existing opportunity and a motivator that keeps hunters afield possibly filling permits. And that gets me to my primary objection. This just one more hair-brained scheme to continue adding programs to eliminate hunter opportunities, the only answer that so many have these days to solve everything that they feel is wrong in the world. Wide sweeping, broad-brush denial of hunting opportunities is all anyone can offer. Ideas limited to only that kind of thinking are things that our shrinking hunter population really doesn't need. So now you claim that I am against change, and perhaps you are right. I have no use for brainless changes that are put forth just for the sake of change. I also have no use for changes bent on driving hunters from our ranks by continually removing opportunities. And I also have no use for changes that completely disregard local population and habitat variations across the state. I will at least give the DEC some credit for targeting focus areas for their actions only where it is needed. I may not agree with all of it, but at least they do recognize that one size does NOT fit all. They also recognize that their prime management challenge is deer population control and they have taken a direct route to that problem, even though they have assigned the task to the wrong season. Now, you want yet another positive suggestion. Sorry the DEC has partially beat me to it. My addition that I gladly offer is to take the wonderful targeted idea that they came up with based on known over-population problems, and put it in the appropriate season where it has a chance of actually working. If they decided to establish a two or three day season that was an all weapon antlerless season in those trouble areas, I would have no problem with that. You see that is a solution aimed squarely and directly at the problem and is sure to have the desired effect. As far as all the buck management activities, I would rather have them spend their resources on something a bit more fundamental and getting the most important part of their job right, rather than wasting time, money and computer bandwidth trying to cater to those that feel that big bucks are the only targets worthy of their efforts. Now, if you didn't have the wherewithal to understand my first very clear answer to your question, you probably don't have a prayer at understanding any of this. But it will give you something new to sputter over .... lol.

I would expect that the DEC has studied all of the states and read all of the research and followed all of the management reports, and made decisions accordingly. We should not assume that they did not. Did they come to the right conclusions or the wrong ones. I don't know. I do not have the facts that they do on that subject. No, we do not manage for antlers, and there seems to be some reluctant change in that strategy. My philosophy is that perhaps they should be concentrating more on successfully managing a sustainable overall herd population before they start spending resources on some of the more specialized exotic goals. It seems they are still struggling to handle the fundamentals of herd management. I have no idea how well other states do the fundamentals of herd and habitat balance. But what I think I am seeing is the DEC taking an additional bite before they have successfully swallowed the first one. I have to wonder what happens in many cases when hunters down their one and only buck. Do they then declare success and leave the woods for the season? I believe that for some, the only way that they will continue hunting is when they have the possibility (slim though it may be) of getting an even bigger buck. What that would mean is that for those hunters, they will no longer be in the woods to fill any permits that they may have. I see the extra buck as conning the hunters into spending more time hunting with the very unlikely potential of getting another buck. There is a bonus of man-hours in the field with a very small actual payout in terms of bucks taken. Oh sure, that is all theoretical, but then so too are the assumed benefits of a OBR.

Well, I am not impressed by any of current fad management schemes being thrown around, and the reason specifically for my opposition to most of them is that not all areas of the state are in need or even being benefitted by any of them. However, the OBR slides into another category which is simply a notion that is merely another hunter sacrifice with no significant demonstrable benefit.

Just because you didn't like the answer or cannot come up with a response does not mean that I have not answered the question. My answer stands. Oh, and by the way, that answer was intended to include the entire state. So far the state has not demonstrated a need for any form of OBR nor do they seem to have any interest in it.

Anyplace where it cannot be demonstrated as a needed change. Anytime you take something away from the hunting public without a significant demonstrable justification, that is "negative".

I thought I was pretty obvious and clear that I was addressing the part about "targeting the action only to the area of need" rather than basing management opinions like OBR, EAB, AR, etc. for the entire state on what you see in just your backyard. Don't try to imply that there was anything in that reply that was an endorsement of all that the DEC does......lol.

