Doc

My Dad was the first to introduce me to hunting with firearms with a few trips up on the hill with the old .22 for squirrels where I was too young to actually participate, but it still was exciting to a degree. But,my real hunting started in the hay loft of our barn. With my trusty home-made hickory bow with the baling twine string and the fletchless willow arrows, I used to hunt pigeons. I got several which I cleaned myself and gave to my mother who cooked them up. Actually as I recall they weren't too bad. My next victims were snapping turtles down in our swamp. I took an old fishing spear and looked for the stirred up mud and probed the bottom until I clunked a turtle shell and then jammed it in and pulled out a few very big turtles. I chopped off the heads and cleaned those myself too and gave the meat to my mother who had absolutely no idea what to do with it. So, she ground it up into turtle-burger and cooked it up. It was like a lump of chopped up rubberbands. Bad experiment .... lol. Next came the trapline which isn't really hunting, but it did involve taking some wild animals, which just fed the urge to take the next logical step of hunting. So naturally when the time came, I took my hunter-safety course down in the old school bus garage (imagine that). After a couple of years of small game hunting with an old bent-barrel 20 ga. bolt action (which I actually learned to become quite proficient with), I finally got old enough to hunt deer. And so for a few years I scared a bunch of deer until I finally could afford a decent shotgun. About 1960 or so, I got re-involved in archery with an honest-to-goodness real purchased recurve and store-bought arrows. And that began the crazy fanaticism with hunting. I've never missed a season since (gun or bow).

Truly amazing how the libs on this site have quickly resorted to introducing race to defend their candidate. I would say "shame on you", but I realize that libs don't even understand that word. What the hell is the matter with you characters? Don't you realize how much you denigrate your own candidate by bringing race to his defense? Apparently that is all you see when you evaluate him is the color of his skin. Well, whether you understand the word or not ..... shame on you.

Look, I know that our technocracy has made a lot of people into almost devoted religous believers in all things scientific. But I also see plenty of evidence that all this unquestioning belief in the infallibilty of science and numbers is often misplaced. Anyone who has closely examined the history of antlerless deer permit allocations can pretty easily spot the years when massive adjustments were required for corrections of population mis-estimates. These always came after the fact and not as a result of some predictive statistical model. Also, it has not escaped my notice that with all these mystic number-crunchings, small game bag limits and seasons have remain absolutely stagnant and unchanging for decades, showing that there is and awful lot of useless numbers manipulation that never seems to have made it into hard changes. I think it's nice to be able to believe in the infallibility of statistics or to receive some sort of comfort from the belief that there is a safety net of numbers that watch over us all. But everyday observations show us that science and math are not always infallible, and they do not provide all the solutions to everything. Used properly, they are a great tool for progress. Used or applied deceptively, fraudulently or just plain incorrectly can be a dangerous at worst and useless at best. It's also useful to consider that there are some things that do not lend themselves to reliable statistics. There is also the old "garbage in-garbage out" (GIGO) principle. My thought here is simply, do not take everything for granted simply because it has a statistcal label hung on it. If something sounds totally unbelievable, it probably is. The statistitians will definitely try to convince us to relax, sit back, and let them take care of all the world's woes. I think they need to be questioned and watched and periodically evaluated for proper application and use and results. And here in this article are some prime candidates for some close scrutiny and evaluation.

Lol .... A lot of them make it awful easy. There are some things occurring on TV hunting programs that simply should not ever be aired. I think a lot of it deserves to be bashed. After all, like it or not, there are a lot of opinions formed by non-hunters based on those programs. And also like it or not those actions on TV reflect on all of us hunters in the eyes of those that are not a part of the hunting community.

First of all, with todays combination licenses, the DEC really doesn't even know what numbers of small game hunters that are actually targeting what species of small game. That is one huge set of combinations and variables. There is also huge variations in habitat from one corner of the state to the other ..... another huge set of variables. When it comes to expanding small samplings to encompass the entire state, such variables have to be accomodated. Weather (climate ) is another monstrous set of variables that can effect harvest accumulations. Then there is a wide variation in the intensity of each hunter's efforts ..... another huge set of variable. How about survey respondants that don't recollect all that accurately. I'm sure I am not thinking of many other massive sets of variables. But you get the idea that the level of interacting combinations of all these variables are absolutely staggering. The sampling size would have to be massive to have any credibility as data entries into any statistical analysis. Not to belittle the effort, but all that makes a simple statistical study of predicting the percent of sales reps that will quit, kind of like child's play. Also, there is the factor of verification. Predicting exiting sales people can be verified as being correct or not, after the fact by simple counting. Not so with small game harvests. Also there are definite records from past time periods that the statistics can be based on with the sales rep predictions. That's a huge benefit to accurate statistics. There are no such actual counts when it comes to rabbits and squirrels and foxes and such. So the comparison is badly flawed. So, it comes down to the question of whether bad data is better than no data. My guess is that it is a 50-50 crap-shoot as to whether decisions and actions based on flawed data will be positive or negative. Yes, it is possible that bad estimates could trigger reactions that could be harmful. I think there are quite a few cases in deer management where bad estimates have caused inappropriate permit allocations which have had serious negative reprocussions in herd stability both in terms of under-estimation and over-estimation. So what would I do different? ...... I have no idea. It isn't really my job to to come up with an accurate way to count little critters. Nobody pays me for that. But then I'm not the one that's publishing numbers and perhaps pretending a level of knowledge and expertise to feed the public. Is it wrong to question something that seems too incredible to be true? I don't know. I just read these kinds of reports and simply have to ask, "How in hell could they possibly know that?" Perhaps like many, I should be satisfied with the answer that I don't really have a need to know ..... lol.

