Doc

I have never heard whether there are additional analysis beyond simple comparisons of harvested deer with recorded reports. I'm not sure if they try to factor anything in for where the harvested deer are documented. But I agree, people are more likely to observe the letter of the law if they understand that a DEC employee will taking names. That would bias the reporting rate to appear to be even higher that it I in reality.

So many different scenarios.....lol. The original post was colored by a large multinational corporation that had gone through massive down-sizing with all the responsibilities of ex-employees falling on the shoulders of those remaining. It was also composed from the standpoint of a salaried employee who was not paid overtime. I should also stir in the fact that we had gone through wage freezes. So the effects were maybe a bit more severe than many are encountering. However, I still continue to hear of those today who are experiencing much of the same thing, and their ability to recreate is indeed being impacted in ways that didn't exist in the past. So I was just curious as to whether others have noticed that today's business climate impinges more on hunting opportunities (or any recreational activities) than it did in the past. It sounds like the answer is becoming, "yes" and "no".....lol.

To clarify the "whose science" comment, what I had in mind was the usual fact of competing scientific data, research and studies that always comes out of the woodwork everytime a controversial issue of wildlife management arises. We have dueling studies and research that every side of an issue trots out to back up their position. So when we say that we want "all fish and wildlife management legislation to be determined only by scientific principles", my comment regards the fact that seldom is there only one version of scientific principles. And so it has to be determined just who is going to be the arbiter of what scientific principles hold the credibility.

Ha-ha-ha .... Well, spectacular may be putting it a bit strongly ... lol. But given the politics and the difficulties of dealing with a task that huge, and the fact that their resources are constantly being cut to the bone, I tend to give them a bit of slack, and will say that they are likely doing as good as anybody. I know the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but I have tried to imagine myself in their job and have to admit that perhaps we often do expect the impossible and never seem to adequately appreciate the successes that they do have with an exceptionally tough job. That's not to say that I don't think they could do a lot better, but I don't figure that the job is something I would call a "piece of cake" either.

The way it has been explained to me is that DEC personnel run all over the countryside checking deer processors, taxidermist, camps, and any other places where they might find collections of harvested deer, and then compare actual reports for these same deer to see how many actually did get officially reported. From that comparison, a reporting rate" is established. Applying that rate to all of the actual recorded reports received, gives them the final tally. So they are seeking a rate of "un-reporting". It is a statistical thing where they find actual occurrences of non-reporting and expand that as a percentage to the entire database. They claim to be very good at this sort of statistical approach, and also claim to have independent verification that their methods are valid statistical models.

Sorry if what I feel offends you, but I have stood about as much of this evolution toward devaluation of humanity as I can stand, and I have watched it all progress with each generation getting more and more acceptant of these mindless concepts as some sort of expressions of superiority over previous generations. Personally, I take offense to the directions that human thinking are going and this little article about chimps achieving human status, is absolutely a sign that human mentality is indeed devolving. As far as your social security payments, I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with anything in this thread, but I will thank you for abiding by the same laws that I have been subjected to during my lifetime. But in case it needs explaining for some reason, understand that Social Security was not my invention.

See, it's stuff like this that makes me not feel so bad about getting old, and having a finite time on this earth. The society is truly going mad, and it is really painful to see this kind of lunacy taking over mankind. I only wish that our generation could have done something to stop this perversion of thought. We did not do enough to maintain sanity, and in fact we paved the way for the next generation of idiocracy. God help us all!

Well, in so many of the larger companies, the rule is you are either on your way up or you're on your way out, and that takes all the decision-making out of your hands as to whether to turn down mandatory OT or not. That principle is enforced with periodic massive downsizing layoffs. In my later years of employment, corporations were making full use and taking full advantage of that principle, particularly in the midst of the down-sizing craze. My early retirement was primarily driven by these factors. I have heard from various sources that that sort of thing has not gotten any better. And I do hear more and more hunters claiming that many hunting days simply have to be done away with because of mandatory work commitments. So I figured I would simply ask how things are going these days.

