Doc

Hey, I had one of those trotting across my lawn a couple years back (WMU 8N). maybe they're not as rare as I thought.

Hey, it's Mr. Personality again. Good to hear from you ..... NOT! I have no clue if you really have a useful point or are just engaging in another mindless random attack. You know.... out there trying to make friends....lol. But anyway, thank you for the comedic relief. Your rare (thankfully) comments are once again up to your usual standards. Judging from your irrational outburst, I have to guess that you are one of those Bambi-loving property owners that I was referring to, that refuse permission to hunters (and then whine about deer damage). Well, I don't know what to tell you. As I said, you get what you deserve.

Well first of all, hunting is a method of population control that I and several relatives personally take part in. Oh, and by the way, I can see two of my stands from my living room window ...lol. It doesn't bother me a bit. If I didn't want hunting on my property, I wouldn't be whining about deer damage as they ate the place down around me. I find it absolutely stupid that people cry about deer damage and then wring their hands and whine about killing the poor little fuzzy creatures. In my opinion, they get whatever they deserve from their stupidity. Instead these mental midgets would rather pay good tax money so that instead of seeing a hunter out there doing the job for free with a bow, they can see some government employee in the same spot in the middle of the night, holding a rifle. Yup!.... That makes a lot of sense.

People are great procrastinators. If they put it off too long and it gets past the allotted time they are afraid to turn it in late. Also, there obviously is not a serious enforcement effort going on. It is very rare that you hear of a ticket being written for failure to report a kill. Also, the DEC has done such a great job of selling their statistical methods of calculating reporting rates that hunters don't take the requirement seriously. After all if the DEC doesn't place any value on full cooperation, it makes the hunters feel better about not complying. There's probably more reasons but those the three that come to mind immediately.

As one single data point, let me say that I just looked out in the yard and saw deer tracks criss-crossing all over the place. It is 10 degrees out here right now. I think cold weather sends them on a food shopping mission trying to fortify their calorie supply. That's just a guess, because when its that damned cold out there, I am hunkered down trying to conserve.

I know a lot of people see check-in stations as being a necessary thing, but looking at the starvation rations of resources tat the DEC gets these days, it is hard to imagine where personnel would be coming from to man these stations or who would be doing their jobs while they are out there. Another problem with check stations is that a lot of guys never have to load a deer on to their car. Some guys have their deer butchered up and in little packages in the car before they go home. Others live where they hunt and they do their own butchering. Now if you can't get people to make a simple phone call or fill out an easy on-line form, I wouldn't expect them to load a deer or two on their cars and drive to a check-station to do their reporting. Seriously, I think the DEC has gone about as far as they can go to make harvest reporting as convenient and easy as possible. There is only one other system that would be nearly fool-proof. That being a mandatory reporting system that requires one tag issued, one mandatory report (successful or not) with a computer verification to ensure compliance. That would get you to as near 100% reporting as possible and it would be real numbers, not guestimated numbers.

Here's my feeling about landowners that do not allow hunting. Let the suckers rot in their own situations of their own doing. Let the critters eat all of their expensive shrubs. Let all of those plantings look stupid with half of one side of them being eaten away and the other half rubbed to death. Let the bucks rub on their pricey ornamental trees until they kill them. laugh in their faces when they cry and complain about the damage, or their wrecked Lexus that's got deer hair, blood and feces smeared into the bent folds of impact. I don't have a single bit of sympathy for any one of them, and they should get exactly what they deserve until they come crawling to hunters begging us to hunt their property. And you know what? .... even at that point I will laugh in their faces and tell them no.

It sounds like if you are in a county that allows only shotguns for deer hunting, you had better not be out afield hunting with center-fire rifles that are .22 caliber or larger for anything while any legal deer season is in progress. However, this does bring up a question about target practice with such rifles. How do they distinguish between hunting and target shooting?

