Doc

Yup, and unfortunately that is precisely the area that we have to deal with.

Yeah, you have to do things according to the normal schedules. You never know when or if this "global cooling" will continue .... lol. Who knows? .... It may turn around and get super hot and dry. Weather can be an absolute mystery.

Most of my shots over the years have been within 50 or 60 yards, but then, we have only had the use of the rifle for 2 of all those years. One of last year's deer was about 130 yards ...... rifle, bench rested, standing deer, perfect shot. Average shot for me? ...... not hardly.

Lingering winter is a critter-killer, and this appears to be a "lingering winter". It is shaping up to be a crappy nesting and fawning season. We're in a stuck pattern that may not back-off this year.

Lol ...... I was just picturing how I would establish the average shot distances on the area that I hunt. We have mixed habitat that runs from long mowed fields to tight swamps and everything in between. How far you can see depends on every different location on every different kind of terrain and vegetation density. All this for over 600 acres. I think I'll pass on this one. I don't have time enough to take on that project ....lol.

Wow! Reading through this thread, I have to say that maybe NYS, and our DEC, and our hunting opportunities may be pretty darn good. At least compared to Arizona. I suspect that is likely the way it is in some of the other states. That old saying about the grass being greener on the other side of the fence kind of comes to mind.

One of my early successes in hunter recruitment was getting my Dad into archery/bowhunting/bow-making. When I was about 10 or so, for a Christmas present, I bought him a book on building bows (seemed better than a tie or pair of socks ....lol). I don't know why, but it just seemed like something that he might be interested in doing. Well next thing we knew, he was constructing a small cement-block building, building gluing forms, and ovens, buying, designing and building specialized woodworking machines, and just simply went berserk on building bows and using them for hunting. His intent was to get into commercial recurve sales, but Fred Bear was just too big a competition at the time. But, from that little book, the result was that the whole family became bowhunters and most of his grandchildren eventually became heavily involved as dedicated bowhunters.

There is a long dry spell in all of NYS where seasons are closed. This is where it is handy to have alternative activities. Fishing comes to mind.

Here are the results of the CTF meetings where the harvest goals are established: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7209.html

My theory is that the DEC is panicked because of all of the above. I think a lot of their current actions have nothing to do with current conditions. They are using their famous crystal ball, and looking at a time when hunter numbers and participation will no longer be able to keep up with population growth and the decay of current deer carrying capacities. So there continues to be more concentration on whacking deer populations and finding more ways to universally diminish the quantities of deer even significantly beyond what is necessary today and beyond the desires of hunters. This all ties into my prior comments about all new regulations and rules being aimed at hacking on deer populations. I have no idea whether that really is the mentality of the DEC or not, but it sure looks that way from where I sit.

Ha-ha-ha-ha .... apparently the voice of an expert.

One of the things that doesn't often occur to folks is that a smaller over-all herd, generally means smaller numbers of bucks. Fewer does = fewer fawns = fewer bucks born = fewer mature bucks running around. So I would guess the doe harvest does have a residual effect on how many trophy bucks that there are. Seems logical that if you are going to maintain a "bare-bones" over-all deer population, you probably shouldn't be expecting a bumper crop of trophy bucks every year.

It was real nice of you to build that nice insulated den for the coon ..... or at least that's what he thought (for a while).

I have added quite a few new hunters over the years. I certainly have seen to it that when I am gone I have replaced myself many, many times over. The problem is not always simply adding. There is also a need for keeping people in the sport once you have gotten them here. It is a two headed problem. We are getting to the point where recruitment is not keeping up with losses. Both have to be worked on ...... somehow. That is one reason why we need to examine new rules and regs to ensure that we are not driving out hunters that we already have. When you drive out an existing hunter you not only lose him, but also all the new recruits that he could have been responsible for throughout his life.

Looks like a nice little pile of cash there too.

