Doc

Actually the blame lies within our own ranks. We can blame whoever we want, but the problem is hoarding shooters. Politicians may have caused the climate that promotes hoarding, but it is our own selfishness that brings it all to reality.

What a great discussion (apart from the obvious topic theft attempt). We spend a lot of time, money, effort and indeed, passion on this activity. It probably is good that some kid makes us at least spend a few minutes thinking about why we do it, and can it be justified to anyone's satisfaction that isn't as immersed as we are in it. Of course there are some that will not accept any reason or justification regardless of how well thought out and logical it may be. For the rest who still have some room left in their mind to be at all receptive, it is good for us to have done some prior thought so that we can offer a constructive and positive answer to his question. I think the answer is not a simple one paragraph answer, and I believe it could fill a small book. But there are a lot of elements that deal with all the wildlife management principles, traditions, heritage, culture, the predatory nature of man and his place in the environment, challenge, food chain principles, sustenance, perhaps a little discussion about the fact that everything dies, and how hunting fits in with the humanness of that fact, and yes if you want to throw in a bit of religion, that may have its place also. The question is, how much time does this kid have, because a proper and complete answer is probably going to run way past the allotted classroom time.

NYB has offered about as easy a way as possible to register your objection to the crazy stuff that the DEC is cramming down our throats. I would suggest that those who have objections to bowhunters alone now taking on the responsibility of balancing the gender ratio of the state's deer herd, take advantage of this simple tool that the NYB has provided and make your opinion known.

At http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/47738.html you can find the real DEC attitude on the perfection of their systems. Quote: “Some people have suggested that we should change our system to require reports from all hunters, successful or not, and that non-reporters should be denied a license the next year. These ideas and others have been discussed within DEC in the past, however all harvest reporting scenarios have both positive and negative aspects. Across the nation, a variety of methods are used to estimate annual deer harvests including use of mandatory check stations and deer check at meat lockers, mail questionnaires, report cards, telephone surveys, and telephone and internet reporting. No one method is perfect, and all state agencies must deal with incomplete reporting. Ultimately, the adage, "if it's not broken, don't fix it," comes into play. Suggestions to change DEC's harvest reporting system, while well intentioned, typically stem from a misunderstanding of how the system works and a belief that our current system is not sufficient for accurate harvest estimates or proper deer management. This simply is not the case.” Now, tell me that they are not saying that their system is as near-perfect as possible and doesn't require changes. I love that last paragraph that basically tries to discourage any suggestions from the ignorant "well intentioned" outsiders who are simply too uneducated and stupid to understand the finely honed and perfected systems used by the DEC. Yes, I do call that arrogance! And as you correctly indicated, "it's getting the data for the foundation of everything you do next season" and I would think that it deserves a more serious attitude than these arrogant comments show that the DEC has toward any suggestions for improvements.

Yeah, I think you are right. The newbies may have their head in the right place relative to shooting does, but perhaps just don't have the ability necessary to put that "good attitude" into practice .... lol. But I do know that the notion of letting the doe walk in hopes that a buck may be following, still has a lot of popularity among the trophy-ites. Newbies don't seem to have that stuck in their minds yet.

I guess my opinion of hunters runs a bit counter to popular opinion here. I am thinking that most hunters do care about management and abiding by the laws as best they understand them, if only for selfish reasons of safeguarding their sport. For example, down here (southern zone) where backtags are required, I have yet to see anyone out there without one. I have yet to see anyone breaking a law, and would have promptly reported them if I had. I believe that a lot of people like to tell stories or make foolish statements just to see the reaction, or appear to be the tough law-breaker just as their weird version of trying to impress people. Sure there are lawbreaker, poachers and such, but I believe they are in the insignificant minority. Perhaps that's a bunch of wishful thinking, but I still believe that it has become the favorite pastime of hunters to imagine lawlessness everywhere and to bad-mouth other hunters as much as possible. I'm not sure what the appeal is, but generally if you interrogate a bit deeper, the facts of these stories start falling apart.