I have absolutely no knowledge of feral pigs, how to hunt them, or how much problems individual hunting may pose for organized eradication efforts. So, I guess I have to defer to the "experts" on this issue. All I can say is that they had better be right. Right now they have a free and willing source of population control volunteers that don't cost a cent, and they are everywhere. Comparing that force to a small group of paid state and federal employees to handle a statewide problem, logic would seem to favor the idea of using the free force of hunters to do the job. But then, what the heck do I know? Maybe they can do a more effective job on an undisturbed, unsuspecting, population. These guys are going to look awful goofy if they don't get the job done.

There is a sixth stage.....The Last Stage. That's the one where you go out hoping that you don't actually shoot anything that you will have to gut and drag. The 6th stage includes the phase of hunting where you get all dressed up and out the door and then turn around and go back to bed because it's too cold outside.

Hey ..... Here's a great idea. How about chemical contraceptives in deer food. I've heard of that as an idea from some of those brilliant animal rights people. Sorry, I couldn't help myself .... lol.

Ha-ha ... I love to fool myself into thinking there is some financial benefit to putting venison in the freezer. Free meat .... right? .... lol. Of course we all really know that venison is some of the most expensive meat going. However, I still always think that a deer or two in the freezer kind of adds some level of success to the season. And of course aside from cost, venison is some of the more healthy meat that you can stuff into your body. And like I said before, I do carry the gun for a purpose or else I would be out with my camera. But there is no doubt that there are other benefits that add to season satisfaction besides venison in the freezer. So no season is really a waste of time.

I'm not sure that the science of statistics has really changed all that much, and I'm not sure that the DEC model has changed at all since then. All I am saying is that there are still cyclical wild variations and their predictive abilities seem to be very poor at best. They seem to be more in the reactive mode. And by the way, there is no stochastic event that would explain an over-population.

Probably the best thing to do would have been to use one of your antlerless tags on it. It probably would have been some of the best venison you have ever had, and it would be taking out a deer that most likely will turn out to be coyote, fox, and crow food. Not sure that I could have done it, but I'm just saying that there could have been some justification for taking that little one out.

I remember the later part of the 80's when the deer yards at the south end of Honeoye lake featured dead deer laying out in the fields, and deer that were so weak from starvation that they couldn't clear the fences and died there dangling by their hind legs, and the hundreds of deer, easily seen and counted that dotted the fields around there just standing there waiting to die. It seems the statistics weren't really controlling populations then. But statistics be damned, it didn't take the DEC long to flood the state with permits after that situation was seen by every car that went by. And lo and behold in the 90's there was an admitted overshoot there and a lot of the state suffered well-documented shortages that some areas apparently have not come back from. The statistics didn't work the magic there. Permit numbers were slashed and the herd was mostly rebuilt. Now, if I have read the articles correctly, the early harvest numbers seem to be indicating significant down-turns again. So what I see is wild swings in the populations that tell me that something isn't working as perfectly as advertised by the DEC. I know I am being way over the edge, but it really seems to me that there is the statistical system that they use for show, but the real management system is simply to react to population fluctuations only after it is obvious that things have gone out of control. Enough whining from insurance companies and hunters and farmers and there is an instant over reaction (permit allocations) until things get out of control in the other direction. Management by created crisis. Oh, that is way overly cynical I'm sure, but so is the periodic declarations of the infallibility of the statistical systems. They simply aren't. But as long as they continue to make excuses for the glaring errors, and continue to proclaim perfection, there are no motives to continue improvements on their systems.

Great, so ignore this one and start whatever thread suits you. The forum is kind of open for that sort of thing.

Well, one thing I forgot to add was that there really are no right or wrong answers. I didn't intend to judge or evaluate people's reasons for feeling the way they do. I was just curious about the criteria that people use to determine their ratings of the season. Actually, the fact that a guy only got out for two days during the season may very well be why the season sucked for him. I'm just curious as to what it takes to make for a "happy hunter".

