Doc

Yes, as I said, trophyism is just one item in a long list of emotional items that the antis use to beat us over the head with. If you want to know the most effective tool in the Anti-hunting arsenal, I would think it is hunting imagery. It is a powerful weapon to stir emotions to their max. It is something that we should use more frequently. We argue logic, encyclopedic stats, and mind-numbing facts and figures until whoever we are talking to begins to stare off into space in a semi-conscious, coma-like condition. I wonder what would happen if somebody dragged out that video that we had here recently of the starving doe that could hardly hold it's head up and was obviously in excruciating pain. Or how about a fox that has disgusting matter crusting over its eyes. Or maybe a raccoon staggering around with rabies or diphtheria. Perhaps old pictures of that deer yard over at Honeoye where a field was littered with mounds of snow-covered dead deer, or the starving deer barely standing with that blank stare that won't even move out of the road. Or how about the good old video of the moose that is being torn to shreds by wolves piece by piece. And on and on. These are all very emotional and riveting images that show that there is no such thing as a critter simply dying of old age, peacefully in its bed, in the wild. It puts the fate of wild critters a bit more into focus and shows that the lucky ones are those harvested during hunting season. Want to shut an anti up? ..... just pack your cell-phone full of those images to show them the alternative to hunting. Never mind the facts and figures and stats and studies. They just tune out with those things. Use their own tactics against them. Work their emotions for a change.

I don't have a problem with it. It just is not my purpose for being out there as I said.

Do you really believe that one particular gender of the herd can be managed separately without interactive consideration? I'm not sure that it is even possible to manage deer according to gender. And, I don't think you ever manage one without impacts to the other. So to say that it has nothing to do with doe management is really incorrect. And I am sure that you cannot manage bucks without concepts of "population management" being involved. So that part of your statement is incorrect also.

We really do know how this is all going to turn out. We will ride all this out for as long as possible as the noose of public opinion tightens around hunting and we continue to lose participants. Some like myself will make it to the end of our natural lives, but other younger hunters will tire of the increasing limits, regulations, and complex restrictions thrown on our backs by ourselves and the growing intolerance of the public. Trophyism? That's not even a blip on the radar of public opinion. It is only one more of the many overwhelming emotional arguments that the ever growing and heavily financed anti-hunting organizations are pedaling. Eventually what we call hunting will become the activity of only the most wealthy among us as public repudiation and over-regulation strangles the rest of us. The trophy instincts will actually be the last to die as that is the only motivation that will sustain the obscene amounts of money and the tolerance of irritating over-regulation that it will take to participate. Gloomy outlook? .... you bet. But I want somebody else to explain a logical more positive outlook for us. I am looking for a more positive scenario, but I'll be damned if I can see one.

Great opportunity for a creative entrepreneur. A new product for the hunting market .....ADD-A-POINT. A deer antler point with a lag-screw point on it. In a bind? Deer down that isn't quite up to legal requirements? Buy Add-A-Point for only $19.95 and convert that deer to one you can be proud of. Never go afield without it!

That's pretty much it for me too. I run through the list of "wants" and "don't wants" when the opportunity presents itself. I would like to think that I have the ability to pick a deer, and hunt it until I get it, but that seldom really happens. Most of the bigger bucks that I have gotten was at the very first time I had ever laid eyes on them. I can't lay a lot of skill on many of them and have to chalk it up to dumb luck.

Sure, I get it. I'm not out there to watch deer walk by. Will have venison in the freezer, and whether it has some huge rack on its head or not, I will still expect to have venison. I will say that I don't have all the nice crop land that a lot of people have. It is a form of mature woods hunting and I don't have the luxury of sitting there saying to myself, "Oh gee, does that one score enough or do the other dozen deer that will be walking by today have more points ..... decisions ....decisions". It is deer killing not deer watching.