Lol ..... not all that disabled yet. Actually by some standards, I'm not really all that elderly yet either. Just old enough to be a bit grumpy.

Back when I was a kid, we raised sheep and were almost put out of business by a pack of dogs. The nice friendly dog that our kids pet and love becomes a bit of a throw-back beast when they run free and team up with some neighborhood buddys. These dogs were not interested in killing. Most of the sheep died later of wounds and also shock. The dogs just kept running from one to another having fun tearing chunks out each one. They also exhibit a certain amount of wild cunning that one would only expect from some kind of creature that lives in the woods. I remember one time right after a couple of nights in row of attacks when we spent 3 nights in the hay loft with guns (exciting stuff for a kid of 11). They showed up the day after we gave up and went back in the house. probably relying on scent they knew we were there and just like anything wild, they knew to stay away. The sheriff finally caught up with them and busted up the pack. It turned out that they were just neighborhood pets that were allowed to run free.

Let's face it, these guys have a show to put on every week. Their livelihood counts on it. And then they have to slit their time even furthner with personal appearances at trade shows and other events. They are not going to hunt the sam eway we do. They need help and lots of it. Fair chase? weel that sounds real good until your livelihood starts getting involved. Then I'm sure that scouting and stand setting all goes out the window. A little assistance from finding the deer to dragging it out is all but a necessity. Do they know anymore about hunting than we do? .... Well maybe from just being in a hunting situation day in and day out and conversing with hunters constantly, there might be some knowledge that seeps in through osmosis, but I think for the most part, if they were tossed out here in the real world without their staff, and pre-arrangements, they might be at a bit of a disadvantage. But don't be too hard on them. They have large egos to feed along with a family to support. They are just doing what we demand of them. Shortcuts are what keeps them in business.

Yeah, like I said before, if that is the worst thing we've got to argue about, I guess we're in pretty good shape. If somebody likes to use harvest instead of slaughter or kill or whatever, I have a real hard time getting worked up over that sort of thing. Hate the term? ..... lol .... I guess I have a lot higher threshold before I hit the "hate" level. It's pretty much a non-issue for me.

As long as we are picking on hunting shows, could somebody explain to me why a few of these guys are sitting there almost whispering while sitting there with their downed deer. What's that all about? It doesn't happen often, but I have seen a few of them do that. And then there is that exclamation of "Look ..... I see him .... over there". That's all well and good, but there is a cameraman already positioned on the far side watching the hunters approaching from the far side. Maybe they should have let the cameraman do the blood trailing for them. He seems to have gotten there first. And then there is that funky 1970's music that they use as the deer approaches the tree stand. And then I have to wonder if they were to simply let a year pass and show the same TV season all over again, would anyone really know the difference. Talk about repetitive. Every one is exactly the same except for the deer being shot. Oh well, we all love to pick on these shows, but yet even I find myself tuning in once in a while when there isn't a whole lot else to watch. They can still be fun to watch as long as I don't see too many of them in a row.

I think a lot of us are simply getting burnt out on these things. They used to be a novelty and it was kind of fun to see the hunt. And some of the comments and reactions that these guys put on the air were funny or interesting. But really, How much of that can you watch before you start getting a bit critical (perhaps overly critical). It's not like a regular TV program where you don't know the outcome. If you had to write a script for hunting shows it would be the easiest and shortest script in the world as well as the most repetitive. So yes, some of that stuff can kind of grate on you after a while. Like I said before, "loathe" is a bit strong. Perhaps it would be better stated that it can be mildly aggravating sometimes.

