Doc

Ha-ha-ha ...... When it comes to bowhunters, the DEC giveth and the DEC taketh away.

I honestly believe that opening bow season to guns will happen. That issue of an early muzzle-loader season hasn't really gone away yet. I think the DEC regrets putting so much of the deer season in the hands of a bunch of buck hunters. I overheard a DEC person talking to a group of other DEC people call bowhunters a bunch of buck-hunters during a break at one of the public state-of-the-herd meetings. I am sure that the attitude at the DEC is that bow season is a waste of good deer harvesting time that could be used much more efficiently with firearms.

Now it looks like there will be a massive recall on airbags. Why? because on deployment they explode showering the passenger compartments with shards of metal. Imagine that. If the crash doesn't kill you your airbag will ..... lol. Used to be that cars would nickel and dime you to death with piddly little problems. Now they just design them so they kill you outright.

Every year that goes by, I lose a bit more durability. Having already had a stroke, I do wonder about what kind of stress I should be putting my body through. And then there is the fact that we now call the hill a killer because we lost our neighbor, who was younger than me by quite a bit, to a heart attack 1/2 way up the hill. The fact is that I actually walk more ground because of the ATV. Rather than using all my energy just getting up the hill, I generally park just under the top ridge to keep the sound over the edge, and walk up about 50 yards to the crest and walk wherever I want to from there. It means that I can hunt quite a bit deeper in than I would be able to if I didn't have the ATV. Now, all that sounds like I am trying to justify my using the ATV as a hunting assist. I am not. I used the quad since the early 80's for transport and for dragging deer out because it made sense to extend my distance, and to use the assist for deer dragging. There is no virtue to hunting harder, and no vice to hunting smarter.

As long as wildlife management is looked at as discretionary spending by the state government, and state budgets are balanced by withholding funding from the DEC, nothing can be done about the poaching situation. But I wonder if an agency who seems to worry only about eliminating deer from the landscape are really putting forth a maximum effort in fighting poaching. Apparently we have two competing philosophies at work in the DEC. One half concentrates on how to whack on the deer population while they are also want to give the appearance that they need to safeguard the herd with strict poaching enforcement. I wonder which philosophy is winning out?

I can't believe that they can't remove enough does through the permitting system. Heck, if they are serious about wiping down the deer population, just eliminate the permits completely in select areas and place a daily bag limit like they do down south. I know there are enough game hogs around to knock the hell out of the deer population under those rules. Want to thin them out? ..... legalize jack-lighting. Hunt them with dogs. Open a snare season. Come-on get as ridiculous as you need. Enough of those kinds of rules, and they'll get the herd down to the level where you'll hardly ever see one, which is apparently what they are really after. I mean if you want to eliminate the herd, there are a lot more effective ways of doing it than taking away hunting opportunities from bow hunters (and soon to be x-bow hunters).

Anybody ever wonder if maybe we are asking our cars to do just a little too much for us these days? Yeah, I realize how great it is to have the wonderful long life, high mileage and super conveniences on the modern cars. I do remember when getting a car to go 100,000 miles was almost unheard of. But really, some of these things that go wrong these days are absolutely aimed at killing the driver and occupants. No prior warnings, the car just decides on its own that it is going to take off at top speed? Damn! what if there had been a line of cars in front of her? What if she was just coming into a hairpin curve? What if their was a busy intersection coming up that had a stop light or a stop sign? The ugly scenarios go on and on. It seems that maybe some of the design standards need a bit of tightening. I know that I don't ever want to encounter something like that. I might not be quite as lucky.

Are these all things that you did before turning tail and crawling out of the state in defeat? Did you withhold your payroll and property taxes as a protest before you ran away? Maybe all that stuff sounds so much better as advice for others than as actual deeds for yourself. It's much easier to run away than to follow your own advice, isn't it?

I will guarantee that such a rule will immediately be followed by the biggest buck of my lifetime walking in at 15 yards posing broadside, and then turning around and posing with the other side exposed, followed by a sound that is very much like laughter.