Yeah, use your crayons or use common sense if you choose, whatever. But don't try to tell me that you can add a secondary overlaid redundant system of zoned management without cost increases. Basically they will be using region sized zones instead of WMUs. One would think that if that were adequate for bucks, they could save a pile of money by managing does in those same huge areas. I want to offer an example that will clarify my point. This recent regulation that they have been tossing around about declaring the 1st 2-weeks of bow season to be doe only, based on size of doe populations in out-of-control areas. If they declare that a buck management decision, it could wind up applying to a whole lot of land areas than the target WMU. Now I'm not sure that they will declare that a buck management decision or not, but that does point up the potential kinds of problems to hunters of wildly expanding the management zone size for bucks and how it may impact WMUs that can not afford that kind of restriction. In other words, just like any kind of expansion of zones. you start working your way back to inappropriate regulations on areas that shouldn't be affected. AR regs also may impact WMUs that can't support them just because some of the included WMUs can. If these huge zones are used to determine where AR is to be applied, it very well may turn out that some of the WMUs with those huge buck zones have zero or very few available antlerless permits. The impact on hunters is obvious. I see conflicts of buck management with doe management simply because you have two conflicting systems at work on the same land. Staying with the WMU zones for buck management allows a flexibility to declare individual WMUs to be AR, depending on local situations and conditions, which makes a whole lot more sense to me. Actually the individual WMU AR locations shows very well how WMUs can be used for buck management. I'm sure that conflicts will not be limited to only these examples. Such is the nature of maintaining two systems for the same land. And all for no reason. Everyone thinks that complication involves a solution ...... It doesn't. You have a system, use it! It is not designed only for does. It can work for bucks as well as does (imagine that).

And, in fact it sounds like we are indeed losing the WMU management system for bucks. It sure does seem a bit convoluted to be managing the whole herd with one system, and bucks with another separate and additional system. And you are claiming all this comes for less dollars? I don't know how familiar you are with the current WMU system and the history of it, but those exact same words of regionality, contiguous and common habitat and land use were used when they spent all that time and energy designing up that system. Supposedly they were formed to eliminate management rules made in the Catskills and Adirondacks being inappropriately applied here in Western NY and vice-versa. I mean this isn't the first time they considered all of these things. All that was accounted for when they set up WMUs and regions. How many times does the wheel have to be re-invented? And now for bucks, we go back to square one with regions so huge that you cannot avoid running wildly divergent habitats and population densities and hunting pressures together. The current system is DEC staffed, understood by hunters and already takes in regional uniqueness even better than what is proposed. To me it is just another set of rules and new boundaries to further confuse hunters and maybe draw a little more fine money. Quote: "If you dont understand how it is less expensive to manage 9 zones vs 89 WMUs, especially when there is no need to, well I dont know what to tell you." Well maybe you can figure out a way to explain the new math that makes it cheaper to manage the existing 89 units for the entire herd (We both agree that they aren't going anywhere) and then overlay another 9 units on top with assumedly some corresponding increases in staff to somehow manage bucks separately ....and I am supposed to believe this is a cost savings? They also already have decades of data gathered and in the computers that are all defined by WMU. As far as the bucks are concerned, all that stuff starts over from the beginning with new boundaries. Where is the savings? Stop a second and logically think about that and I think you might begin to catch on to why I am confused. I know that I tend to get a bit long with some of these explanations, but it is only because I want to be understood. What I fear is that people speed read these messages and lose 90% of what I am trying to say. Try reading one of these responses, point by point, and I will be surprised if you don't agree with what I am saying. The preponderance of all of these points has to simply leave you puzzled and wondering just what is going on.

Yeah, I have no idea what these people are like tat shot those deer are like. I only know that the best crack shots make a mistake occasionally and of course deer don't stand still like targets do. I kind of like the kill zones that put the odds in my favor. But that's just me.

Ha-ha-ha, I knew where you were trying to drag this thread. I was just pulling your chain ..... lol. But honestly I am not motivated by antlers, and I am a firm believer that the worse thing that ever happened to hunting was when we all decided to measure success by the inches of antler that our kill has. Yes hunting today is a whole different world where everyone seems to be intent on impressing their peers. And they even came up with a scoring system because just plain old hunting wasn't enough. Its kind of comical to watch sometimes. Now hunting has become some sort of agricultural enterprise .... lol. Yup times change, but they haven't changed me. I still appreciate a good buck, but it doesn't drive my hunting. If a big buck was to step into my line of sight, I would be thrilled as much as anyone. But I don't hang my head and feel like the entire season was just trashed when it doesn't happen like so many others who learned their hunting appreciation from the Saturday morning hunting shows. I don't approach my hunting like it was a career. To me it is still recreation and I really have no need to impress anyone but myself with my hunting.

