Doc

It's not much of a leap if you happen to hunt in areas of depressed deer population. Also, I have not heard even the most ardent of AR supporters claim instant results after one year of AR. Further, what I have observed is that once a hunter quits, they stay quit. And (repeating myself now) I think that a lot of hunters are on the fence waiting for that one more straw to push them over and out of hunting. Those that are in those depressed deer population areas are most likely to be in that situation.

It's nice to live where you hunt, but one thing that I miss out on is having that place away from home that really does get you away from it all. I would imagine that a trip to camp is quite an event to be looked forward to, and a chance to add a little something extra to your hunting. It's good to hear you are heading up to camp, and I can imagine the fun of it all. I am looking forward to the pictures.

I know this is a professional piece of farm equipment that I have seen used in vinyards. But How well does it stand up against roots, rocks and small stumps. If the ground has not been previously tilled and is just freshly cleared, will it take the abuse? I would want to know that before putting it into heavy abuse. I know they aren't cheap. Renovation of old established fields would be a great use. I know they create a heck of a great seedbed, basically pulverizing the ground.

So what we are saying is that the AR support is in word only. Even a large portion of these 67% of AR supporters quickly throw their principles aside when it looks like they might not be able to shoot their 1.5 year old bucks. And I guess that's exactly what I said. Somebody (actually a lot of somebodys are mouthing the words, but have a very phoney support of the principle. Regardless of how we justify or rationalize it, when we say that 67% support AR, we really don't mean it. To me that is not support, that is just saying something for the only purpose of sounding politically correct and saying what they think thier peers want to hear them say. That was my point from the beginning.

I'm not sure where you conducted your survey, but a more logical conclusion is that if hunters only wanted to see deer, they could take a camera out and watch deer as often as they wanted. There is a reason that most hunters take a gun along and it's not to help them see deer .... lol. I will also say that it is quite logical that if you tell a hunter that he can have no antlerless permit, and that almost all of the deer that they see will be illegal to shoot, I'm guessing they will save the time and money and take up bowling. Now keep in mind I am not necessarily talking about where you may be hunting, or conditions that you may hunt under. I'm specifically talking about the scenarios that I described above.

I have noticed that there are about 20 WMUs that list their chances of getting a permit as "low" with several requiring preference points (another way of saying that you aren't going to get one .... lol). There's even a few that have no permits being allocated at all. Those permit allocations are not all that unusual and runs similar just about any year. We tend to take permits for granted when we hunt in some of the more higher deer populated areas, but obviously, there are quite a few areas that have things a whole lot worse than we do. I also get the feeling from watching how some guys hunt and the lack of frequency of their participation that there may be an awful lot of hunters that are on the fence, vulnerable to that last straw to push them over the edge and out of hunting. Yes, I know we all think that if they are no more dedicated than that, who needs them. Well, for one, the DEC needs them to fund any of the nifty programs that we may support. Remember the importance of those license dollars. Also, I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Pittman Robertson allocations to the state may be based on hunter numbers. Also, we are a faltering minority that still relies on staying relevant through numbers to maintain any influence at all. Politicians know only numbers. They do not know about levels of dedication to the sport. Anyway, everybody knows all that stuff and I think we can all understand that we can't afford to be passing laws that are likely to cost us hunters. So that is what my concern is based on. I'm not sure the DEC is up to the task of applying AR in a "smart" way.

It's not just bucks that have it all figured out. They all know when we have been there. How they interpret what is going on and how nervous they get about all this camera nonsense going on in there livingroom is what matters. Take a look at this deer checking out where I broke some branches off the dead tree to get a clear view of the trail. You might think of this when you are breaking off some obstructions at the last moment in your shooting lanes too. It didn't take this old lady long to find the camera ..... lol. On the other hand, I have a whole summer's worth of pictures of several fawns and does that I took with a white-flash Cuddeback where they don't seem to be the least bit concerned about the sudden blinding flash going off constantly. My guess is that the older, more cautious deer will look at our intrusions with a bit more skepticism, and perhaps re-route their movements to avoid these kinds of disturbances. But I'll bet there are exceptions to that too.

Of course the original premise of this thread where shooting bucks was made illegal wouldn't exactly be a stellar display of deer biology and proper management either.....lol. Actually, it turns out that the "bucks only" regulations and attitudes of the past were the only thing that brought the populations back from the brink of extinction. Yes, I think the old-timers understood enough "biology" to know that it is the doe harvest that impacts the population. Of course all that was then and this is now. Things change, and different conditions require different attitudes and responses. There's only so much that we can blame on the prior generations and then we have to start looking at ourselves. It's good to pay attention to what we were taught, but there has to be some level of flexibility in our thinking to update with changing conditions.

Yup .... I finally got mine yesterday.

