Doc

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.

Ha-ha .... Stubby is our resident bowhunter-hater. I wouldn't take too much of that bowhunter bashing seriously.

Oh for crying out loud .... Let's stop pussy-footing around and simply turn the damn bow season over to a no-buck gun season and be done with it. That's where all this crap is heading anyway. I love all the play-acting. We have to go through all the steps of first introducing crossbows in part of the bow season. And then push farther to add them throughout the whole bowseason. And when the time is right they add the muzzleloaders to the bow season, just to make it all look like they were forced to hand bowseason over to the guns. Exactly what I said 3 or 4 or more years ago is what is in process right now.

Post number 59 started off that line of thought: "I know it is tough to build interest in managing a property if you don't own it, but if we all took matters into our own hands with some good boots on the ground knowledge of that property we can do what DEC can't or won't." And I have been arguing that we cannot do "what the DEC can't or won't" and that such suggestions simply muddy the waters and take focus off where our real efforts should lie. The limited actions of Co-ops and such are not doing what the DEC is supposed to be doing. The DEC is a statewide activity. Co-ops are isolated local activities that are nice for those involved but have no relationship to statewide management. Further, the scope of the co-op activity cannot even come close to matching what the DEC is up against, and that is why I say that it is insignificant and not relevant to statewide game management. We need to make the DEC work and stop breaking the focus with looking for distracting end-runs.

Oh now, you know how perfect their statistical methods of management are. Haven't they told you enough times? They even have some statistical gurus come in and swear to it. Don't ever offer suggestions for improvements or you will get the old "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" line. In other words they are convinced that their methods are flawless and everything is under control and on track.

The success of the DEC all hinges on motives and goals. I am suspicious as to who is really running the show there. I am still bothered by the implementation of CTFs and the sudden concern with finding super-ways to whack on the deer herd. I don't think it is a coincidence. There seems to be a correlation between the DEC institutionalizing financial interests into deer density goal setting, and the almost panicky fashion in which the DEC is determined to thin the herd. I think your (our) concern over the runaway efforts to clear the land of deer is something that the DEC has no concern over right at the moment. They are answering to another master, and I am not sure it has anything to do with hunters or habitat. Should the deer undergo a catastrophic decline, I believe the DEC people would be slapping each other on the back, and a whole lot of political/financial interests would be ecstatic.

That's very nice, but if you tell a perspective buyer about a problem and they buy the vehicle anyway, I believe you can sell the car with a clear conscience.

Messages sent in addition to my own letters.

Actually, according to your numbers, it is as insignificant as I make it out to be. And while it is great for those few that take part in it, I don't really ever see it rising to a level where it will be able to be relied on for credible state game management in any significant way. I really don't want anyone's attention to be diverted from keeping the feet of the DEC to the fire because of false hopes that the landowners will take care of it. The landowners will not take care of it anywhere but on a few selected parcels of land. And even those will vary all over the place as to how focused, correct and dedicated the efforts will actually be.

Isn't it amazing. The DEC has this huge army of "eyes and ears" out there and still has not figured out a way to properly use them other than as a financial source. It really does seem wrong that this free resource continues to go to waste at the same time the DEC cries poverty and watches their funding dwindling more and more every year. Free manpower! Nobody can figure out a way to capitalize on that???

Just curious ....... If you never do get any resolution on what the cause of that incident was, what exactly do you intend to do? Keep on driving it with your fingers crossed?... Park in the bushes somewhere or turn it into a planter? .... sell it for parts? I suspect going to dealers, and writing letters and making phone calls to the manufacturer will all be met with denials and thinly veiled notions that somehow you are wrong. So, I am curious as to what the proper disposition of such a problem car might be.

I would tell the dealer that I traded it to what happened. That puts the moral dilemma on him.

That is unbelievably high, but still a long way from impacting the necessity for a state game management agency. This still is quite insignificant and does not qualify as a viable statewide alternative to the DEC, which was my point.

I'll be honest.....if that happened to me, I probably would never feel comfortable in that car again. It would have to go. Especially when they couldn't locate the cause. It's not nice to have your friendly family car trying to kill you. That's like the airbags that blow up and kill the occupant when they deploy, throwing shards of metal into their body. Getting a little weird in the auto industry these days when the life-saving devices kill you.....lol.

Taking a whizz in the middle of the road is pretty mild stuff compared to the piles of stuff that I have found in the middle of my driveway, topped by a nice little dollop of toilet paper or something that served that purpose. People are pigs! Every Spring, I have an annual duty of cleaning up the road frontage where people have knowingly and purposely rolled their window down and pitched their garbage out the window. Nice people!

Every time I see the initialed pop deer management schemes mentioned, the big red flag goes up. AR, EAB, OBR, and all the others ... they all sound good, and somewhere in the state they may be appropriate. But are any of them really good management policy across the state or even within a WMU? Maybe, but probably not. Could any of them do more harm than good? Sure applied in the wrong area they could be exactly the wrong thing in the wrong place. So whenever we champion one of these new flavor-of-the-day management schemes, The first thing we should be thinking is what will be the effect in other parts of the WMU or state where conditions are different. Just like the doctor's creed, we need to adopt the philosophy of "Do no harm". It might be good if the DEC also adopted that motto.