Ha-ha .... back when most of our family members were a lot younger, the cabin had weekends when it was surrounded by tents, relatives, jillions of kids, and all kinds of activity in the summer, when it was no problem talking people into a weekend family gathering on top of the hill. We are a hearty lot, climbing that hill just to camp and sit around the campfire. It was a great family gathering place, but I'm afraid that we have outgrown a lot of the non-hunting uses now. Sadly, a lot of the older family members are gone, and the younger ones really don't get off on that sort of thing anymore. Even a lot of the hunting is being done out of the house now instead of the cabin. Just one more thing going by the wayside.

As far as the DEC is concerned, their system is perfect, as witnessed on their own web site. In response to good suggestions about bringing the reporting rate to near 100%, their answer is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" That is a quote off their own webpage. So they feel that their statistical system of accounting for non reporting hunters is as good as if we all reported and cannot be improved on. Arrogant? ..... sure, but they are the ones running the show. So if hunters don't report their kills, it doesn't matter. The DEC claims they've got it covered.

Yes this was the stated goal of a coalition of animal rights organizations. They were the first to put a target on bowhunting. It seems that since then they have gotten a lot of help from other hunters as well. However, the fact still remains that here they are, once again the only hunting organization that is publicly trying to do something about this misguided DEC activity.

It is hard to say whether any of us really has much of a handle on the attitudes of PA hunters toward the AR policies. Certainly nothing credible or scientific. I think a lot of people could just be in love with the concept of AR, but not all that impressed with the results of the over-all herd management in general. I don't think it is adequately understood as to what the interrelationship between the two really is.

That was a general comment across all seasons and at any time within those seasons, bow, gun, harpoon, whatever. There are those that see success as taking any deer (and good for them), and then those that take themselves so seriously that nothing but a buck, and perhaps a trophy at that, will do. Those are the ones who think that doe hunting is beneath them. The culture of so-called expert hunters has become a primary problem that is at cross-purposes to the DEC's management goals. All this aided by the videos and Saturday morning hunting programs and all the current gang of hunter-heroes and the magazine articles that have convinced everyone that the only measure of hunting success is the number of inches of antler. Everything else is touted as a waste of time and a sign of hunting incompetency. Thank heavens there are still a crop of newbies and those that don't take themselves quite so seriously that are there to control population numbers. These are the people that the DEC has to get ahold of and indoctrinate in the ways of deer management before they too become brainwashed into the mentality of trophyism.

Ha-ha ..... It's only slightly better than a tent, but we have had great times and great hunts there. It is just a little less than a mile from the house, and on top of a very high, steep, hill that I have named the "Killer Hill" because of its steepness and the fact that it claimed one cardiac neighbor victim. However, when I am not still-hunting my way to the top, I have hacked an ATV trail zig-zagging up the hill go get building materials, camp supplies, and passengers up to the cabin. Very quiet up there and stuck just into an old growth section of huge hemlocks and oaks at the edge of a 200' deep, shale walled, straight up and down, ravine. For many decades we have called that section, the "Dark woods" because very little light ever gets down in there because of the hemlock over-story. Not a wonderful feeding area (except for the acorns when in season), but a great bedding area, especially when the gun season turns on. The deer feel quite secure in the dim light and all the downed logs.

It will be interesting to see if there are any significant notations of excessive dry doe and single fawn sightings vs. the usual twins and triplets. I want to see if this ugly winter had any impact on fawning rates.

The infra-red eye-flash distortion of the face makes it a strange looking picture. I probably wouldn't call it creepy, but it definitely is a light-distorted one.

So is there anyone besides NYB that is taking a stand on this, or are we all alone .... again?