OK, first of all let's admit that we are mostly not statisticians. Most of us do not have any real inside info on the analysis and evaluation of statistical systems (at least not that anyone will admit to ...lol). We also understand that it is not practical to count deer. I think it may go without saying that none of us are capable of designing any alternatives to the DEC/Cornell statistical management. But, we do know a little about how the DEC comes up with their numbers that they manage the deer herd and other game species number with. We also can each "see" (some better than others .... lol). We also can read and understand reports. And most of us can remember some history involving massive overpopulations (Admitted to by the DEC) and some horrific deer shortages (again admitted to by the DEC). So, given the above limitations and capabilities, what is your opinion on the accuracy of the DEC's numbers and the statistical systems that come up with them? Do you have confidence that their statistical approaches are infallible? How about "adequate" .... are they adequate? Why do you feel they are or are not? Any comments or discussion about this aspect of deer management?

Ok ..... maybe this subject needs its own thread. I'll go off and start one.

The DEC is heavily invested in their current statistical system of management. They have sold each other on it being the only way to operate. The fact is that it probably is the only practical way to manage. It may even be true that it is marginally accurate most of the time. As far as it being "as good as actual numbers", well, that has to be stretching it a lot. For one thing, they never have experienced actual numbers, so I don't know how they could make a statement like that (with a straight face). But such statements really do put their credibility to the test. I am suspicious that they have been over-sold on statistics. Their whole job is predicated on the accuracy of the statistical systems that have been sold to them. Would you expect them to do anything but vigorously defend them. For one thing, I am sure they are quite expert at using statistics that are handed to them, but probably not all that expert at creating statistical systems. They do what Cornell tells them to do, but are DEC biologists really statisticians? I don't know .... are they? And if they aren't, are they really capable of evaluating the accuracy without any attempts at real physical verification? Again, I don't know, but I sure do have some strong suspicions judging on past results. Statistics can be useful and even necessary in certain applications. But we all know they are not infallible and they are not magic...lol.

We have an area of old hemlock trees. There always is a lot less snow in that area than any of the surrounding areas. Heavy snow .... that is where I head. They do react to bad weather by going into that area.

We have had a few threads about "Good" seasons and "Bad" seasons, but those terms mean different things to different people. So here is the question: What to you constitutes a good season? In other words, how do you measure the quality of the hunt? I'm looking for a little honesty here and not just what sounds good on a hunting forum .... lol. Do you set goals? Do you have to meet your goals to consider the season a Good season. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For me the minimum requirement for a good season is a deer or two in the freezer. I don't haul that gun around just so I can enjoy the outdoors or simply participate in the hunt. If I want to simply enjoy an outdoor experience, I'll take out the camera. So I guess at a minimum, a season can't be good if I don't get my annual fix of venison. If I get two, that's a very good season. If I get a decent buck, that is a great season. If I get a trophy buck, that is a crazy-great season....lol. If I get nothing or don't even see a whole lot, then I consider the season a crap season. One thing I don't want to experience in hunting is to not even see anything. That gets real old, real quick. There are other things that can impact my estimation of season quality. Broken equipment can turn a season into a suck-season. Some kind of injury can ruin a season. Somebody I am hunting with getting their deer can make it a nice season. So there are things other than harvest that impact how I feel about season quality.

I once heard that the antidote for rabies was a series of shots in the stomach over a couple of weeks. Anyone have any first hand knowledge of the process? Frankly that sounds pretty gross if that is true. Of course it's better than the alternatives.

We often make fun of some of the immature deer because we have seen one or two actually get into a confused state and make some bad choices. And sometimes they do some comical things. But it really has nothing to do with their intelligence, only their lack of experience. Spikes may be experience, but I have noticed that when it gets to be about this time of the season, even the fawns start getting pretty darn good at the disappearing act. Eventually, they figure it all out.

Periodically a swabbing of Hoppes Benchrest Copper Solvent is worth doing. Let it sit overnight and then clean it out with dry patches until it comes out clean. You'll be amazed at the green crap that comes out of a gun that you thought was already perfectly cleaned. That copper build-up can be some pretty stubborn stuff.