It is scatter-gun mentality in that it is a general statewide reg that would be applied in areas, even where it is unnecessary. And anytime you remove a benefit that exists, intrusive may not be the correct word, but it is still taking away something that hunters currently have the right to do. Not that that should never be done, but there needs to be some pretty damn good demonstrated reason to do so. We are getting a bit too ready and eager to sacrifice of all kinds of things without demanding adequate justification. Everyone has a new idea that they want to strap on hunters without ever considering the real need. Regarding the last sentence, I am not sure why we seem to assume that just because a practice exists in another state and not here that we are somehow "doing it wrong". Other states are other states with their own ideas, and requirements and circumstances.

I still cannot get excited about any of these "scatter-gun" fad-management schemes. As much as I feel the DEC is blowing the application of some pretty good management regarding the doe-only days, I still will give them some credit for trying to attack the control of deer populations in specific designated problem areas. Yeah, it sure looks like they are screwing up the whole idea by targeting the least effective season, but they are on the right track with targeted programs of management. All these other schemes like AR, OBR, EAB, are all assuming one-size-fits-all, across the state, broad-brush thinking. There is no sense of vision beyond one's own back yard. Give credit where credit is due. The DEC has almost got it right.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." Mark Twain Ha-ha-ha ..... Culver beat me to it.

If those were the only two choices available, I would absolutely favor the OBR over AR. However, I have a third choice. Let's stop seeing how many hunters we can drive out of the sport with ridiculous random restrictions and regulations on what buck you can take and how many. Nobody is controlling deer populations through any kind of buck restrictions anyway. Deer population control is all about the does. Yes I understand that the one buck rule is an attempt to force people to shoot does if they are lucky enough to shoot that one buck. And hopefully that does offer limiting hunting to doe only...... If the hunter wants to. Or it might just motivate them to declare success and call the season to an early end. Now because that hunter is out of the woods, no does get shot at all. There is a lot to all these calls for ultra heavy buck regulation that is having no effect other than driving hunters out of the sport. If that is our goal, all these demands for more heavily restricted buck hunting goes a long way toward meeting that goal. Enough of this nonsense already! Real herd management involves doe only days, and if they are serious about addressing that problem, put the doe only action in the seasons where they will have the most likely success. At the very least, share the burden among all hunters. Never mind all these actions regarding buck hunting. Those are all just for the promotion of trophyism, which is the real root to the lack of doe harvests in the first place. Instead of programs to encourage that mentality, try good well thought out programs toward thinning the doe herd.

Actually, stand hunting is all I do during bow season. Also, Every opener of the gun season I make an all day hunt from one of my ground blinds from bow season. The idea there is to catch those deer that are still trying to figure out what is happening as the hunters come filing into the woods. The rest of gun season, it is all still-hunting ..... primarily because everyone else is still sitting in their stands. What you have is the overwhelming majority of gun hunters sitting, and the deer laying where ever they feel safe, and nothing is moving in the woods. Have you ever noticed how the shooting sounds a bit like a battle zone up until about 9:30 or 10:00 and then everything begins to quiet down for the rest of the season. What has just happened is the deer got caught flat-footed with this sudden invasion and for a brief time run around from one hunter to the next. And very quickly, the figure it out that if they don't run in a panic through the woods, nobody shoots at them. They are not wizards, but the obvious usually does occur to them rather quickly. So now you have everybody sitting in the woods, and all the deer are also sitting still. And so goes the rest of the season. The point I was making was that back in the old days, that 9:30 to 10:00 time slot is back where guys used to start getting frozen out of their stands and beginning to start thinking of doing some still hunting. Those boots and socks just didn't do the job very much past that time. The coats and layers under them also did not do the excellent job of protecting hunters past a few hours of sitting, and they were forced to start walking. The result? ..... more encounters with what deer there were and like a pin-ball machine, the fleeing deer kept running into more hunters. Today, if they make it past the 10:00 am time slot, they are good for the rest of the season. They just go where they found safety, and stay there. Meanwhile the hunters go directly to their stands and sit there all day. That gets pretty boring. The good thing about bow season is that the intruders are not quite as high in volume and hopefully you can stand hunt and hope that no one upsets the patterns you have worked hard to learn. However, that advantage that is so important with a short-range weapon like a bow is getting less and less possible with all the hikers and bikers, and bird watchers, etc. But regarding your thought on my opinions of stand hunting, all I can say is that it all depends on what season it is and what technique seems most likely to have me encounter a deer. That is the bottom line that determines what tactic I use.