Thanks for the link. I've been waiting a long time for the release of this info.

I knew this would be a dandy discussion, because I can see two sides to this one. We have seen the politics of wildlife management at work with the forcing of the AR issue in the initial first areas through political pressures and legislator initiatives. We have seen certain states outlaw specific prey from harvests strictly because of public pressures and sentiment pushed by the animal rights crowd. Wolves, bears, the list goes on and on. However, I have seen situations where hunters disagree with DEC policies (and sometimes with some merit), and such an anti-referendum law would leave hunters completely un-represented or with no voice at all. So perhaps it is useful in some isolated cases to have a legal or political recourse. There is more than one view of these things.

Well, not to get too far off topic, but I have seen situations where the government has forsaken the dollar revenue for political principle or votes. The dismantling of the cigarette industry comes to mind immediately. The cash revenue that has been lost is staggering. It is entirely possible that the Safe Act is responsible for losing jillions of dollars in wages and corporate taxes as quite a few lucrative markets and manufacturers have been pushed out of the state. But that aspect didn't even slow them down. So, is the potential for anti-hunting referendums going to really bother them so much that they will mount a massive counter campaign? ....... probably not. History doesn't really support that assumption.

So, I am just curious ...... how many people here are more and more finding that work responsibilities and demands are starting to take over time that used to be spent hunting/scouting/fishing/ etc.? Its not a problem for me anymore since I am retired. But my memory is not so wrecked yet that I can't remember the direction that things were headed back when I was still working. I still remember the massive down-sizing and the added demands on those of us that remained as we picked up the responsibilities of those that were given the boot. I remember the mandatory unpaid overtime that was beginning to become a way of life rather than just additional effort when certain emergencies or plugs of overwhelming work-loads came along. And I remember how all that crap seemed to come along when hunting season was in full swing. Well it's been a bunch of years since I retired, and I was just wondering the other day if those trends of living to work rather than working to live were still on the uphill trend and if members here were feeling the pressures of work taking more and more time away from their hunting, scouting, and other leisure-time activities.

Oh I do too. But whenever I buy a new gun, I generally will pick up a box or two of factory loads just so I can immediately get out and do some shooting. That's how these pieces of trash came to be in my possession. I hadn't even bought any dies yet.

And there is the other side of the coin. Whose science prevails?

You know, if you had asked me about the possibility of a lot of laws ever seeing the light of day (including our very own SAFE ACT), I would have had a similar attitude to yours. But now we see that there is no limit to the lunacy of law-making. Burying our heads in the sand is not an option, so don't ever say never. Everything is measured in votes (not $), so as long as you are perceived to be in the minority, anything is possible.

And in case you think that their firearms are the only things that have quality control problems, check out these Winchester .270 bullets that I bought: What a fiasco I had trying to get them to make good on the cost. fact is that I lost a bunch on the two boxes. First of all, I had to box them up (2 boxes of 20) and ship them back to them (no reimbursement & the shipping costs were huge) then they sent me coupons that were only good for more of their crap products. By the time I got done, I lost money, time and aggravation. Somewhere along the line, that garbage had to have caused some problems along the production line, and yet that garbage got through to the store. I finally had one that would not even chamber and then I saw what the heck was going on. Inexcusable garbage.

