Doc

Oh you probably are right, but it still makes absolutely no sense or logic. There are some pretty amazing animals that are hunted and far more cunning than deer, and yet we don't drool over some body-part that they have....lol. for example, if you really want to test your woods-lore and hunting prowess, old Wiley Coyote really would be a great yardstick for self-measurement. Try hunting them in a one-on-one basis with no dogs or callers if you want to measure your hunting prowess. And yet there are no record book entries for coyotes. There are probably dozens of other examples that I'm not thinking of too where the challenge and demonstration of hunting prowess is much greater and yet no one has developed a trumped up score keeping system. The logic just doesn't hold up. But I agree, many people can't seem to enjoy hunting as a recreation. There seems to be some reason why we have to keep score and turn it into some sort of competition with other hunters instead of just keeping the competition between ourselves and the quarry. Something psychological going on there that I just really don't follow. But anyway the original question was a great one and opens up some insight as to why we have so much infighting within our ranks. We all have different goals and purposes for our hunting, and they don't all have the same ways to achieve the satisfaction and fulfillment that we each need individually. For me, hunting is an entire experience, and competition with other hunters or even myself doesn't really enter into much of it. And so, a system of score keeping doesn't have any part in my hunting mentality. I think that is why AR and such doesn't pique my interest at all. It doesn't add a thing to my hunting experience or any of the reasons why I hunt.

Actually, if you want to learn more about what people are the biggest influence on deer management issues, refer to: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7207.html But don't be thinking that game and habitat management do not have political influences beyond the DEC. And of course if our (hunter's) money does not subsidize environmental conservation, then I guess I want my Pittman-Robertson contributions back, and my license fees returned, or some investigation conducted to see just who has absconded with that money. Nobody is saying that all these activities are 100% funded by hunters, fishermen, and trappers, but the amounts of cash that we do send their way certainly is something that is not insignificant. And if that selfishly buys us some influence, then I say more power to us.

You wouldn't believe all the different weird anomalies that my cameras have come up with. It seems to be more prevalent in the IR cameras. In general, a bright object (such as eye reflections) can kick up some random ghost images. Also, different cameras can react differently to the same kind of images.

Just to pause for a moment and get back to the original question (which I thought was a great one) : "If they stopped all buck hunting would you continue to hunt at the same level and desire?", it kind of makes me wonder why if antlers are end-all and be-all of hunting why is it that only the cervids are valued in that fashion? We continue to hunt and enjoy preying on all kinds of other animals that have no means of counting or measuring or otherwise manufacturing some bogus means of "keeping score" and we still enjoy the hell out of hunting. So why is our total enjoyment of hunting locked to these pointy things that are primarily unique to the male deer? There really is no logic or rationality to trying to measure the success of hunting by such a ridiculous criteria. So the proper reply to the question should be, "Why not!"

I don't think that a decision not to back AR really needs meat quality as a reason. For me the decision is formed by the potential impact to a sport of already faltering numbers. That's really what it all about. I don't really want to see another regulation added to the jillions already existing that doesn't have a good significant, scientific, biological, reason for being hung around the necks of hunters. With so many off-the-wall fad-management ideas trying to be forced down the throats of hunters, I worry that these notions of fixing things that really aren't even broke will have the effect of teaming up with other existing reasons for the struggle of hunting and accelerate the decline of activity.

I think the concern is that those who do the funding seem to be taken a bit more seriously in terms of the politics of game and habitat use and management. When you consider the level of input sought and taken in by the DEC from hunters, it is understandable why hunters don't want to see that search for input expanded to those who could care less about wildlife and habitat management but are equally considered simply because they have put a few dollars into the till. Whether we like it or not, game and habitat management is still influenced by those who foot the bill. The reality is that the DEC is a political entity, and like any political agency, money talks and BS walks. And if those political decisions are being influenced through funding by those who have no clue about the difference between preservation and conservation, I would just as soon that they keep their money and butt out.

