Doc

I agree that the no tolerance regulations against shooting lane trimming is a bit ridiculous. But such relaxation of this restriction has to be well thought out and crafted carefully. I don't think we want people going in with power equipment and clear cutting shooting lanes. Also, I believe there are some species that should not be messed with. So some good definition, and I believe that the regulations on this could be (should be) relaxed a bit.

Keep us posted as to how the deer react to all the commotion. It is a great learning opportunity, because I have never encountered the scenario you are describing. I am curious too.

I'm not sure yet. I can't really see any harm in it, but haven't really thought too much about it.

Oh no .... I'm not getting into this one. It's too damned embarrassing.

No what this amounts to is a bit of inspection of potential negatives rather than just charging headlong into a plan simply because it sounds good on the surface. And I do have to wonder about whether the grass really is greener on the other side of the state line as everyone seems to want to say when they are enthusiastic about some of these cure-alls.

Agreed. What is up with all the secrecy regarding facts, figures, goals, etc. It makes one wonder if they really do have any of that. It does seem that everytime they offer a peek inside the workings of the DEC, there are even more doubts and suspicions that maybe there is no cohesive plan or perhaps they are truly operating by the seat of their pants. Brings to mind that old saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt". But I agree. The relationship between the DEC and hunters seems to be a one-way partnership in which hunters are dictated to without the benefit of knowing where the dictates are headed or the details, whys, and wherefores of the actions. They may not believe it, but to me it is obvious that they need the buy-in of those carrying out the plan (hunters). The success of the plan relies on it. So either they feel that buy-in is not necessary, or even scarier, maybe the facts and figures don't exist and the DEC is just winging it.

That was funny! What makes them do that? is it really playfulness that all of a sudden strikes, or is it bugs finally getting to them?

And, I'll bet that's the way it is with most hunters. The title of this thread may be more on target than the thread author thought. "1 and done" may be exactly the real result that OBR produces. And I wonder how that result would impact the harvest of does in those areas where high populations are a problem. No, I don't really wonder.....lol.

It's even more disheartening that the DEC finds it necessary to develop bonehead plans like this antlerless only edict in certain areas. And yet, here we are. Now the reality..... Hunters want to hunt. They for the most part do not want to manage. We pay taxes to have that done. As it turns out, for the DEC to be effective in their job, they must have the cooperation of the hunters. So, if they have to do some cajoling and enticement that will likely work a whole lot better than dictating and restricting. Yes there is definitely some educating and promotion that needs to be done. But the mentality of hunters has to be understood and dealt with, since they are the only population control tool that has so far proven to be viable. We have gotten into this mentality where antlers are the only measure of success in deer hunting. That, I believe, is the root of the problem that results in the refusal to shoot does. The fact that we can issue permits until we run out of paper, and hunters refuse to use them, shows that there is a hunter mindset problem. Until somebody figures a way to put a feeling of challenge and satisfaction back into shooting does, we may very well have to rely on gimmicks that provide an acceptable reason and incentives to these hunters to shoot a does. We can decry the fact that we have to resort to that, but we also have to face the human nature involved in the problem.

Well, first my Mathews MQ-32 will have its turn. But when that opener for gun season rolls around, I will be all hunkered down in my piled up brush blind, dressed like a blaze orange Eskimo, sitting on my stool with a pack full of cold fried egg sandwiches and the thermos of coffee and other goodies strewn around me, binocs dangling around my neck and my Ruger American .270 waiting to do the job. My gun stands turn into a camp of sorts, and I make a real party of it all.....lol.

Too bad we can't bottle some of this heat. I'm sure the time when we would appreciate it isn't too many months away.

Bowhunting for deer.

Yeah, I am not all that good at explaining these plans. It usually takes a whole lot of attempts before it gets clear. Basically it is a "one buck per season rule" that has a trap-door for the extra buck tag for those that really feel they just have to harvest another buck. Since extra bucks appear to be the big appeal to hunters and that seems to be the lure that can get them to kill does. Why not use that mentality. They can have their 2nd buck, but they have to earn it. Ha-ha .... see, you even get a bit of Earn-a-buck in there too. Now I don't know if the DEC tried exactly this plan or not, and frankly I don't really care. It sounds like a good plan to me and I thought I would bring it here for discussion.

