Doc

One thing is for sure in NYS. The coyote is effectively at the top of their food chain. In other words, aside from disease and starvation, the only population control comes from man. I think that sometimes Mother Nature needs a bit of a hand in decreasing numbers, regardless of the species, but especially with species that have no other natural controls. Smaller numbers means bigger litters? ... Perhaps, but that just means that hunters and trappers have to work a little harder and knock off more of the newcomers.

I have Time Warner Roadrunner for internet service. Other than the cost, the service itself is pretty darn quick and reliable.

You're right. I did what I set out to do. I passed on my thoughts on "one license-one report harvest reporting system" to the DEC. Now it is up to them to do with it what they want. I have received acknowledgment from their web-site that they understood it. I got out of it what I put into it. That is as far (and actually even farther) than I feel obligated to go with it. That's not my problem, and it is not your place to try to make it my problem, is it? I am still waiting for you to list one reason why the concept will not work. You are unable to do so. It is obvious that you have invested no thought in this concept other than to simply be argumentative and negative. So further conversation on this makes no sense to me.

No, I am not going to form an organization, and set up web-sites, nor camp out on the DEC's doorstep. I'll not be writing articles or trying to force anyone to agree with me. Ha-ha..... Get serious .... lol. As I said before I do have a life outside of hunting issues. I pick and choose my battles and prioritize my time spent on public items, as I assume anyone in their right mind has to. And how the DEC chooses to run their shop is certainly something anyone can have opinions on, but not necessarily something worthy of initiating a campaign over. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I lay awake at night worrying that I have a disagreement with the DEC, but your notion is very wrong. I have an concept that I have passed along to the DEC. They are aware of it as noted on their own web-site, and that is as far as I intend to take it. I am not one of the AR fanatics with an agenda, and certainly do not obsess over the issue as you have mistakenly assumed that I do. It's an interesting concept that I am sure would work far better than current methods. But at the end of the day, it is not something that I have any interest in trying to force them to do.

My view of the question is that the smaller the property, the less the opportunities. Multiple stand sites become limited. Over-saturation of hunting pressure gets to be a problem. And sometimes you just choose the wrong 20 acres where the deer seldom go, which leaves you with a new property with no options. No, I would not buy 20 acres strictly for hunting use. A house site, or land speculation, maybe. But for a hunting parcel, that is truly a gamble.

15" of snow here in lower Ontario County. That's pretty much the limit for my Yamaha ATV. Pretty good workout for this old gent (manual plow lift). I'm feeling it this morning .... lol.

Oh I understand that it was meant to be a response to Grow's comment, but it still left me wondering how it relates to that either. It just went flying completely over my head and still does.

If I were ever to move (which ain't going to happen) I would add one more condition. Very few poisonous snakes. When hunting, I want to be always scanning for wild game, not some disgusting crawling thing on the ground that can do me harm. I like sitting in the woods without having to study where I am going to sit for some pissed-off viper that takes it personal when he gets sat on. I know it's not the east coast, but I am thinking Hawaii might work well.

Well, you have your ideas, and I have mine, and I guess we both think we are right. All I know is that I'm being called for supper, and right now that has priority.

Just as a point of practicality that should be added here, I have to point out that we all have lives apart from hunting. I think we can have conversations and discussions without every issue involving a full-court-press on each and every item. Don't confuse brainstorming with a "drop-everything, let's start a campaign" kind of activity.....lol. I don't know of anybody who functions that way. That all sounds real good, but it flat out ain't going to happen. The DEC answer to this idea on their website makes it pretty plain that they are not interested in outside ideas on how to run their business. I can take a hint.

I was going to say that it would take an incredible amount of research to go through the reporting systems of all states and be able to say as an absolute fact that no state anywhere has that kind of reporting system. Probably the point that should be taken from all that is that each state seems to have their own ideas as to what system is best, and I'll bet that each one of them is convinced that they have the absolute best system in the country. That's why I place no credibility in whether any one state or the other thinks that the one license-one report system can work or not. It is irrelevant.

So are you guys finally done down there? Well now the DEC can complete their final harvest tally and publish it.