I agree. And then everyone will walk away patting themselves on the back, all smug and satisfied that the problem of youth recruitment has been taken care of. Everything will go silent on youth recruitment for another bunch of years until they finally take another look and suddenly exclaim, "Wow, we have a problem!"

I'm not sure I really belong in the camp of opposing ARs, but I definitely have reservations. I have heavy concerns that logic, study, and research will not be used when determining where ARs are appropriate. In other words, I hear mostly that people are in favor of broad-brush application of ARs across the state and I have no doubt that eventually that's the way it will wind up. I have been arounddeer hunting, and deer hunters long enough to realize that not all deer populations are as thick as they are here in 8N. I also know from government publications that not all WMUs have antlerless permits issued in sufficient numbers to serve as alternatives to being forced to let the overwhelming bulk of the bucks walk by. Many issue no permits at all. I also am able to imagine myself put in the situations of those hunters that find themselves with no permits and then told that pretty much all the bucks that walk by are going to be illegal to harvest. Now I am not really in a position to be throwing away good license money and then being told that I am not eligible for a harvest, and I suppose I am not alone on that. So what I am seeing is the possibility of inappropriate AR mandates in certain WMUs that wind up frustrating even more hunters out of the activity. It's obvious that we don't really need more regs that do that. You want to implement ARs in our WMU? .... fine. We are almost always guaranteed to have permits issued (sometimes in bunches...lol). I doubt that I will ever find myself in the position of some of the other WMUs where hunters may wind up sitting in the woods realizing that nothing is going to walk by that they have the legal right to shoot. But if the day ever were to come that I faced the prospect of going into the woods with no reasonable possibility of success, that would be the day when I would spend my license money on something else. I can go sit in the woods anytime without paying money to do it.

I was just poking around the web site for "The National Archery in the Schools Program" (NASP) and came on the following info: 2011 - 2012 School year has introduced over 2 million 4th - 12th grade aged youth to the life sport of Archery via the NASP®. NASP has NOW exceeded 'Little League Baseball' and is 3 times the size of Lacrosse. That is a pretty staggering stat. It sounds like archers are doing their part in the area of shooting sports as far as promoting youth participation. I wonder how many NYS schools participate in the program. Sounds like something bowhunters should be getting behind.

Whenever I hear that story about the majority of hunters wanting AR, I have to wonder why we even need it. And then I have to wonder why such a large percentage of yearling bucks still get harvested. One might think that either the surveys are flawed, bogus or manipulated, or that these supposed supporters of AR are more in love with the theory than the practice and don't put their actions where their mouth is, or that they are so weak willed that they need a state law to control their urges and force them to live up to what they are saying. And by the way, that thought also assumes that there are no hunters among the supposed minority that are opposed to AR that is not already using selective criteria in their harvests. That likely is not the case. So some rather large part of this so-called 67% of supporters simply are not walking the talk. Most likely it is people who think AR talk sounds good in front of their hunting buddies but in actual practice, don't believe it for a moment. Anybody ever come up with a justification of that contradiction? It's just a little nit, but I need an explanation.

Unfortunately, we had a series of hot days which forced out the blossoms early, followed by heavy frosts which eventually killed them. I didn't expect any of the fruit trees to bear, and unhappily, I was right.

What I was getting at is that there has been a growing pressure among hunters not to accept yearling bucks as viable harvests. Now basically what ARs are saying is that if you can squeeze any old 3 points on either side, let the lead fly. It is universally sanctioned in those AR areas.

Unfortunately, we know that deer populations are controlled to satisfy human co-existance with the critters with very little influence of available habitat or deer herd welfare. If you don't believe that, just take a look at the various disciplines represented in the Citizen Task Forces. Go through the descriptions of the candidates for these task forces and their requirements and place them in pro-deer, and anti-deer categories. It really does show the true colors of the DEC management scheme. Sorry to bump the conversation sideways, but it probably is about time for a bit of a reality check when it comes to the real criteria for population size selection and the setting of permit quotas.

Squirting out the side of your comment comes another thought that is independant of doe tags. I wonder how many guys who were nicely moving toward shooting more mature deer are going to feel encouraged to take down a little yearling buck that happened to be so unfortunate as to grow a scraggley little 3-point rack on one side. All because now the state and all their hunter brethren have unanimously agreed that it is a legal adult buck worthy of being shot now. Interesting thought isn't it? Instead of that scrawny little deer maybe getting a pass by some people, perhaps the AR rule will encourage them to shoot it.

I have not often gotten repeat buck pictures at one location. In fact I can't remember even one. I don't know if they are less patternable, or whether they are sensitive to sights and sounds of the cameras of what. I have no problem with repeats on doe and fawns even with my one whiteflash camera. They seem to have accepted that flash, and keep coming back.

