Doc

Yes, hunters do the dirty work. But let's understand who it is that is charged with the responsibility of game management and who it is who is drawing a paycheck for that function. We hire biologists and maintain a DEC (DNR) as the supposed competency center of wildlife management. So when the agency issues more permits, those who believe they really know what they are doing, do their best to fill whatever permits that they have been given. So whatever management shortfalls that occur come on the shoulders of those claiming authority and expertise. So management mistakes are not the fault of the hunters. They are simply victims of putting their faith in those that supposedly know and claim to know, what they are doing.

Many food biases are not based on actual fact, but rather perceptions, and other lifetime experiences that created those biases. However, don't think for a moment that those biases are not just as engrained and powerful as any logic based feelings toward food. For example, you can tell me how delicious rattlesnake meat is, but don't ever expect me to even go near a plate of it ..... lol. No logic or fact involved there, but my aversion to eating a snake is just as powerful as it would be if it were a plate of fly covered garbage. I can't see any situation other than starvation where I would eat dog meat either, but there are cultures that have no problem with it. That doesn't mean that I feel deprived because I don't dine on Fido. I don't see woodchuck becoming part of my diet anytime soon.....lol

I wonder how many non-hunters really don't distinguish between poachers and legal hunters when they read these stories. I can imagine the comments as people read that story. Do non-hunters even know what is legal hunting and what is not? Do they start assuming that most hunters just cut the heads off and leave the rest? Do they assume that bait is a normal hunting act in NYS? I really cringe everytime I hear those kinds of stories. I'm not sure how much of that crap is rubbing off on me strictly by erroneous association.

Lol ..... I take a geezer out hunting everytime I go out ....... Me.

This would be a pretty quiet forum if the prerequisite for making a comment was that you had to first become an activist.

That is hunting with all the tactics, strategy, and challenge and all the other aspects of hunting except the killing and eating. And I'm sure it results in all the same emotions and satisfactions of hunting, when things go right, and the same levels of disappointments when things go bad. No food motives at all. It is a good indicator that there is a lot more to this hunting stuff than simply food gathering.

This is another example of poor shot selection. The kid was not trying to hit the deer behind, but had the father been on the ball, he would have seen a very bad shot being set up and should have told the kid to wait. He dropped the ball there, and it could have turned out very ugly. I am going to give them the benefit of a doubt and assume that wherever they were hunting, he had the appropriate tags to cover the two deer. But I would have liked to have seen the father say something about taking that kind of shot so the kid could have learned something, and anybody watching that video does not take this double kill on as a goal. We can only hope that that point was made off-camera. I think the father gets the "unethical" ding on this one.

If I am to be honest, I have to say that if you have a plate of venison on the table along side of a plate of greasy, drippy beef homburgs, I'll grab the burger everytime. So I don't hunt for the meat. Sure, I eat what I kill, but that is not the reason that I go out and freeze myself for hours on stand. When I am interested in meat, I head out to my favorite restaurant or supermarket, not to a tree stand.

Lol ..... Perfect response.

There is no reason for a woodchuck to taste bad. They are vegetarians with the same diet as rabbits ..... BUT ..... I just can't do it. I have even gone as far as dressing one out in preparation for eating, and still couldn't do it. It's just another one of those unexplainable biases. Of course those remembered images of some of those nasty disgusting, runny, maggoty, stinking, oozing, woodchucks that our dog used to drag home and roll in may have something to do with that particular bias. Can't get that picture out of my mind.

You comments on the size of the deer herd is simply hear-say that doesn't rely on the mysterious world of statistics. They don't care about your observations. You and I are simply untrained observers who do not have the ability to know what we are seeing. They are the experts, and they have no interest in hearing from those who actually walk out into the woods. If it can't be reduced to ones and zeros, it is worthless noise. Seriously, you would have thought after all these decades, someone in the DEC would have figured out how to gather and use the inputs of those thousands of willing observers. If for no other reason than to verify their statistical analysis that feeds their management policies. Maybe just a little something that might tell them when they are encountering statistical drift and results are not what they are supposed to be. But then that would be admitting a slight dent in their façade of perfection.

An editorial in New York Outdoor News put it best when they said that the DEC suffers from a "crisis of credibility", which is what I think you are alluding to. There are certain statements being made all the time that really sound like they are tap-dancing all around the actual truth. I think that most hunters are starting to catch on to that, and are beginning to be quite vocal about it. As I said in a prior reply, when the hunters don't believe or trust what the DEC is saying, they lose all cooperation. As it turns out, the hunters are an essential and vital tool in game management, and without their cooperation, whatever the DEC wants to do simply turns to garbage. I think the DEC has a lot of fence-mending to do with the hunters. And I am not talking about taking polls and doing whatever hunters want. I am talking about educational, no B.S., explanations of their systems, including how they verify their statistical analysis. They need to re-establish trust and credibility and perhaps somewhere along the line pick up some info themselves as to where their systems might be lacking and need improvement. Stop the stone-walling and the cutsey little remarks like, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Never mind the "Relax and trust me" attitude and start explaining why their systems aren't the secret black magic and collection of faulty guestimates, concocted factors and compounding applications of bad info after bad info, year after year, that they appear to be.

I have no problem with a one-buck rule, but if the goal really is to whack the population of deer down, I don't know why they are not promoting a few days of gun season that are doe-only. Perhaps opening weekend would decimate the herd to the DEC's liking. Doe-only is the most effective way to trim the herd, but put it in a season where it will actually do some good. That is assuming that they are serious about cutting the herd. Where they decided to put the doe-only season does put their real motives in serious question.

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.