Doc

Way to go gramps! Another one in the books.....Congratulations.

Really? You calling me out. What is this ... 6-guns at high noon? ..... lol. I got nothing during bow season, and shot the two does in gun season that I had permits for. Why? .... was this a contest? I would have tried harder if I had known that I was in a competition .... lol. So anyway, what the hell set you off in such a pissed off spring loaded condition. My gosh calm down a bit and take whatever it is that you take to get yourself back under control. I am just telling you what I have heard people say, and what I have read authors in magazines preaching. I am not trying to claim that I have run some kind of poll or anything. Maybe you have ..... Have you? We don't seem to agree on our personal experiences, but don't take that as a reason to begin some kind of feud for cripe sake. I know you like to set yourself up as some kind outdoor wizard who is never wrong, but try not to take it so personal when someone has a different set of experiences than you and sincerely offers an opinion on things. Opinions are not really a declaration of war. Also, I don't have any idea what you think my attitude is toward the DEC. I couldn't make much of anything out of all that "and the way things were" nonsense, and the fear-mongering, and complaints about people who dare to complain, and whatever all that rambling spewing was supposed to be all about. So I won't even comment on that. All I can say is that if you want to have an intelligent discussion, try starting off without that chip on your shoulder and understand that not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy. Conversation is a lot easier when you stay calm and drop the paranoia. Nobody is really out to get ya'.

It's not just a payroll issue, I believe there is a genuine antagonistic attitude in the DEC. There is now an adversarial condition between hunters and the DEC that I have been feeling developing for quite a while, especially as regards bowhunters.

The answer to your question I guess is that bow season would still clearly be bow season with all the original challenges that it was created for. I was there during that controversy, and eventually I came over to the compound side. But I remember that back then the longbow/recurve guys were saying that the inclusion of compounds would set the precedent for stuffing more and more different things into the bow season. They said that the definition of bow season would have very little meaning anymore. One thing would set the precedent for the next until there was no real need to have a special season for bowhunting. And by golly as it turns out, they were absolutely correct. Now we see guns stirred in with bows, and indeed the uniqueness of bowhunting with it's special requirements has been diluted to the point where the DEC feels quite comfortable recommending the inclusion of muzzleloaders. Now bowseason is looked at as the catch-all season. If you don't know where to put something, dump it in bowseason. Big surprise? .... Not to me, and I guess it wouldn't be a big surprise to the old-timers who were against heading down this trail with the compound. Your last sentence tells the whole story .... "most compound bow hunters today are too young to remember it, or have it matter to them."

So it may very well happen that the archery doe-take in those areas could go down substantially because of the DEC's brilliant program. Gee, I guess all those people who were surveyed kind of missed that little potential side-effect. And since no one at the DEC can think for themselves without a mandate from stakeholders, It may wind up a result that slips by everyone. Or perhaps the DEC knew exactly what would happen.

I think it was obvious to any bowhunter with a pulse.

Be aware that this poll may be sampling primarily more dedicated hunters than the general deer hunting population. Polls like this taken within a hunting forum may contain more respondents that more leaning toward the more dedicated side of hunting. So as a gage of member attitudes it might be quite representative, but as a gage of hunters in general, it may not be.

Like I said, I have no interest in debating the statement, but it does show the mentality that is adding to the DEC's inability to manage harvests.

Here's a very frequent quote that I hear over and over from those that are "big buck hunters". "Most hunters never give the rutting big bucks a chance to come through because they are busy shooting the does that the bucks are following". These people will refuse to shoot the does because they are convinced that there may be a big buck following them up. Those guys are so hung up on bucks/antlers that they will never shoot a doe for fear that they will mess up the opportunity at the possible buck following that doe or group of does. Now I don't want to start a great debate on that little pearl of wisdom, but remarks such as that show a definite mindset or reluctance to shoot does because of the big buck/antler fixation. How widespread is that attitude? I have no data (nor does anyone else), but I hear and read those sentiments quite frequently such that I believe it is not an insignificant number of hunters. So, is it any wonder that it is hard to get cooperation from hunters to thin the doe numbers. There is a need for an educational campaign among hunters and those that are entering the ranks of hunting. Maybe we even need a bit of a de-programing campaign to set the hunter antler fetish in its proper perspective and convince hunters that it is in their best interests to take does.

I knew that way back when the DEC was pushing so hard for the inclusion of an early muzzleloading season years ago. I knew the issue would not go away, and I suspected that the DEC would figure out a scenario to get what they wanted. I am convinced that they see bow season as a total waste of some prime deer harvesting time. That is why they have been trying everything they can to introduce firearms into bow season. They want that precedent set so they can expand the acceptance of guns in bow season. So we have been handed a challenge that is impossible to succeed at even if everyone were to try their best. Better than that, they are the keepers of all the numbers and able to massage the interpretation of the results in any way that they want. Seriously, we don't need a poll to know how this is all going to turn out.

I haven't been asked, but I can tell you how not to handle that dilemma, and I don't even have to be the head of the DEC whitetail management team. The antlerless season is actually a good idea, but to waste that activity by assigning it to the least effective hunting weapons/season sure does bring into question the sincerity and credibility of the effort.

It seems like we have an entrenched hunter culture that now considers that killing does is not hunting. How do you unravel that? Today when you want to tell anyone about a deer that you shot, you had better not be talking about a doe. And if the score isn't something significant, it is like it never happened. That is what has happened to our hunters. And now that attitude is so deeply engrained in our hunting, that it is beginning to become impossible to manage deer populations. The primary tool of management, the hunter, is broken. We have always been buck oriented in our definition of success, but now it has gotten to the point where hunters are refusing to shoot does. The DEC has to face that mentality. And yet the mentality persists and grows with all these grand schemes for increasing buck numbers and antler sizes and trophy opportunities. We can't even manage the herd size and yet we are still obsessed only with buck management issues. I don't think this is really going to end well. We are tolerated only because we are necessary to keeping deer numbers in check. We are going to have to begin doing our job.

I have gone through the hardcore phase, and now that I am approaching an age where I have to slow down a bit, I do have to treat it more like a casual hobby that serves the purpose of recreation rather than a frantic, rabid, activity that has to have top priority 24/7.

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.