Your right, there is a conflict of hunter goals. You have the DEC saying the hell with big racked bucks, we want you all to become doe hunters. And then you have TV, magazines and every other hunting media saying that if you can't shoot a big-racked buck, you're nothing as a hunter. Mixed messages coming from everywhere. And now you even have the DEC signing on (begrudgingly) to expanded AR. Yeah people can argue all they want that AR has nothing to do with trophyism, but hunters automatically make that connection, right or wrong. So AR has become code for trophy hunting promotion. Again, right or wrong that is the way it is received, and once again, perception becomes reality to the majority of hunters. How do you straighten it all out and get people to sign onto the notion of doe reduction? ..... I don't know ...... really. If it was easy, it would have already been done. But I would think the first step would be for the DEC to come up with a steadfast, consistent mindset themselves.

There seems to be an assumption that as soon as hunters buy a crossbow, they set down that nice new shiny rifle that been becoming more and more popular throughout the southern zone counties recently. No one is forcing any new converts to the bow season or crossbow to not participate in the gun season. So don't be so quick to write off regular gun season. There is still a lot of people locked into that method of deer hunting. Also, I don't believe that the DEC will always be passively letting gun hunters slide out of the picture ..... if indeed that truly is happening, which I truly doubt. We are always prone to theorizing and trying to predict the future without any actual knowledge, but regardless of how quickly people are ready to predict the demise of gun hunting, I'll believe it when I see it. And so far no one is really seeing it. Current numbers don't bear it out. So I will continue to go back to my original question: if you have a system of herd reduction that you really believe in, why not implement it where it in the most efficient season. Or to add onto that question, why exclude any of the seasons? I mean we can muddy the waters in any fashion we choose but none of that comes anywhere near answering the question I posed originally.

Now there is something that really has me concerned. This cold nasty stuff with excessive precipitation is not a pattern that just started getting set up in February. It actually started part way through last summer. And there is no sign that the general pattern is really breaking. Sure makes for a crappy (or non-existent) garden.....lol. Also concerned about the turkey nesting season, and the fawning season too for that matter. There's just too damned much global warming going on.

I'll be one of those complaining about the heat. I do have a preferred temperature and weather condition. I'm pretty fussy about that. Especially when it comes to ugly conditions that begin to feel like there is no end to them. ......... kind of like this winter.

Well, we are only guessing at what they are foreseeing aren't we? The fact is that right now, at the time they are talking about implementing immediate action, the regular gun season is far and away more efficient for implementing a plan to cut today's deer herd, and is likely to be that way for another decade or two at least or in fact perhaps forever, so why are they excluding that season from action. It just doesn't make any sense.

I am still looking. I have found a few, on slides and I am having them transferred over to digital. But I have stacks of photographs that I have to go through yet. Pictures are totally disorganized. of course it doesn't make it too easy when the formats keep changing. I started off taking only photos. Then I went to slides. Now we are into digital..

No body but the DEC is saying that you need to make a choice. But they have decided that archery and muzzleloader alone and without help from the regular gun season is what is going to bring the doe harvest up significantly enough to make a difference. I am questioning that decision. I am saying that that indicates a lack of commitment to their plan.

I'm not so sure that the consensus includes skiers and snowmobilers and maybe some ice fishermen. Those people may not have had their fill yet. I am not one of those!

What is at play here is the "Citizen Task Force" system exerting it's influence on deer take objectives. If you look at all the different disciplines represented as possible CTF candidates, they seem to be weighted heavily toward what I call "anti-deer" interests: "Stakeholders are people affected by deer who have a particular concern or interest in the overall population of deer in a WMU. Farmers, hunters, foresters, conservationists, motorists, the tourism industry, landowners, small business, etc, are all considered as potentially distinct stakeholder groups." Look closely at the likely attitudes toward deer populations of each variety of "stakeholder". That may explain the heavy emphasis on all these almost panicky DEC obsessions with constant plans for cutting deer populations.

Well, we can predict and project all we want, but the fact is that the numbers show very clearly that right today regular gun season is far and away the current heavy-hitter and most likely to be for a good many decades yet. If you want to experiment with population control plans today, it is obvious where those plans should be implemented. No question about that. So I still have to ask again, why are these changes being done with the minority part of the hunting population. Are they serious about their plans or not? Never mind about theoretical projections decades off into the future. The fact is that the plan they are proposing is now.