Doc

Quote: "The investigation, dubbed “Operation TIP Works,” is the result of numerous complaints from the public to the Minnesota Turn In Poachers program." So, whenever we hear on these forums about neighbors or others that "we just know are poaching", NYS has a TIPP program also. Make a call. It's all anonymous if you want it to be, and shines a light on illegal activity. The DEC can't be everywhere, and that's what these poachers count on to get away with their crap. They also count on some hair-brained notion about being afraid to be a "rat", and actually get away with stealing from all of us because of that crazy mentality.

I will say that gun and ammo sales from smaller guns and ammo stores in and around Rochester may be in big trouble for another reason (in addition to Andy's safe act). We now have a real big-box outdoor store that is actually serious about selling stuff, and another one coming soon (Bass-Pro) in Victor. Take Andy's BS and the new heavy-duty competition, and it has to be getting pretty ugly for the smaller independent shops. What I worry about is losing some of the good gunsmiths that rely on gun and ammo sales to supplement their businesses.

It goes deeper than just an underestimate of casual hunter numbers (And I totally agree with you on that point), but there is an accompanying arrogant disdain for hunters that are not rabid fanatics as though they count for nothing. But every year as hunter number continue to dwindle, and we drive these guys out of the woods, we will be seeing how important their numbers were.

I can find those people too, and I can also find people that are sick of having restrictions, regulations and more damned screwy laws and complexities added to their hunting, faster than the stinking regs can be printed. Everybody has more crazy fad-management ideas than you can even keep straight anymore. One buck limits, EAB, ARs, ..... I'm sure I have left some out. And now they are talking about things getting so complex that in addition to Regions, and WMUs with all their pages of verbal descriptions to keep track of, they will be needing yet another set of areas complete with yet another wall of verbiage to describe their boundaries. Where does all this nonsense stop so that people can just relax and hunt? How many people are starting to bail out because of all this craziness.

I'm not sure "good deer management" is what runs the ship anymore at the DEC. My suspicions are now going to the goals of the DEC are being driven by short term political directives. Polls, surveys, public meetings, all seem to be the current tools for "management". Of course it is necessary to keep hunters involved and engaged as long as these "popularity contests" don't start taking the place the good basic biological principles. I'm beginning to wonder. One year their head biologist is saying that there is no biological purpose or benefit to ARs, and the next year they are implementing several AR units, and talking about adding more as long as it shuts up those nagging pressure groups. Then too you have the CTFs determining deer density targets also. It just seems that more and more, the responsibilities of performing wildlife management is being turned into a series of opinion polls. I hope I'm wrong, but every year that seems to be the direction the DEC is taking.

As long as this isn't starting to mean that the bowhunter population density isn't approaching the circus-like gun hunter populations of the past. That may be great for whacking on deer populations, but the price may very well be a reduced quality of the bow hunt. No, those that own or control their own hunting grounds won't have to worry but those that use public or open private land may find bow hunting to be changed in a very negative way.

Yeah, I had 7 pretty good sized deer wandering across my yard the other day. But I'll bet there are a whole lot of guys in other parts of the state that really don't want to hear about how many deer we have all over the place .... lol. Sorry guys, I know things are not great everywhere. I know that many times there are towns that border each other that don't have the same or similar population situations.

That's "millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks". I guess if you're going to be a crook ..... do it right. I have a feeling that he may get quite a bit more than just a slap on the wrist. His influence is gone, and he has the Feds after him. They don't usually leave any loopholes in their cases. Here's hoping anyways.

I have seen a few, but the population has taken a beating over time, and I have no idea exactly why. I also sense some statewide concern by the DEC in some of the articles that I have read.

Do not confuse "enjoying fighting" with standing up for your own interests. I will tell you that if we all cower into a corner and allow issues involving hunter concerns to only be presented and lobbied for only by non-hunters, we will get exactly what we deserve. There is no one that will stand up for hunting use of public lands other than hunters themselves and their advocacy organizations. We have to recognize our minority status and understand what some of the last bastions of hunting access could turn into if we do not use the principles of lobbying using whatever means we have at our disposal.

Well unfortunately this product is out of stock at Dick's and I had to settle for a higher price tag. I was a little slow to decide to get one for my MQ-32 Mathews. I went to FS Arrows, and it's on its way.

Re-reading my reply, perhaps it did sound like I have no appreciation for a good set of antlers on a older buck. That's not exactly accurate. As illogical as using antlers as a yardstick may be, I think we all appreciate a good set of antlers as part of nature's art. And truly if for some weird reason, bucks were declared illegal to harvest, I definitely would feel like something had been lost, and indeed an important option (choice) would have been eliminated (nothing I would ever be in favor of). But back to the original question, I know that even without a buck option, I would still enjoy the hell out of my deer hunting and be out there excited about getting a doe or whatever is legal to hunt. At my age with deer season having become such a huge part of all those years, I have to be on the hunt, antlers or no antlers. Yes, I also would be working my tail off to get the buck option restored, but while that was going on, I would be enthusiastically hunting the does.

About 5 years ago, I dug through my ancient collection of broadheads and refurbished a half dozen of my rusty of Bear Razorheads, and took a nice doe with one just for the sake of satisfying some nostalgic need. Yes, they could be the one broadhead that has taken the biggest percentage of deer of all the broadheads ever invented. But anyway, the old Razorhead was the workhorse of bowhunting for a whole lot of years and still is a very capable broadhead.

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!