Ha-ha ...... you beat me to it. I just logged on to make the same request. I would like to read the info myself. This is again another slap in the face from the DEC toward bowhunters. It appears that the DEC is developing a pretty standard anti-bowhunting attitude and set of policies. Oh and by the way, those of you that are trying to get full inclusion of x-bows in archery season, you might want to pay attention to this also.

We all understand how thin the DEC's enforcement line is. And I have no difficulty imagining how frustrating it must be to not be able to field every complaint that comes in. But there really is no excuse for not getting back with a complainant with a status, or even an up-front admission that they might not be able to get to every complaint received rather than just leaving those reporting crimes just hanging. If you are serious about promoting citizen involvement in reporting violations, you cannot simply ignore the complaints that people do take the time to report.

I'm curious what system you would replace ours with, and exactly what have you done to make that happen besides scampering away like a frightened rabbit and fleeing the state. I'm not trying to be too critical, but it seems to me that if you have so much to say about how others face up to the problems of NYS governance, you must have some pretty good ideas on exactly what to do to straighten up the system, and a pretty impressive list of things that you have already done. And I do not consider running away from problems to be one of those things.

Actually there are many things to be "worried about". It is good not to get so focused on one thing that you lose track of all the others that are sneaking up on you. Regarding having a drinking water supply that does not poison you or cause a third arm to grow out of your head, it should be noted that we humans really do need a water supply that isn't lethal. That probably sits kind of high on the priority list of things to keep track of. It's certainly not an issue that should be dictated by financial concerns.

Oh, exactly right. There is another subject that has no shortage of armchair experts. You listen to some of the opinions on either side of that issue, and it has you scanning the walls for displayed hanging doctorate degrees.....lol. Everybody is an expert ...... just ask them. A lot of them can parrot back volumes of data that they have carefully sifted and sorted through that represents their chosen point of view.

Unfortunately this is one of the realities of hunting other people's property. Land use is quite an ever-changing thing, and today's honey-hole can turn into tomorrow's housing development. I would hate to say how many prime hunting spots have been replaced by a house, yard and out-buildings and a jillion little screaming kids running all over the place, over the decades. I have had dirt-bikes, and campers take over my favorite stand areas, simply raising the constant level of human activity to an unhuntable state. I see all this "people pollution" as being one of the biggest challenges to hunting today.

My motives are a little more selfish than trying to save a planet....lol. I only want to save my little part of it. At my age, it may not be all that important, but for those that have a bunch of years left, it may be a bit disconcerting to find out 20 years down the road that people sold off the future years of their longevity and property values for some short term prosperity. I have no problem with extended discussion. And I have no sympathy for demonizing those that offer a view of patience and thorough forethought. I tend to be a bit more cautious on controversial issues, and have no real desire to muck around in things simply for some quick cash only to find out later that maybe we were a bit premature and overzealous in our promotion and defense of these activities. Frankly, I doubt there is anyone on this forum that is capable of giving a credible argument on this issue although many try to give the impression that they have some "special" knowledge. It seems to me that it is not an ideological issue (not everything is). In fact it is a scientific issue that should be sorted out by the scientists. I also believe that the financial arguments are incidental and should not be used to force dumb decisions that may not have such nice consequences. Oh, and by the way, if you really have to get into the ideology of all of the suffering masses of bad economic situations in NYS, keep in mind that much of the liberal, socialistic, gains made in this state, followed that same tear-jerking line of argument. Such emotional heart-rending arguments seldom have good logical outcomes.

Of course all of that depends on the real details of exactly what was going on at the time which none of us know.

See, there is the thing that makes me a bit uneasy. Basically they are saying that you never have a right to protect your own critters on your own property from dogs that have callously been turned loose on the neighborhood. I don't care if we are talking about a pet chicken or your own pet dog or any other critter that relies on you for its welfare. Worrying about what is legitimately called "livestock" evades the point that anything on your property should be safe and able to be protected against outside forces. And that should pertain whether that item that you are protecting is a "couple of chickens", your pet wiener dog, or even your goats. You should have the right to use deadly force on any critter that has invaded your property with the intent of doing harm to any critter in your possession or under your care. And when your life can be turned upside down for doing so, something just ain't right and needs fixing.

