Doc

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.

Ok.... let me slip in another dimension to this discussion about arrow weight and penetration. And I want to start off saying that I have no pre-conceived notions. This is truly just a question. Does a lighter arrow react in a more exaggerated fashion due to slight form problems, or clothing contacts or marginal bow tuning than a heavy arrow, or vice-versa, or no difference? I know that arrows that do not enter straight will effect penetration, so this aspect of the discussion is still truly on topic.....lol.

The only people that gain anything from these horrific senseless tragedies are the anti-gun crowd. They have become expert at exploitation of gun tragedies.

Look, Nelson has never denied that his entire lifestyle has been ruled by the bottle and drugs. And this is the guy you choose to be your liberal champion spokesman. Frankly, I believe you probably have selected a proper spokesman.

That is another reason for seeing vineyards being ripped out. Varieties go through periods of popularity as well as going out-of-favor. Some of those vineyards that are being removed may turn right around and replant on more popular varieties. Also, a lot of the local processing is being done my niche farmers who specifically get market share by having their own choices of grape varieties. They may find that they have to replant to get the varieties that they want. So watching a vineyard getting ripped up does not mean that it is going out of production.

I do believe there are likely areas of the state where a no doe policy may be warranted. Even the DEC will occasionally shut areas off completely as far as antlerless permits. There are also other areas where permits are so hard to come by that they might as well be shut off. So, a "no doe and wall hanger only policy" may be a bit more well thought out than you might think. We have to avoid making blanket statements about all hunting attitudes, based only on our own limited observations on our own local hunting areas.

Yeah, that is kind of what I was trying to say. Since you have independent knowledge of herd density in that area, you are probably in a pretty good position to analyze the conditions with much more info than just a picture of one isolated area of deer damage. As far as I am concerned no valid conclusions can be made from just a photo of deer damage without other pieces of local information and knowledge.

Apparently someone who has a bit of concern when it comes to matters involving the Constitution.

Certain levels of consideration have to be made for that many decades of soaking one's brain in whisky and every kind of drug imaginable. I just look closely at the kind of people that the Libs attract and all it does is firm up any opinions of what they are all about. Nelson is a prime example. These kinds of opinions from a guy who has spent more of his life stoned than not, are not really all that surprising. Why would anyone expect anything else.

I thought your article was quite interesting. Those numbers are quite telling, and they do reflect the comments I have been hearing in recent years form PA hunters. Also, the connection between AR and shrinking doe numbers is another thing that had not occurred to me. Good article .... Congrats.

I am into my 2nd year with the Primos Trigger stick bi-pod. Great unit for still hunting because I can't always guarantee that can get to the next tree for support without being spotted, and I am the world's worse off-hand shooter when I can't find support. However, I will say that I was hit with a severe case of sticker-shock when I saw the price. I did have to make a modification to add an over the shoulder carrying strap.

My first thought was, why would you continue to hunt there year after year and put up with the abuse. My second thought was that if the guy cut and ran, these clowns would have been successful in doing the illegal harassment activities. That's no good either. He needs to be a little more aggressive in making the DEC enforce the hunter harassment laws or these idiots will just continue to be emboldened and successful in eliminating perfectly legal hunting activity.

If you have a group of deer wintering in a particular area, and a fairly harsh winter, you very well might see scenes like this. I remember a couple years ago, we had two blue spruce trees that the deer almost killed. That went on for about two consecutive years, and the trees sure have a weird shape to them now ..... lol. But no where else was there any sign of over-browsing. So was I witnessing over-population browse lines, or simply a few deer zeroing in on a favored winter food source? So, I'm not really sure that even an isolated picture can prove a point of over-population. I'm not saying that it is not the case in the area of this picture, but I do know that a wintering herd can absolutely make their isolated presence known in the resulting carnage on preferred food sources in small areas. Talk to most farmers and they will usually tell you that any deer is too many deer and they will show you crop losses to prove it. The question is, if I react to something like this one localized instance of over-browsing, and start blasting every doe I see, am I making a proper decision or simply over-reacting to a normal feeding habit of the local deer.

All of these entertainment type elitists certainly have the right to be wrong. And I have the right to criticize them and also to not support their idiot choices by not buying their product.

So, I wonder what really stops every little Podunk Burg from passing these un-Constitutional local ordinances? Are there protections against that?

My comments regard the topic that was being addressed.....The Naples area. And my remarks also address more than just a 1 year blip in the trends of that area.

That vineyard has been out of production for years. One other thing that can happen is that a certain variety can go out of favor. Or the owner croaks, or retires. A lot of things can cause them to rip them out. It will be interesting to see what goes in there. Who knows, they might just plant a new vineyard with some specialty variety ...... or more likely it will become a housing development .... lol. Actually, the wine business in that area has been on the downhill slide, with the demise of Widmers to French's Mustard to Constellation and now the much smaller and condensed Hazlett Wineries. And the industry is area-wide primarily undergoing a conversion to small family owned wineries. Most of what I have heard is that a lot of the reasons for the change is the growth and popularity of the California brands. I have watched vineyard after vineyard get ripped out throughout the entire area. Once in a while a small specialty vineyard will be planted, but for every one of those that you see, several of the old ones disappear forever and usually a nice bunch of shiny new houses take their place.