I'm sure they send some surveys out to somebody, although I have not really heard of too many people who have ever received one. But even at that, given the tiny samplings, and wide variations of habitat and other regional situations, it is ridiculous to base anything on numbers gathered in that way, especially when it comes to things like squirrels and rabbits. It's ridiculous to even report those wild guesses. I understand the importance of statistics, and I apologize to all whose careers are in the field of statistics, but I do believe in the saying that "figures don't lie, but liars figure". I think we all are so mystified by the field of statistics that we are primed to believe anything that comes our way that is derived through statistics. But this nonsense has gone over the line of believability. This article on small game population numbers looks like an example of the abuse of statistics and has gone way too far to receive any sort of credibility. Unfortunately since the same organization has used these same techniques in other areas of wildlife management that we have grown to accept, it casts doubt on all of that as well.

One dog wandering through, one time doesn't constitute a serious problem for the deer. It is the same as a coyote wandering through the area. Two dogs would be a more concern for a potential problem. Two or more dogs in deep snow (especially crusted snow) could be cause for a lot of concern. I have seen a few cases of domestic dogs running loose and raising havoc on the local herd. It's not a pretty sight. When they get together and into a pack mentality, they can be quite efficient deer killers under the right weather conditions. And absolutely they can affect the movements and levels of caution of deer in the area. However, one lone dog under most circumstances is no problem, and most likely you will never see him again. But, I would caution you against taking matters into your own hands. There are almost no situations where you are legally able to get rid of a dog. And every so often you will read about people getting into some pretty big trouble trying to take care of problem stray dogs. Personally, if I were to be tempted to remove a stray, I would not even mention any knowledge of the dog on a public forum.

I just got my latest edition of New York Outdoor News and was reading about how NY's small game hunting is getting smaller. That was where I found out how the DEC wants us to believe that they know how many rabbits, squirrels, grouse, and other small game critters that exist. Check out the accuacy of some of these numbers that they publish: Talking about rabbits, they have these amazing numbers: "Last seasons kill of 96,742 was well below the 5 year average of 123,738 although up slightly 2010-11's talley of 95,809." Notice the precision of those numbers. And this, a species that has no requirement for harvest reporting. Check these numbers on squirrels: "New Yorkers bagged an estimated 187,350 squirrels last season slightly higher than the previous season (187,350) but below the five year average of 226,061 and well down from the 2008-09 high of 315,947" They go on to give other examples of precise counts on coons, red foxes, gray foxes, coyotes, phesants, varying hare, and grouse. They also gave some numbers on participating hunters and how many hours they spent hunting these species. While all this stuff may make interesting reading, is there anyone who places any credibilty in these numbers at all? I mean really .... Coming up with a squirrel count? They don't even have the luxury of mandatory harvest reporting (thankfully), and yet they publish numbers like this? Oh I understand the magic that supposedly is in statistics, but really, just how far are we supposed to buy in to this hocus-pocus? This borders on a sales pitch from snake-oil salesmen. But then who is going to refute those numbers .... lol. And yet, limits and seasons will be determined based on those studies, and who knows what other decisions get based on this stuff. And then let's get back to a subject that represents the largest management activity in the hunting world, which is the estimation of deer season results. Whatever black art they are claiming for their small game numbers is the same thing they use to come up with deer populations and densities. I have always had a real problem assigning any level of credibilty to their procedures. But after reading this article on small game populations, I'm afraid that whatever potential credibility that I might have had is gone now. So what's the deal? Do any of you swallow this stuff? I know we are expected to, and there is not a one of us that has the resources to disprove any of it. But at some point you have to start wondering if they aren't simply treating us all like fools.

Sounds like you are not living on this land. If that is the case, I believe that you are fighting a losing battle. I can't think of anything you can do to stop this kind of trespass. The only option that is not illegal and prone to ruinous lawsuits would be to try to patrol the land for a period of time on your own quad and try to scare the heck out of them with a bit of a chase. Also, if you can ever ID the culprits, you might find that they are kids, and perhaps a talk with the parents might put a crimp in their activities. Properly hidden and placed cameras migh get pictures that can assist in the ID. Also, if there are other landowners who have the same problem, you might see if there is any interest in a kind of neighborhood watch organization where other neighbors can keep an eye on the place and maybe report tresspassers for you or supply info for further action. By the way, beware of escalating retaliation such as damage to your parked cars, or destruction of all of your posted signs. But really, if you are not living there, the chances of you being able to put a halt to it all are very slim.