Yes, their inventory re-stocking philosophy has been JTL (just too late), for several years, until it finally got to the point where I refused to shop there anymore. A 50 minute one-way ride only to find out they didn't have even common items in stock. I even called one time before heading up and was lied to about availability. But anyway, if the space is being used for legitimate sales, it is hard to argue with that decision. After all, they aren't expected to be running a public service. Public relations activities can often be justified, but when a business is fighting for their lives, that is pretty much a luxury that can't be expected. And I do believe they are fighting for their lives.

Maybe if you bad the trailing edges of the blades sharpened, you might get lucky on a marginal hit and cut something vital while the arrow was moving around inside of a fleeing deer .... maybe. There also might be some element of humaneness involved in making the arrow come back out easier on non-lethal hits. I don't know, that's an awful lot of mights and maybes. I kind of doubt that any of the potential benefits would really be worth the added effort.

And so, the question now is, is the space now used to sell merchandise or is it still an empty room with exactly the same overhead, still with no income. The last time I was there the space was essentially still empty and unused and whatever overhead that space was costing was unchanged whether it was used for public activities or just sitting there empty. I will admit that it has been quite a while since I wasted my time trying to shop there and as a matter of fact, the last time there I didn't even look in that room that used to serve as a meeting room. In recent years it has always seemed to me that they had a hell of a time keeping their shelves stocked and the building actually used to capacity. Certainly they weren't hurting for merchandise marketing space. At any rate, I suspect that it won't be mattering what they do. They have some real competition and soon will have even more, and I doubt that they will be of much concern for much longer.

Most of the anti's that I have had conversations with do not even understand the differences between conservation and preservation, and really don't want to learn. All they know is that wild creatures are cute and fuzzy and have personalities and abilities to perform logic and utilize emotion. These people in my experience have never invested in any research beyond Walt Disney's movie, "Bambi". I have never encountered a discussion with an anti-hunter that didn't go emotional within a few minutes. That is not anything to do with assumptions. That is pure experience and first-hand encounters that have involved many people with never an exception.

Kind of like the old "slippery slope" theory. They're already messin' with ya, so why not just give up the rest. There's a lot of bad law created with that kind of thinking and justification.

I loved it!

How about you post just one place there where someone posted a so-called "trophy" buck and got anything but a congrats. I'm not sure why you are so intent on making up controversy, but if you want to be a bit honest about your comments, you will be forced to admit that the "brown and down" comments throughout this forum have not exactly been rare. And if you have any kind of memory, a site research project is not required. So don't be telling me that this is all just from one side. If you are to be honest, you know that isn't the case.

All of the pictures (real or not) the canines are all in the upper jaw. It is hard to imagine the features in Grow's pictures as being canines of the upper jaw pointing down. I still think they are just another of many different versions of IR camera anomalies that are common with these game cameras.

Actually what bugs other countries and forces them to not mess with us is the friggin awesome technological superiority in weaponry and the willingness of our military to use it. They don't care if there is a mob of deer hunters heading their way no matter what their numbers. They do pay attention to the fact that they will be vaporized if they mess with us in a serious way.

It's not worth the time to go back and poll all the replies and negative responses. I'm not going to do it and I'm damn sure that you haven't either, so the remark is without credibility and serves no purpose anyway. If you feel picked on, I regret that, but the slights are self inflicted as far as I'm concerned and resident only in your own mind. Yes, we all seem to be overly concerned about what the next guy is hunting. Why any of us think that any of that is any of our business .... who knows? But for sure everyone wants to get into the other guy's hunting, trying to prove who the hell knows what. But to try and say it is all coming from one side or the other of these issues just is ignoring the truth, and trying to make some bogus point for some bogus reason.

The DEC is a state political agency whose Commissioner serves at the pleasure of the Governor. Of course they listen to comments and react to lobbying and pressure groups. Just as the governor wants to be on the popular side of any issue, so do the agencies that he controls. Their job is to make the Governor look good and to ensure that they are on the winning side of any issue as determined by the squeakiest wheel. And yes, I believe they all have a pretty good idea what the outcome of any issues will be before they even begin to make any plans for change public. No, I don't have any crystal ball or inside track, but simple logic and following the chain of command makes certain outcomes rather obvious.