What is tough to accept is that he can't seem to get any law enforcement to respond. I realize that this may not exactly be the most high profile complaint that they will be receiving all season, but what the heck .... there are laws against hunter harassment, and they have a complaint. I would have called right from the stand when that jerk was walking by honking his horn so the PGC person on the other end could hear the action. What a zoo.

A lot has been said here about the game manager's positions vs. the hunter's position. After a while it begins to sound like a "we vs. they" kind of situation. But in reality, what has to be maintained is a win-win situation between the two entities. Hunters will not be very satisfied in the long run if they fight down all attempts to maintain a healthy deer herd. But the different game management agencies will not be very effective if they alienate the only effective population control that they have .... the hunters. It really is a symbiotic relationship between hunters and those charged with the management of wildlife. So, when we start talking like hunters are the enemy we have to recognize that without hunters, the game management agencies (regardless of what state) would be absolutely impotent. And the other situation is true as well. Without proper management according to at least the basic biological principles, hunters would eventually wind up with nothing to hunt. So the proper answer most of the time is "compromise". Mother Nature does not demand that management decisions always have to be 100% according to the books. Good game management does not demand that deer levels be kept on that razor thin line where a single or multiple set of seasonal problems in a given year result in calamity in the herd and harvest. And here and there, in an effort to satisfy and keep a stable and effective level of hunters some accommodations in deer herd size can be made without catastrophic results. But hunters and other interests should not be so pressuring that they become an impediment to acceptable game management.

I have to admit that I am not a PA hunter, and was only down there a few days back in the early 80's on a quick bowhunt and I'm sure a lot has changed since then. So I really don't have any knowledge of habitat, herd density or anything else. But just based on the numbers in these articles, an 11% drop in the buck take seems like somebody is just thrashing around and managing by trial. I often figured that's what NYS's DEC does. They run all these computer programs to provide a cover story, but really simply wait until the herd gets so big that everyone is whining and then they flood the state with permits for a few years until all the hunters are claiming they can't find any deer and then they cut permits again ..... lol. Yeah I know that's kind of harsh, and is meant mostly tongue-in-cheek, but when you see the population bouncing wildly up and down, you do kind of get the impression that the management style might be more reactionary than pre-planned. The 40% drop over 15 years sounds a little aggressive too. I think I understand why the word coming out of PA is usually negative. At any rate, it doesn't really sound like they do much different from what NYS does other than their statewide AR. I wonder if they have CTF's telling them what their harvest goals should be also.....lol. Are they balancing the herd to the habitat or simply greasing up whatever wheel squeaks the loudest? Sometimes you have to wonder. But I guess the PA hunters have a problem of their own to worry about. But, I won't be just arbitrarily be accepting anymore that story about how PA does such a greater job than our DEC. I'm thinking a lot of that a lot of those comments probably has a lot to do with how the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence. Most likely both states are doing the best they can, but not near as good as they claim.

So, am I the only one who wonders why cigarettes are still legal? Think about it, Marijuana is deemed a public health risk, so they just flat outlawed it. But for some reason when it comes to tobacco, they never did muster up the courage to simply declare it a controlled substance and make it illegal to own/use. I don't care which side of the illegality of "controlled substances" you are on, But my comment is more about the inconsistency. Because to me inconsistency is generally the hallmark of hidden agendas. Look for the money trail ....eh? Secondly, When did it become the province of our government to use taxation, and public service advertisements, and pitting one segment of the citizenry against he other and other forms of behavioral modification as legitimate ways to create law. Does anyone else worry about how these techniques could be used against any activity that they choose without going through legitimate lawmaking procedures? It would appear that e-cigarettes are just the next target to get this backdoor law-making treatment. Personally, I could care less about any of these products, but the procedures that everyone seems to readily and eagerly accept have potential to be used on anything they get it in their minds that we shouldn't have. Legal processes be damned. If you can convince the public that something is evil (perhaps even guns), they have devised a pretty darned effective way around the system and we all sit around and cheer all that until it is our ox that gets gored.

I'll tell you what, I have a nice scope-sighted .270 that has never failed to cleanly take down a deer. It certainly does a whole lot cleaner job than a crossbow, compound, longbow, or recurve, and it doesn't use any special season either. So, following your philosophy, let's get rid of all those more challenging weapons and only allow scoped rifles for hunting? No, you see there are a lot of us that value that idea of "challenge" in our hunting. In fact for some of us that is the whole point of hunting instead of just going to the butcher.

For those that are convinced that PA has the perfect deer management style compared to NYS, you might want to pick up the latest issue of New York Outdoor News and read the two articles on that subject. Page 6 talks about a 14% over-all drop in the harvest this year, with an 11% decrease in buck harvest. And then on page 11 Oak Duke takes an even longer-range view on what's been happening to the deer population down there. He talks about the harvest changes of 1/2 million back in 2000-01 vs. 304,000 last year (40% drop in 15 years). In NYS such a record would have us ready to lynch someone.....lol. It's some pretty interesting reading that paints quite a different picture from the usual story about how PA always gets it right on their deer management. Check it out. Sounds like trouble in paradise.