See, here is where the weekend warriors, or those who don't live, eat, and breathe hunting are actually doing a better job of serving as a management tool. Those hunters who have limited time to git-'er-done will actually have no problem shooting does, or whatever first comes by (usually doe, fawn, whatever). No antler fever or great expectations that they are supposed to be taking trophy animals. They are simply out there to get a deer (any deer) and go have a good breakfast and then go finish off their weekend chores. It's the ones that think they are experts that feel that they have to shoot only monster bucks. Shooting a lowly doe is beneath their station as an "expert" hunter.....lol.

Great video! Sure did get my attention. That is one weird noise for a bird to be making.

I don't care if it's a Canadian or a Russian or somebody from the US. It is all true and makes some interesting points that some don't care to admit, think about, or see published by anyone, anywhere. It's not the sort of thing where it makes a lot of sense to be shooting the messenger.

Sounds like our hunting camp on top of the hill. Accessible only by ATV or on foot. Kerosene heater, propane lights and stove, car battery for radio, carry-in water (dry-sink), bunk beds for two, kitchen table, 2 easy chairs, and a few folding chairs, all in a 12' x 12' cabin. Add in a bunch of tents, and it makes for some great family gatherings too.

Sounds like a great time ...... Enjoy!

And here are the results of those kinds of attitudes. The hunting public has gotten very sophisticated in their abilities to thwart the efforts of the DEC. It has gotten to the point where the DEC has to keep adding on more and more ridiculous regulations and a growing list of complex tricks and gimmicks in a failing attempt to force hunters to do what they want them to do. When the DEC loses credibility, they also lose the cooperation of hunters. I believe that a lot of the hunters would really take out more does if they truly believed in the necessity of it. Or at the very least they would say with some confidence that the DEC needs to be helped in their effort to thin the herd, if they truly understood the DEC methodology and believed them to be credible in their claims. A little education could sure save a lot of rules-making and enforcement nightmares. Or maybe they can't explain it all ...... oh-oh ..... lol.

There is one thing that is clear and that is that nobody has ever found an in depth explanation from the DEC as to what the details of the statistical procedures are that they use in their management decisions. Not to sound conspiratorial about it all, but it seems like they are not understanding the importance of hunter buy-in on the credibility of their system. Why treat it all like some kind of secret? Hunters are their primary control tool that is required for population management. I'm thinking that cooperation needs to be earned by some up-front answers to all the questions that repeatedly come up in these discussions. And answers like, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", or "It is too complex a system for the layman to understand" just does not cut it anymore. Dumb it down for us if need be, but make an attempt to educate the hunters who demand credibility and not just patronizing responses, or over generalized descriptions that are very hard to believe. This attitude of "Trust us" simply is not working anymore. You want hunter cooperation, then you need DEC credibility.

Well, I probably would not make it a daily habit to be walking through my stand areas. I think you can make the route even enhance your hunting a bit by shoving deer activity into a pattern that you can use.

I don't think that a lot of these people ever think about the impact littering has on the landowner, and how our difficult hunting access problems can be made even worse by this kind of landowner abuse. If we want access to private land to open up, the best thing that we can all do is to make sure that we act properly when using someone else's land. The quickest way to see those posted signs go up is to be throwing crap all over a guy's land. Relative to the drinking and hunting, I think we have discussed that and found laws regarding that. There is no question that this is unacceptable. People show enough poor judgment even when they are sober without adding intoxication to the mix.

I used the relevant part of the quote so nobody had to wade through the rest and lose the point. Look, I am simply concerned that an implication of all this co-op stuff is that it is some kind of cure for NYS management problems. It is not and we need to stay focused on the DEC. Co-ops are things that individuals do for their own personal benefit. That is not what this thread is about. Given the context of this thread, if co-ops were not introduced into this discussion about the DEC as being some kind of magic bullet to solve state management shortfalls, then I really don't understand how it relates to the thread at all. I don't want anyone leaving this discussion with the idea that the DEC is off the hook and a solution is on the way via co-ops. The DEC is still the focus. The main focus, and the only focus when you are talking about NYS game management problems.