The amount of people afield really is two different stories. There is the bowhunting story, and the gun hunting story. When I began bowhunting, it was an oddity. Nobody knew much about it, most didn't even know it existed. It felt that we had the woods all to ourselves, and deer patterns could actually be determined and used to our advantage without the interferences of crowds of hunters and non-hunters keeping the deer in a super-defensive mindset and an ever-changing set of patterns. The quality of the hunt was far superior too in that there was a level of aloneness that I have never since experienced on the land that I traditionally hunt. I'm not sure how important that feature is to anyone but me, but the whole atmosphere of the bowhunt was spectacularly low key and individual, and it all felt like a more natural, traditional event of being alone and part of nature all through the hunt. The gun season is the reverse story. Yes the gun hunters have thinned out considerably. Probably no where near as much as half, but yes the shrinking of hunter numbers does seem to be significant. Now here is the strange thing. For me that is not a good thing. What you have now is enough hunters to keep deer nocturnal and on edge, but not enough to keep them moving. So after opening day, the deer are in their super-defensive mode, and only enough hunters afield to stink up the woods reminding the deer that it is not yet time to safely wander around in daylight hours. The DEC is claiming a lot more deer, and I have no reason to doubt that. But in my first reply, I noted that the fewer deer of years ago seemed to be a whole lot more visible and available because the higher number of hunters kept them moving more. Guys were forced onto their feet more because of clothing deficiencies. There was a lot of walking going on in that orange army that poked into every sanctuary that the deer thought they had. So it is all a mixed blessing. More deer, but fewer hunters that all refuse to move all day to move them. In terms of access, I haven't heard anybody claim that that is not a rapidly growing problem, including the DEC. That may wind up to be the demise of hunting. Now, I will admit that all these things that I am describing depend on how much control the hunter has over his hunting grounds. Those that are in a position of booting people off their land, and defining how hunts will be conducted will have a much different view of what's good and bad about how the evolution of hunting has been going. My comments are from one who has hunted primarily public lands and some rather heavily pressured private lands.

Primos makes a nice easy sliding bipod that is very easy to use. Pretty darn pricey though. But the one that I bought is extremely well made. I rigged up a bungee-cord sling so that I can carry it over my shoulder. It gets awkward carrying gun and that when you are trying to still-hunt. But what I found was that I am never next to a tree when I see the deer. It is nice to have something steady to rest the gun on depending on how far the shot. I am a bit shaky too.

So, he gave you several poses to show off his antlers. Even a view to show off the spread. Very accommodating buck......lol.

So do I.....lol.

To me that is GOOD news. I'm getting tired of people only worrying about what happens in their own back yard or issues that only affect them personally. It is time that we put an end to this "divide and conquer" strategy that the DEC has initiated. We don't seem to understand that we are all hunters that should be concerned about any faction of the hunting community that is being screwed over by the DEC, whether you happen to be currently involved or not. I for one appreciate the concern of those that are not involved ...... yet. It shows that the hunting community still has some semblance of mutual concern and still has the ability to become somewhat unified. Also, anyone who believes that something about the deer population in some areas has to be done and then allows the DEC to enter a stupidly conceived plan in an attempt to handle that serious problem should be commenting on how the DEC is bungling their responsibility of properly responding to what they themselves call a critical problem. And this idea that it should not be discussed or kept as an open issue really irritates the hell out of me. If it is so painful to access this thread and read about the DEC screw-up and opinions on it, I can only suggest that you simply don't.

