Doc

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.

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.