Physically: Back in the olden days, I used to hunt so far away from home that if I ever had gotten a deer back in some of those places, I would have had to eat it there because it would have been way farther than any human could ever drag a deer .... lol. Of course back then I had the appetite that I probably could have ate it there. Today, My hunting area has shrunk considerably. I either have to guarantee a down-hill drag, or shoot where I can get my ATV. Mentally: When I started out, the deer were pretty darn sparce ..... even the does were not exactly plentiful. So there was no picking and choosing of deer like we have the luxury of doing today. With the bow, seeing a deer was a story worth telling. Getting a shot was something that would draw a crowd around those first cups of coffee Monday morning at work. Getting a deer ... any deer (usually a doe)... was a story that not only the one who got it would tell for days, but even those who heard the story would repeat it many times to other hunters. And there were damned few people actually getting their deer with a bow. Not even a lot of people even trying. So we weren't all that picky. We saw a deer we tried to get that deer regardless of size or gender. It was an exciting thing to all who participated and even some who didn't, never failed to sit in on those Monday morning story sessions and I do believe that the excitement that went on in those story-telling sessions were responsible for recruiting a whole lot of bowhunters even though there was no talk about big bucks or scores and other such nonsense. Pretty darn different today isn't it .... lol. Nobody wants to hear about the doe you saw. "You shot a deer? Oh great what was the score? What, you didn't score it? What? ... a doe? Ummm, well it's time to get to work now. See you later." So, yeah, eventually as herds grew, I started to get picky. It all turned to work at that point. Huge amounts of money were spent trying to buy success. Hours and hours of target shooting took place. Scouting became a necessity, and not something that I really wanted to do. That was when a lot of the fun went out of it. Self-imposed pressures and crazy levels of activity and effort made the activity more lije an occupation than a hobby. But recently, I have logged enough years, that score and size and all that crazy crap are taking a back seat to whether I am sure it's in a location that can be dragged back to the house.....lol. That's where I am now. Hunting is not quite as frenetic and crazy as it used to be. My hunting is now laid-back, returning to a more enjoyable state and a lot more into the calming and relaxing aspects to it rather than running all over the hill like a crazy person, willing to do whatever it takes to get a big deer. Sure I did enjoy those middle years a lot, mostly, but as Clint said, "A man has to know his limitations". That phrase is never truer than it is to an aging hunter. And that new relaxed aspect to hunting has become a much more enjoyable and broad experience. Now the mind-set is more like those great old early years. I want a deer ..... any deer, and I just want to enjoy the experience and not take it all so damned serious.

And one has to wonder if that same attitude toward deer isn't ruling deer management in NYS as well. Ever since I saw the listing of what constitutes the Citizen Task Forces ( the group that establishes our deer density goals and harvest levels), I have been concerned with what I call "anti-deer interests" having a greater say in management than perhaps they ought to. Consider what the DEC/Cornell use to establish what they call stakeholders. In their own words: "Farmers, hunters, foresters, conservationists, motorists, the tourism industry, landowners, small business, etc, are all considered as potentially distinct stakeholder groups." These are the entities that do a heavy portion of real deer management for the DEC. Look at the number of these interests that might have an outright anti-deer bias. Consider what happens if some of those anti-deer forces happen to have a stronger and more forceful personality and debate technique. And so the question does arise as to exactly what are the goals of NYS deer management. I know we all assume that deer levels are being managed for balance with habitat and a healthy deer herd. But looking at the interests being represented by these Citizen Task Forces, you really have to wonder just whose voice is really running the show since the DEC has handed over management responsibilities to a handful of self-interested laymen.

Some of us have been hunting for a heck of a long time. I was wondering if any of you have thought much about how your hunting methods, attitudes, motives, etc have evolved throughout your lifetime. The reasons, the feelings, the tactics, weapons, needs, purposes and just the way you relate to hunting being in your lives may have changed from the time you first started hunting to the present day. Have any of you noticed these changes? Can you describe any of them?

I think what you are saying is good advice, but while hunting philosophies of what should be done are very nice, I often get the feeling that such statements are basically preaching to the choir. I am still left with the question of what in reality is in the minds of most of the hunters out there. So when we are considering what side effects come from certain regulations, we have to remember that not all hunters are necessarily very well schooled in interpreting what they are seeing and reacting in exactly the most schooled way. I think most want a deer.....any deer. And if shooting bucks is frustrated by regulations, I have no doubt that they will pop a doe instead. Now that might be a great thing in areas where populations are high, but that doesn't sound like the condition down in PA. And I have to wonder if mixed in with their low deer population isn't that side effect of their ARs as a contributer.