Well, maybe not always. I did see one that someone thought they could head-shoot. He had his entire lower jaw swinging in the breeze. not exactly lethal, and I always wondered just how long that critter lived until it finally croaked. Had another one on the other side of a steep, deep ravine that was wheezing like one of those anti-cigarette commercials that they show at supper time on the TV. I figured that was a severed wind pipe. There's a heck of a lot non-lethal meat for those head and neck shooters to hit.

Yeah, I ashamedly have to confess that I actually like venison. What do you do? ..... throw the meat away? And so far all of my deer have been legal and brown although I wouldn't hesitate to take a piebald if the opportunity arose. And yes they have all gone down when I shot them. I try real hard to make that happen. Yeah, and fortunately, so far, we do have a few choices left. Ain't America great!

Ha ha... I do understand that we tend to put forward an image of delusional prowess sometimes just to impress readers, but I tend to take a more honest and realistic view of things. In terms of what makes me decide what deer to shoot, it generally relies on an instant decision based on whatever deer offers a good ethical, high percentage, shot and contains an adequate amount of meat to make my time worthwhile. Oh, and of course it has to be a deer that is legal for the tags that I have.

And I never said that they intended to. But their new "buck management" scheme is based on the new 9 unit zoning of the state, which is a less accurate, redundant zoning system overlaid on the existing WMU divisions, (and you were worried about extra tax burdens .... lol). So why wouldn't you use the existing finer broken down, system of management units (which by the way all of the NYS statistics history is based off of) rather than diluting your statistics with larger more diversified areas. Larger areas do make it easier to over generalize results. It also makes it easier to pass inappropriate regulations because of all the additional land being lumped together. Larger areas do not allow for incorporation of unique habitat or population densities? Larger units do not account for changes in hunter densities that impact buck harvests and pressure. Whether it is bucks or does that you are managing, I cannot think of one good reason to manage bucks on a larger area basis and I haven't heard anyone else offer a logical explanation either.

Did you ever try to figure out exactly how many squirrels or rabbits or game birds you would have to kill in order to equal the amount of meals from just one deer. Hunting for deer is simply a more efficient way of meat-gathering. Bigger animal - more meat. From a sporting standpoint, the deer (any deer) is a whole lot more intelligent than a lot of other game. There is a challenge component to it all. That is also one of the big draws to predator hunting. Anyone who is trying to imply that shooting a deer lacks challenge is either delusional, dishonest, or lives in an area that has a whole lot more deer than we've got. Or maybe there is something in the water there that makes their deer stupid. So yeah, there is a whole lot more challenge and accomplishment in shooting a deer vs. shooting a squirrel. Anybody want to argue that point?......lol.

And so, my fellow animal serial killers, there you have it. The rhetoric of the animal rights people. The images and words of these people have got to have impacts on those not involved in hunting. They have to be gathering supporters, and more money to wage these kinds of campaigns. Given that we hunters are a documented shrinking minority in society, can there really be any doubt that these people are a formidable force to be reckoned with? We tend to paint them as wackos, extremists, and people that no one ever takes seriously. Somehow those images comfort us and make us feel that no one really takes them seriously. Those rationalizations make us feel that it is unnecessary to join and support any pro-hunting organizations. We find it difficult to imagine a society that would outlaw or force impractical limits on our sport hunting. Well, right or wrong, I can imagine it. These people are organized, single-minded, and dedicated. They do not engage in in-fighting and bickering. Once they have been convinced by videos such as this, they become part of a force that makes our paltry, half-hearted defenses and campaigns pretty much a joke. These people are politically connected and know exactly how to become a huge thorn in our side. I take them very seriously. Yes, I do consider them whackos, extremist and a bit deluded. But you will never find me calling them harmless and no threat to hunting.

Super-handy! I used to have to go out to the shed, hand-carry the wood up some steps of a long sidewalk, into the front entrance, up a 1/2 flight set of stairs (raised ranch), through the living room, and over to the wood stove. Talk about failure to plan ..... ha-ha. Getting rid of the ashes was kind of the same process in reverse.