"Lung Butter"? ...... Lol ... that is probably a bit graphic for most. Another way of saying that it borders on unnecessary, excessive grossness. "Ground shrinkage" is just another way of saying that the deer isn't quite as big as it appeared when you shot. That does occasionally happen because of distance, excitement, or whatever. I really don't think that is saying that the deer is worthless, or not worthy of taking. Yeah, there are other things that we could get a bit disgusted by if we want to find something to bash other hunters over. I try not to nit-pick the language someone uses, especially after being successful. Some of the TV celebrations do seem a bit over-the-top, but to me that is just the way some people express themselves in the moment of excitement. I think I can put up with that a lot easier than those who almost seem bored beyond any sort of appreciation for what they have just accomplished. The only time I get a bit peeved at these TV actors is when it all comes off as being rehearsed and fake ethusiasm. Stan Potts (sp?) does kind of leave that impression. I always fear that he will have an on-camera stroke. That protruding vein in his forhead, and the pink faced, spit-flying tirade that he goes through every time he gets a deer is almost scary. And then there is the use of the word "harvest". I have heard more indignation over the use of that word, and that whole issue doesn't even register on my "loathe-scale". Who cares? Talk about a tempest in a tea-pot. I use the term quite often myself and have never lost a minute of sleep over it. I guess I do view deer as a food source that is annually procured. Sounds a lot like a harvest to me. And if using that term makes the killing a little more palatable for those around us that don't hunt, I can't see any harm in using it. But the point is that if that is the worst thing that hunters have to argue with other hunters over, that probably is a good thing. I will say that I have heard blood-trail descriptions that sound a bit overly gruesome. Kind of like the thrill of a serial killer at the sight of blood and gore .... lol. Sometimes such descriptions make me look around to see who might have overheard. But all of these things taken together probably do not rise to the level of "loathing". That's a pretty strong term.

I shot a 3-legged doe once that was the healthiest, fattest, deer I ever have killed. She stayed around the thicket in front of the house and was living large on the lower lawn that I mow. She had a fawn and seemed to be getting along just great with her handicap. When she bounded out of the field, you couldn't even tell that she was only running on 3 legs. When I dressed her out, she had gobs and gobs of fat. My guess is that she pretty much stayed in the low-lands where food and water and cover were plentiful and just like a couch potato, she just hung around getting fat. The 4th leg was severed at the "elbow", and a pad of skin very much like that of a dog's paw had grown over the wound. How long since she lost that leg, I don't know. However, the major difference between that deer and the one you are talking about was that what ever happened to her leg, it would appear that it was taken right off, where the deer you are talking about has a chunk of useless leg still attached that may be re-injuring internal muscle, and may also be festering and turning gangrenous. When the season is right, I would make her a priority. By then, her fawns will be self-sufficient (which they almost are now). Understand that you have no legal right to shoot her now regardless of how good your intentions are. So, if you were to act on this "mission of mercy", it probably would not be a good idea to say so on a public forum .... lol.

I get it now .... lol. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was just up there. Usually, I get a large amount of supplies to last me a couple of years, so it is going to be a while before I head up there again. I was just thinking the other day that if I went to some of normal retail stores to buy the quantities of powder, bullets, primers, etc., I would probably have the BATF guys busting down my door .... lol. There also have been a few occasions where I have dealt with Midway to mail order some components. They are usually a bit more expensive than Beikirchs (especially when you ad in their exhorbitant shipping charges), but I save a bit on gas, and tax. For the occasional small order of something I ran out of, it can actually work out ok to mail-order.

Might have to saw some of those tines down a bit to fit the mount on the wall.

I'm not sure what this thread has to do with not being a "good enough hunter". I took the question as simply being a reaction to what appeared to be a couple of potential ethical contradictions. Certainly it was a valid enough question and a good topic for discussion. I don't understand any connection to who is or isn't a good enough hunter.

Certainly, Walmart and any other business has the right to act like jerks, and treat their customers anyway they feel like it. It's the American way .... lol. And I suppose customers can simply take it, thank them for their inconsideration, and and turn the other cheek (so to speak). Or, if it pleases you, you have the right to make a stink about it and let everyone there know that as a customer, they have not been of proper service. I wouldn't hesitate to make a couple of phone calls, or send e-mails or letters. I have no idea if it would ever have any effect on their policy, but why not register the complaint anyway. Personally, I haven't bought ammo or much of anything else there that has to do with hunting. For one thing their stock is so limited that I no longer even waste my time looking to see what they've got. As far as ammo, I reload my own and we have a great store locally called Biecherks (I know that spelling is wrong) who have great prices, lots of bullet components and other gun associated inventory, and several resident experts onboard who know just about everything when it comes to guns and ammo.

I saw one along the side of the road on the way into town. It was a fawn ...... a bit hard to recognize as even being a deer, but there was a patch of hide with the spots. There's also a couple of does laying along the road. There does seem to be a lot of squashed deer.

Actually, I prefer to report via internet. There is no hassle of dealing with voice recognition, and when you are all done, you can print out exactly what was reported. You can always review items on your report before pushing the send button. Also, even though it is unlikely, If someone tries to come back and claim that I didn't report or reported fraudulently, I have a hardcopy print-out to show exactly what was reported and how. I love the system!

That is one depressing description of Texas hunting land situation. I had no idea. Maybe we don't really have it so bad in NYS.