As far as how long a cam should live in one spot, it all depends on a lot of things for me. I have different kinds of cam locations. Some are simply investigative surveillance. Those are places where I have noticed an awful lot of occasions where I have spooked deer from an area but there doesn't seem to be any trails or other visible sign. I move cameras around frequently in those areas just to see if there is any regular movement through the area and to determine if there is any kind of pattern. Generally a week is plenty to find out what I want to find out. A lot of these kinds of set-ups have provided some good surprises. I have other areas where trails are obvious and I want to see what kinds of deer are using the trail and at what times of day. These are also places related to stand areas of the past. Those cameras can stay in there for months. Then there are the traditional rut activity areas where there are annual rubs and scrapes that open up just about every year in the same places. Those cameras live there for several weeks during the early stages of rut. I have found that often scrapes are re-opened even though the original buck has been long-gone. This year I have had a Cuddeback on permanent location down in the thicket in front of the house, throughout the summer getting some fawn pictures. That area has turned out to be basically a nursery for several does and their fawns. There's no hunting purposes for that camera, and it simply is for spying on the little critters and other animals that frequent the area (Coons, foxes, etc.). So I'm thinking that the duration of the set-up has to be tied to the specific purpose of the camera location.

I have no clue what the situation is in area 4S, but potential scenarios such as what you are describing is the chief reason that I am against universal statewide ARs. I don't think that I will ever see negative effects of AR where I hunt, but for those that do have population/habitat/climate problems and super-low or no antlerless permits, I do see situations where hunters would simply drop out of deer hunting, and logically so. There is no point to spending hard earned cash on a license only to be effectively told that you are very likely not going to be able to legally shoot anything. ARs that are placed on an area simply to satisfy some general rule of management without an ounce of verification that they are suitable for that area seems to me quick way to dump yet another bunch of hunters. The point is that there has to be some study and reasoned assessment of how ARs will impact the hunting and hunters in each WMU. In other words, a bit of science applied rather than broad-brushed, arbitrary implementation based on a one-size-fits-all mentality). I know everyone looks for the simple answers, but beware of unintended consequences.

I see hunting as a response to our primal need to fulfill an instinctive, genetically based, predatory, human make-up. Of course we try to civilize it by calling it a hobby or a sport, but I have always felt there was far more than simply that. Something initially brought me to these kinds of activities of hunting, fishing and trapping. I don't think it was merely a search for something to do. I'm not sure I completely understand it all, but I think the real motivation is buried in psyche and is a result of a lot of passed-down DNA. There is also some aspect of cultural, historical, linkage going on along with some kind of element of living our place in nature. Most of that crap is going on sub-consciously, but I do occasionally find myself thinking about the historical and cultural relevance of hunting as well as the fact that I am part of nature and not simply some bystander or passive observer. Let's face it, we didn't just wake up one day and decide that we wanted to go out and kill something. There is a whole lot more to it than that. We can dress it all up and call it a sport or pass-time, but the roots of the activity are much deeper than that.

If the evidence were clear that they had been locked up for a long time, and there appeared to be no way that they could ever free themselves, I think it begins to be more of a mercy killing than any kind of sporting activity. As far as diving into the middle of the battle and trying to do something up close and personal, that just ain't going to happen. Depending on where this scene was taking place, summoning some official assistance probably would not be practical even with a cell-phone. Ever stand in the middle of the woods and try to describe where you are to some stranger over the phone? ..... lol. It would pose quite a dilemma, and I really don't have an answer as to what I would do. It certainly would be a shame just to walk away from the situation leaving them to die a slow and lingering death. But depending on the actual tag situation, your choices might be very limited.

I'll be honest, I would be really nervous about transporting an illegal deer tagged only with my wife's tag even given the possibility of getting away with it. If I felt that confident, I wouldn't even bother with the tag at all. And then there is the inconvenience of having a buck that you don't dare tell anyone about ..... lol. No, seriously, I understand that anyone bent on pulling off an illegal act can pretty much figure a way around it. The DEC is not adequately staffed to be much more than a very remote threat to such things. However, we cannot design our game management rules and regulations around those possibilities. If we were to do that, then we might as well just eliminate all rules and regulations because they all can be gotten around by a determined lawbreaker.

I'm going to hold off any purchases until I see more positive sign that it is all a done-deal. These characters have a pretty crappy track record on this issue, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it doesn't get screwed up again....lol.

Not to get too far afield with this part of the discussion, but regarding illegal activities in hunting, one thing to keep in mind is that the guy who slaps grandma's buck tag on his extra buck still has to get it out of the woods, onto his car and home without someone asking why he doesn't look like an 81 year old lady. Odds are probably in his favor that he can pull it off given the scarceness of law enforcement. But the important thing that one has to remember that the guy probably doesn't look a lot like his wife, grandmother, or grandfather, so that tag really isn't all that much of a protection against arrest. If he gets caught, he still would likely be asked to show identity. If he doesn't get caught, he doesn't need the license.