I have a nifty little .22 Hornet Winchester. It's a pretty little guy that I keep around for sentimental reasons (used to belong to my father). However, it sits in the cabinet, and never gets used except once in a while I take it out for target practice. I have been trying to figure out what it really is suitable to kill. I have a .223 for varmints, a .270 for deer, a .22 for squirrels ....... everything seems to be covered, leaving the Hornet not really doing anything that the rest of the guns don't do better. So, for you fans of the .22 hornet, other than target practice, what do you use it for?

Deer bowhunting first. Squirrel hunting second. Deer gun hunting third. We have no birds, and the rabbits are kept pretty well knocked down by hawks, foxes, and coyotes, so while I would like to include those two critters it isn't practical to go out specifically for them. I also have to stir in my annual hunts for predators ..... that can be darned exciting.

I like the arrangement. You've provided a generous distance between the wood pile and the house to eliminate any migration of wood-munching bugs. I really hate to see firewood stacked up on porches against a house wall. Sooner or later something ugly is going to move into the house. I assume that there is a door somewhere nearby for ease of transport. That is one sturdy looking beginning, and I think it will look great when you get it all done.

That is true. They are simply overlaying another less explicit system over top of the existing system just to make sure nobody can follow what they are doing. I'm sorry, that is cynical and probably not exactly fair. But I see nothing that is accomplished by this new redundant system of buck management zoning that is not already being done better by the WMU boundaries system. It's not micromanagement, but instead diluting buck management by using larger zones for that purpose.

When it comes to subdividing management zones, there is no money saved by making them larger than what will be effective. We have a WMU system in place that advertises itself as being designed to accommodate habitat and land use variations. That is in place, and staffed and costs whatever it costs. I get the feeling that they are trying to dazzle us with footwork, with no real positive change taking place. we can't manage things with all the WMUs, but somehow mysteriously we will do a better job by glopping all these divisions together into only 9 areas. It feels like someone is trying to slip something past us by pretending on one hand to be doing something wonderful and then implementing all that in a less effective zoning than what we currently have. Where is the logic? I do not argue the point that the DEC is structured completely wrong, but I truly hold out no hope at all that we will be seeing those kinds of changes. And maybe that is what should be talked about, but it is not what is being talked about. My comments are focused on the original theme of this thread. But since the subject of costs and effectiveness have been brought up, I have to note that if you think that it is expensive maintaining the WMUs that we currently have, brace yourself before you begin thinking about the expense of re-structuring the entire department. I have seen the restructuring cost of corporations. I would expect the restructuring of an entire state agency would be no less and likely much higher. If you want to worry about elevating taxes ..... now you are talking some real dollars. I'm simply concerned that we will be losing a more closely controlled existing zoning system (WMU system) for another band-aid that is by design worse and less finely married to habitat and local conditions than what we already have. How on earth does that make any sense at all? I'm not a big fan of smoke and mirrors, and that is why I have to ask how a huge expansion of management zones is either saving any money or doing the management job better by combining diverse habitats and varied land uses and population profiles. There's a dance going on that I really don't understand. By the way does it only bother me that the entire system is built on statistics, and every single year something basic and fundamental is being massively changed thereby destroying all the history that these statistics are built on (just a little side-thought)?

I truly believe that there is an attitude of anti bowhunting that is prevalent in the DEC. I'm sure that they feel that a very good productive hunting period and opportunity to whack deer populations is being squandered on this specialized and very ineffective (comparatively speaking) weapon. I fully expect to see more and more incursions of guns into bow season for as long as this paranoia about deer populations and the political pressure to soothe anti-deer interests continues. We all think that the archery lobby is a powerful force and that it takes great brass balls for the DEC to take on bowhunters. But the truth is that the organized bowhunters are effectively broken and don't really offer serious resistance anymore. There is some real crazy stuff going on in these plans that are clearly showing the attitude of the DEC toward bowhunting. Some of it is starting to get real obvious. There no longer are any safety concerns about mixing guns with bows in the DEC. They are feeling confident with previous experiences that have been forced into the season without incident. I don't think that safety is much of a concern with them anymore. Frankly what they are doing to bow seasons has got me thinking that maybe it is time to call it quits on an activity that has been a significantly major part of my life for many decades. Maybe it is time.

And less effectiveness and accuracy. Why bother with the activity at all if you're not concerned with it accomplishing exactly what you're trying to accomplish. The old adage still applies, "a job worth doing is worth doing right".