Say what??? I have no idea where you are going with the racial, childless, and poverty references. You lost me with that sudden leap off the trail.

By the way, have you actually found some place that states that that system hasn't been implemented anywhere? Not that it really is relevant, but, I'm just curious if there is some info on that system that I could read somewhere.

It probably surprises no one that government agencies do have a whole lot of inertia when it comes to change. And I understand that resistance to change. In my career, I never welcomed someone lousing up systems when I had spent years becoming an expert at the systems that I used. I think it is kind of human nature. So it doesn't surprise me that people would find innovative ideas from outside their organization to be unwelcome. The direct quote from their own webpage kind of clarifies what we are dealing with. Here is their quote regarding a discussion of this exact idea: "Ultimately, the adage, "if it's not broken, don't fix it," comes into play". And yet if you look at the labor intensive methods and the man-hours of effort just trying to figure out how many hunters are breaking the reporting laws so they can factor it into their harvest count, it is pretty plain to me that the current system has always been broken. But the implication of that quote tells me that they are reacting to new ideas that come from outside with an attitude of intransigence and denial.

From what I read in most of this thread, what people find disturbing has a lot less to do with the content of the law than the fact that this guy is out there blatantly teaching his kid that game laws are to be ignored and disregarded, and that his teachings are also being backed up by some segment of the community. That attitude toward conservation law and perhaps other laws as well will be carried by that kid (and who knows how many other local kids) throughout his life of hunting. And that is disturbing.

But anyway, The argument that "it can't work because no one has tried it" makes no sense and is counter-productive reasoning. I think those with open minds and no axe to grind can see the value in it. I have heard absolutely no actual reason offered by you or anyone else why it can't work, only roadblocks as to why better methods should ever be tried. That's probably not really a very useful attitude unless you are satisfied that everything in wildlife management is running flawlessly and couldn't be better. That's the DEC's attitude when they say, "Ultimately, the adage, "if it's not broken, don't fix it," comes into play".

Sorry, I didn't see it. But it is probably good that it was re-posted anyway. That page adds a whole lot of insight into how the DEC is thinking these days. Frankly, I can't comment on whether the numbers sound reasonable or not. I can't imagine what a layman would ever base that opinion on other than blind faith.

I think I got my point across. Useless speculation without facts is exactly that.....useless speculation.

Yeah, like I said there are absolutely no undiscovered ideas that are any good. They've all been discovered .....right? That's the kind of forward thinking that we all need.

That snow sure is tracked up a lot.

The DEC has produced a page that addresses reporting rates and how they are calculated. They also have written a rebuttal to the plan that I have described. Check it out and see if you agree with them. You will find it at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/47738.html On that same page you will find a stat that directly addresses your feeling about "gross under-reporting". The figure that they arrived at was that the calculated "reporting rate" was 45% in 2006. Less than half of all hunters report their kills even though it is the law. Now if that isn't gross under-reporting, then I don't know what is. It is all very interesting, and I encourage everyone to read that page. It's not very long. Come up with your own conclusions.

That's kind of like saying everything has already been invented, so anything thought of from this point forward can't possibly work.

If in fact you do know it for a fact: "The toll-free hotline number is 1-844-DEC-ECOS (1-844-332-3267). It will be staffed around the clock and connect callers to a DEC police dispatcher." Here's the deal.... the burden of proof is not on you. It is the DEC's responsibility to conduct an investigation. Sometimes that investigation consists of things that go on in a covert way that may not be known to the complainant. At any rate, a complaint is on record, and we really have no way of knowing exactly what the DEC is going to eventually do with that info. Just because you cannot produce the "smoking gun" doesn't mean that you should simply ignore illegal acts when you know they have been committed. You never know, this guy may have another report pending that your complaint will lend credibility to. However, the point that I was making was that there is a lot of neighborhood gossip that we accept as fact and then repeat it as fact (such as in internet forums). If it is truly a known fact, then it should be reported. If it isn't a personally known fact then it should not be stated as such in a discussion.

Those guys at Penn State really do some cool stuff!