I ran across an article that relates to public intervention in hunting and fishing laws. This was in The Canandaigua Daily Messenger in an article written by their outdoor news editor. It seems that the animal rights wackos have for attempted to end certain commonly used bear hunting practices in Maine by bringing to the ballot proposals to do so for 3 consecutive years and have been bragging about going for a 4th next year. So far they have been turned back at each attempt, but they have even more money coming from out-of-state anti-hunting groups. So state legislators from both sides of the aisle have come up with a joint proposal to amend their state constitution that would bar the public from changing any laws applicable to either hunting or fishing. Those lawmakers want all fish and wildlife management legislation to be determined only by scientific principles and to be completely shielded from emotional campaigns funded by out-of-state special interest groups. I'm sorry, but there are a whole lot of details left out of the article. On the surface, It all sounds like a real good idea, especially since it looks like a measure to protect hunters and fishermen from the campaigns of the animal rights crowd. We all have heard of the weird legal things that these people have been able to push into local state laws in other states. Legal game management harassment has been put in place with some crazy anti-hunting policies in California and Oregon and have threatened with close defeats in many other states. But then it gives impenetrable protection to the state game managers, even when they have policies that we might not agree with. So the issue isn't quite as much of a no-brainer as it might appear. Perhaps it can also be used to silence hunters and fishermen who have their own vested interests. So what do you think about that kind of amendment proposal that the Maine legislators are putting forth? Do you think that is something that NYS ought to be thinking about? How does that kind of amendment strike all of you?

One thing is very likely ..... ARs may very well have an unintended consequence of higher doe harvests and consequently smaller herds. The reason? .... If just about every buck that walks by is illegal to shoot, more does will be used to fill freezers. To some that is good news, to some its not. But I don't think anyone has ever looked at ARs as being a herd reduction action eve though that very well could be the bottom line result. It's just another one of those things where you have to look at all sides and side-effects of every issue before you jump in with both feet.

I believe that this is the primary reason for the slide in popularity of hunting. Yes, there are many reasons, but I sense a culture shift driven primarily by anti-hunting groups that has gotten a foothold in our society. Hunters have been successfully portrayed as low-brow, Neanderthals, that are blood-thirsty leftovers of evolution. Seriously, the "cool" factor of hunting has been trashed, and actually reversed by the constant drumbeat of the antis. They have convinced a lot of people that humans have, or should have, evolved past the hunting. They have set up the attitudes that those who are against hunting are those who have evolved into a higher and superior being. You can sense that attitude in them just from conversing with them. There are all kinds of things we can do as introductory activities and offering opportunities and access to potential hunters. But when they have had their attitudes turned against hunting, it is quite impossible to bring them back.

And then there is the deal where you set something down and while you are doing something else, a paper towel or something else just a little larger gets set on top of it, and you spend 15 minutes looking for the first thing you set down. But worse than that is the ever increasing situation of just plain not seeing things that are right in front of you. Damn! that's happening more and more everyday.

As usual, this topic has brought a lot of thoughtful responses. It is interesting to see the variety of motives and analysis of what draws hunters into the activity. Perhaps if we understood this subject a bit more thoroughly, it might help establish meaningful tactics and techniques for re-populating the failing hunter numbers. Often there are some who don't want to think much about motives or examine what it is that attracts and keeps hunters in the sport. But as society evolves, it will be more important to understand these kinds of things more thoroughly in our campaigns to keep hunting as a viable activity off into the future. Well anyway, I guess that is this year's installment .... lol. Maybe I will bring it back up in a year or two to see if there are any changes. As society evolves, and people's backgrounds, attitudes, and opportunities change, the results may very well show some differences.