Hunting access: When I started hunting, posted signs were an oddity. I could walk as far as my legs would carry me without ever seeing one. There was no such thing as obtaining permission to deer hunt because all of our neighbors were farmers and none of them had any love for deer. Also, hunters seemed to have the good sense to stay away from houses and farm buildings. Today, posting is an act of self-defense. Every parcel is ringed with posted signs and for good reason. Some areas are even fenced, not to keep deer in, but to keep people out. Bowhunting: Other than the two other family members that hunted the hill, There was no other bowhunters around. I had been bowhunting for 4 years before I saw another bowhunter in the woods. It was nearly a semi-wilderness experience and this was state land that we bow-hunted. Today, the woods are stuffed with bowhunters, small-game hunters, hikers, bikers, bird watchers, turkey hunters, etc., etc. Same state property, but used by more people than I used to even imagine existed. Gun hunting: Same state property.It seemed there were hunters behind every tree. That is an exaggeration, but often you could track a herd of deer running across a hill simply from the gunshots. Even though fewer in number, the shooting was kind of like a war zone. Because there was no super clothing like today, hunters got cold, got on their feet a lot earlier on opening day and kept the deer moving. Deer drives were a lot more common, so those secret spots that deer head for today were constantly being invaded and the deer forced out to run the gauntlet over and over. Today, the first few hours of the day sound like the old days, but then things get real quiet as the deer find their sanctuaries, and all the hunters stay hunkered down at the base of a tree or perched like birds in their portable treestands. Nobody moves .... not the hunters or the deer. Before long, the stink of humans is still in the woods, so the deer begin to operate in a nocturnal fashion, and the hunters, because they now have space-age clothing for warmth, continue to sit like lumps. Shots get to be rare and only happen when a deer takes sanctuary too close to where hunters might encounter them on their way out to breakfast or the beer joints. Later in the week, state parking lots become vacant, and the shooting becomes so scarce that at times you wonder if there really is a hunting season in progress. It really is no surprise why the hunter numbers are faltering. The activity of hunting has changed immensely .... and not necessarily for the better. It is definitely safer, but I often wonder if that is because hunters attend only the party of opening day, get bored and start doing other things. Attitudes and expectations: Years ago, hunters took their chances hunting the deer as they found them. It was not all that frequent that guys would actually get a deer, so the excitement and appreciation of the act of hunting had more to do with the experience and the possibility that you might see a deer and maybe even get a shot. Today, TV has had its effects. The expectations that hunters go afield with is that they will duplicate what they see on TV. They imagine that they are entitled to a record book buck, and that if that doesn't happen, they are a miserable failure. There is now even a scoring system to keep track of whether you are a winner or a loser at hunting ... lol. We have decided that if we can't hunt them as we find them, we can turn them into a form of livestock to accommodate our hunting. Whole industries have grown up around growing our own trophies. It has been interesting to watch as people throw thousand of dollars and man-hours into farming activities to have easier hunting and more widely recognized, high scoring, animals. It has become an attitude of "a trophy at any cost". Yes hunting is a very different activity with completely different attitudes and required expectations. If it is faltering, it is only because we have polluted it with commercialization and turning it into an activity of modern-day technology, working as diligently as possible to remove challenge and accomplishment from it. An evolution? ..... Maybe so, but toward what end?

There is no such thing as being finished with my summer job list. New items get added to the list before the old ones are completed. But I did get one big job completed. A new steel roof on the barn. new sheathing on the exterior walls. Repainted the whole thing.

None of these DEC replies to back-tag questions ever address the fact that most hunters wander around with a backpack covering the center of their back. So if they are to be visible, they cannot be attached to your back, but must be on the pack. And then when you take the pack off assumedly they have to be removed and re-attached to the back of your outer garment. I would think that they must have been asked about that enough times that they should think it important enough to answer questions about all that stuff.

One of the reasons that I have lost some interest in trail cams is the mortality rate on these things. I believe that right now I have more non-functioning ones than functioning ones. It's pretty discouraging to pay a whole pile of money for these things and then have them last only a season or two.

The only negative to a one-buck-rule is that it is like so many of these quick-fix ideas in that it is in no way tied to the size of the herd or the needs of the habitat. It would boost the doe take for sure, even in places where that really is not needed or wanted. I do like regs that are customized to the deer population and the habitat. To me that seems to be the proper way to manage a deer herd. The one buck rule is another one-size fits all kind of regulation. With all my criticism, I really do think the DEC is on the right track, assuming you have any confidence at all that they have the slightest clue about population densities and habitat problems that are being created by areas of high deer densities (the jury is still out on that one ....lol). The idea of applying special management activities ONLY to areas that need it does seem to be a correct attempt at good deer management. The One-buck-rule seems to be a random statewide shotgun approach with no specific targets. I'm never in favor of those kinds of management tactics.