Doc

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.

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.