Just got done reading a pretty good suggestion that kind of becomes a replacement for the "Does Only" attempt at reducing deer numbers. It also implements the "One-and-Done" rule that so many want, but with a way that hunters could earn additional buck opportunities. Some guy commenting in the latest NYON letters section, suggested a system where the OBR would be enacted, but with an option that taking one or two does in the overpopulated areas would be rewarded by the issuance of a second buck tag or an additional either-sex tag. Well, I tweaked some of his suggestion a bit, but the general theme of his suggestion is there. I thought that was a pretty good idea. It takes away all the perceived restrictive aspects and replaces all that negativity with a reward system for whacking the does. It's an incentive instead of a punishment. Kind of a new way of looking at management policies. Tweak it and mold it around a bit to fine-tune it, but I do like the change in thinking from harassing hunters to rewarding them for taking does. Those kinds of decisions are things that I could get behind and support. yeah, it's a pretty raw idea and needs some work, but I think it gets hunters behind the idea of taking does (perhaps even enthusiastically) without really taking much of anything away from them. What do you all think?

Well, bowhunter shooting experts always tell you to "pick a spot to aim at". Well, these little guys make it easy to do that.

I agree that many, perhaps even most, hunters may be very, very casual about their hunting, and may not really see any need for involvement beyond going out and having a great time. Most of them maybe go out on opening day only during their season. And I would be very surprised if any of these guys worried a bit about real deer management, population control, biology.. etc. To them it is like bowling. They just do it but don't really care who maintains the alleys. Just human nature I guess. Their involvement in hunting is so slight that they don't feel a need for knowing anymore than pulling the trigger. That is just the nature of hunting today, and likely has always been that way.

I think if you read all of the replies you will find that that is not true. I'm generally very careful about that.

I have heard that some guys spray their arrows with some sort of lubricant to help getting them out of some of the more stubborn targets.

It all depends on where your archery shop owner/hunter safety instructor lives. In Sullivan County (only), the feeding section of the law was struck down. http://www.outdoornews.com/November-2012/Feeding-ban-appealed-struck-down-in-Sullivan/ I have read no where that it was legally re-instated or addressed in any way by the DEC. In the remainder of the state the law stands.

Remember this thread is not just about neighbors. The question is asked about any hunter violation. I spend a lot of hunting time on state land, so any witnessed violations are likely to involve strangers. Of course being strangers, you have no idea what kind of psycho you might be dealing with ....lol.

It's a tough one. I do understand the reluctance to stir up retribution. But I also feel that if you witness a violation and do not report it, it is kind of the same as condoning the act. Also, I know that the DEC enforcement staff has been cut to the bone, and have been diverted from wildlife enforcement issues to environmental administration and management. So if we expect wild critters to have the protection of law, it doesn't seem right to simply turn one's back and let poaching continue. But as has been said, some of the retribution can get mighty escalated into some very violent stuff. So the issue isn't always as simple as might be thought.

I am still using Windows 7 Home Premium Edition and finally have all issues ironed out, and all the current software working okay with it. So I will be one of the last to convert to Windows 10. I am hoping that when I switch over, it will have been thoroughly debugged and rung-out. the longer I wait, the more problem-free it will be.

Yup, we're getting dry. It's either feast or famine this year. We went from floods and moldy tomatoes to drought and stunted apples.

Do the arrows extract easily? I've seen some of these that grab onto the arrow so hard you run danger of wrecking your arrows trying to pull them free. Letting go of the arrows can sometimes be as important as stopping them.

The DEC has apparently decided that bowhunters are now charged with the responsibility of managing the herd size but, it is not necessary to do so when gun hunting. So apparently in their mind it does make a difference whether you do it in bow season or gun season.....lol. Don't bother trying to make any sense out of it .... apparently the DEC isn't burdened with logic.