Doc

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.

Was the leg wound a bullet wound or couldn't you tell?

No, I can't shoot a bow when I have so much clothing on that I can't bend my elbow ..... lol.

Most of the time pockets do the job for me. If it gets down into the 20's I have some old cloth gloves. Any colder than that and I have been known to use snowmobile gloves and just pull off the right one when its time to blow something flat.

That sound can be your worst enemy when there comes a need to jack another cartridge in there for one of those weird 2nd shots. I shot two deer consecutively this year, and thank heavens the Ruger American bolt action is pretty darn silent. I didn't have to give away my position with a loud clattering noise like my old Ithaca shotgun used to make.

Well, it's one thing to prove that they see certain colors, and yet another thing to prove that color registers as any kind of identification or alarm feature for them. They don't think and analyze as humans do. So who's to say that simply being able to distinguish color really means anything to them? Distinct shapes and movement may be the sole tip-off for them.

I have seen some pretty big deer do some pretty stupid things. You don't see that too often because there are fewer big deer out there and the opportunities for seeing them in their "stupid mode" (rut) aren't as frequent.

Well, there is the trick when the days get super cold. Usually I sit for a bunch of hours and then start still hunting. Well, that's two entirely different temperature situations. If I dress warm enough to sit, I will be over-dressed for still-hunting no matter how slow I go. My solution: take a pack and remove some of the layers for walking. That applies for walking in too. I have an ugly steep hill to climb to get to my stands. Dress wrong and you'll be completely sweated up when you sit down for the stand. Solution: put your heaviest layers in your pack, unbutton everything and get re-dressed when you get to your stand.

Lol ..... it is interesting to watch the evolution of a thread. I believe that I have found the reply that actually touched off the accuracy thing between a shotgun and rifle. The implication as I read it is that the shotgun is so much less accurate than a rifle that hunters in the southern zone have to empty their magazine in order to get a deer down....lol. And this accounted for why some members were indicating that their lives are in mortal danger and they are nearly too terrified to go in the woods with slugs literally spraying the trees. Man I haven't heard so much BS and over generalization in a long time ... lol.

There is nothing wrong with a good healthy dose of awareness and a recognition that there are people out there that may not be as safety conscious a we would hope (and that should apply no matter which zone you are hunting in). There is no big honorable thing about blundering around out there without at least considering the possibility that there is a small element of danger that has to be accepted (just like every time you get behind the wheel of your car). As long as it doesn't paralyze you and keep you from enjoying the hunt. Personally I engage in what I call defensive hunting. I am always well covered in blaze orange. I try to maintain a safe distance from other hunters. I usually have a good big tree at my back and always keep an eye on the body language of somebody that is still hunting their way through. If I am still hunting through an area and encounter another hunter, I generally change direction and make sure that I am in wide open, plain sight of him. None of these things are big inconveniences or impact my hunting success in any way. They are just a few common sense things that can keep a person around to hunt another day.

So there ya go .... freakin antlers don't mean nothing. We may all be out there hunting the biggest coward in the woods ..... lol.

Well, I'm sure there are a tiny number of members here who hunt both Northern Zone and Southern zone equally, But probably none of those that have comments about each others zones. I know there is always some local pride and loyalty that prompt people to come up with certain comments, but seldom are any of them actually coming from first hand actual knowledge. Also, there may be a skewed sense of conditions that are simply based on hunter density. But of course that doesn't mean that any of these finger pointing comments has one ounce of validity.