I love these kinds of technology laced discussions, where each side trots out their gang of scientists, studies and research and proclaims theirs to be the only truth. We all become expert hydro-geologists and our word and expertise become legendary in our own mind. I readily admit that I am kept ignorant on the subject by forces of each side of the debate, each one making claims that are immediately offset by counter-claims all wrapped up in what looks like appropriate credibility. I'll admit it ..... I don't know squat about the issue ..... period, and I refuse to try to impress anyone with some shred of potentially biased and bogus information that I have read from one side or the other. My attitude is that I have seen enough industry abuse of the environment over the centuries, that I feel the burden of proof lies with those that want to use processes that involve the environment. So far the frackers have not met that burden in a definitive way, and until they can reduce their science down to laymen's terms, and fully disclose the nature of the witches brew that they wish to inject into the earth, I will simply be against it until they can. Proprietary info ..... balderdash! Nothing is proprietary when it involves potential fouling of the drinking water that keeps me alive.

What an interesting article. Thanks for the link. It may not be a viewpoint that is very popular here, but it is always interesting to get other viewpoints. It gives you something to think about. I think as habitat continues to fill in and mature, this argument will take on more and more credibility. But, we are likely talking many, many decades before conditions advance to the point where there is any serious public appreciation for all of this.

Even fines should react to inflation. But I do hope the increases are more than simply keeping up with inflation. I am kind of in favor of adding equipment confiscations in somewhere along the line. That seems to have more impact than just money. For some of these guys, the fines are simply a cost of doing business. Anything that is used in the commission of a poaching violation should be confiscated ..... anything .... including transportation to and from the scene of the violation.

If it turns out that the dog was destroying livestock, the end of this story may turn out quite different from what everyone apparently hopes. However, the burden of proof of that now shifts to him. He had better be able to come up with some pictures or livestock carcasses or some such evidence.

Interesting discussion. I may actually own one of these landlocked parcels. My land is separated with two individual deeds. All deed transactions were established prior to 1976. That would be the date that NYS established its Wetlands Act. All existing access (driveways) to properties that crossed the existing wetlands are grandfathered in. However, my 2nd parcel never had a driveway and is cut off from the road by wetlands. So in effect, it was NYS that made the property landlocked via the Wetlands Act. So is it NYS's responsibility to allow access (driveway) to be installed even though it would violate the Wetlands Act? They are the entity that made the parcel landlocked. Ha-ha ..... the situation gets more and more entangled .... lol.

So what is it about turkey calling that so often attracts deer. I can remember a few times when I was squawking away on my box call, it seems like I had better luck calling deer than I did calling turkeys. What do you suppose they have going through their goaty minds when the come sneaking into a turkey call? Something to do with their common choices o food? Just simple curiosity? Something to do with fawns?

Ha-ha .... The good ol' days of hunting are not necessarily measured in deer harvest numbers. I believe that most people who use the term "Good ol' days" when talking deer hunting are talking more about the quality of the hunt than simply about how high a pile of deer they were able to get. But I do get your point that deer numbers have multiplied over the years. However keep in mind that bag limits have also increased .... significantly. Also there have been significant changes in equipment. Rifle usage has certainly increased harvest numbers over the days when a bird barrel used to double as the deer-gun of choice. Bowhunting equipment advances has placed that style of hunting into a major contributor to harvest numbers where back in the day, bow kills were not even a blip in the data. Season lengths today dwarf what we used to have particularly in the bow harvests. Also, the methods of calculating deer harvests have evolved a lot since 1954. which methods got more accurate numbers? .... Well that's an argument for another thread. The point is that there is a significant amount of "apples to oranges" comparisons that is in these numbers if you are trying to compare deer herd sizes via this data. However, just the power of observation tells you that herd sizes are larger. There shouldn't be a whole lot of arguing over that point. I don't believe that populations have risen by the percentages reflected in these harvest numbers but they certainly have risen.