I know we all enjoyed the Rambo movies, but it is always good to know fictional entertainment from reality. We certainly can use our guns effectively for home and domestic self defense, but that wasn't the premise of the original post, was it? Imagining that we hunters are in any way similar to the armed Militiamen of the revolutionary War simply is not facing up to the fact that the technology of warfare in this century consists of weapons that would make our hunting rifles totally ineffective against an organized enemy domestic or foriegn. It really is not a Liberal vs. Conservative argument. It is simply common sense vs. romanticized day-dreaming and fantasizing.

My guess (and that's all it is), is that it is some kind of camera anomaly that is double imaging the super bright eye-flash. What makes me say that is the perfect spacing with the eyes, and the fact that they are way outside the tooth line of the deer's muzzle.

Sure is some heavy selective reading going on there. I have seen plenty of opinionated and passionate negative comments on both sides when it comes to trying to tell people exactly what they should be hunting and why. The "Brown and down" comments are certainly in no short supply. None of it is really hidden too well, and if someone hasn't seen it, it is only because they haven't been looking. It is plain that there are a lot of people here that want to make negative comments about what others choose to hunt as if they really have the right to do so. And "the pot calling the kettle black" is not doing much for unity among sportsmen and women.

Good thoughts, but you are preaching to the choir. Also, don't forget that if the hunters of other states are aging at the rate NYS is, that army may be starting to look a bit geriatric.....lol. Would it really be all that scary to have a bunch of bald, bent-over, hunters with walkers limping their way at you? No seriously, It is not so much a question of how many people you have with rifles when you are dealing with today's modern warfare of drones, missiles and unmanned weapons that can be launched from more miles away than your trusty old deer rifle can shoot. Those limitations also apply to those counting on armed insurrection against an out-of-control domestic government. Yes, we would probably look pretty formidable all organized and operating in unison ........ for a few minutes anyway.....lol.

Amazing! Halfway through January and not only does that guy still have his antlers attached, but they are on there strong enough to withstand a fatal collision with a car.

I am beginning to see the difficulty that the DEC has with managing herd size. Hunter attitudes toward doe harvests definitely seem to be quite emotion driven. I suppose that is why so many antlerless permits go unclaimed and unfilled. I thought we had left that irrational bias behind years ago, but it seems that it is still very much alive and well.

I know there are people who believe that every environmental conservation law is contained in the game syllabus that is handed out when you get your license. Well, that really isn't the case. It's not all on the DEC web-site either. It is in the volumes of law books that hardly any hunters own. And inside these law books are hidden some of these laws that contradict each other or are written so poorly that they can be interpreted several ways and some that are so obtuse and written in such a way that it requires a judge to untangle them, and often even he is simply rendering an "opinion". So really all you can do is try the best you can to live by the laws as you personally understand them and hope that you are not inadvertently or accidentally breaking any laws that you don't understand or that have not been adequately made available to the public. To me violations of the kind that are buried and contradictory and confusingly written are in a whole different category from those violations where the hunter fully understands the law and knows full well that he is breaking that law, and then publicly boasts of his violations. Unfortunately enforcement and judicial branches of government make no such distinction, and in truth can not. No one has ever said that our system of laws or any system of laws is flawless. But just imagine a world without them ..... lol. Responsible citizens do the best we can to abide by the law and teach our children to do the same. For some, responsibility is optional.

It might just happen that if does were the only legal harvest, all those antlerless permits that the DEC wants to be successfully used might actually be used. Perhaps the numbers would go down to near nothing like they want. Perhaps we would find out just how much of a challenge does really can be when they start getting as scarce as bucks. The fact is that we might actually get to see just how stupid all our prized mysterious bucks really are when their numbers grow to where doe numbers are today ...... lol.