Doc

It is an interesting activity. To leave a pefectly equipped house with all your comforts and amenities just to go outdoors and become bug-food, doesn't really seem reasonable. Sitting around a campfire that produces smoke that seems to follow you around no matter which side of the fire you are sitting at doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. And yet there we are face burning/ back freezing in the early hours of the morning, sipping on a cup of coffee, staring into a campfire waiting for everyone else to get up. Kind of weird isn't it. And yet, I do thoroughly enjoy these trips outdoors. I don't get it really. It makes no sense to me, but there must be some kind of need for that close connection with nature where all your senses can be bombarded with the experience of living outdoors. It really does seem like an activity of rejuvenation and escape. It also can be a small celebration of independence and self-reliance. And if the right spot is chosen, it can be an escape from the noise and intrusion of people. We keep our camping trips fairly basic. Yes, we do have a pretty fancy tent and some high-tech sleeping bags, etc., but pretty much we have not really gotten into the motor-home style camping yet where we bring "home" with us. That's a conscious decision, and an attempt to keep camping as close to a simple age-old family tradition as possible. The fact is that a lot of the places where we camp can't even be driven to with any kind of motor home. We do a lot of camping up on the hill on our own land. In fact some of the places are exactly the same spots that my brother and I used to camp at when I was about 11 years old (more than 50 years ago....lol). Back then things were really primitive with handmade lean-tos and a few blankets instead of sleeping bags. Great memories and a camping style that promotes those memories. It's all good.

Lol ..... That pretty well sums up where I am as far as being ready for bow season. No, I don't have a boat, but I sure do have a whole lot of "summery" type things that I'm still into. I have had the bow out on a fairly regular fashion. And I do have critter-cams out, but not all of those are aimed at just deer. As usual, some of my summer activities involve hikes up on the hill, so I guess simply by osmosis, I am soaking up a bit of early scouting here and there. But as far as getting stands prepped and checking out hunting equipment, it just ain't happening yet. Life is chucked full of too many things to allow me to get too far ahead .... lol.

Sure enough, that's all part of it. That's why I carry a bow or a gun instead of a camera. Actually the moral superiority thing of evolving out of those primal instincts is exactly the attitude that anti-hunter groups use to condemn hunting. They too claim an evolution that denies the basic nature of where we all came from. For that reason, they see no justification for taking the lives of animals.

I know we have had a few threads about why we hunt, but the same kind of question occurred to me the other day regarding camping. I see all the different kinds of camping that people engage in, so it would stand to reason that there are a lot of different things that people expect to get out of their camping activities. So, just exactly why do you all go camping and how would you define your "style" of camping?

You can rationalize all day long, but the plain fact is that those who call for AR and then go out and shoot the nearest 1.5 year old (and apparently there are a heck of a lot of them) are simply not abiding by the principles of AR or any of the supposed benefits that AR has for the herd. In other words, their words aren't worth the time it takes to listen to them. That kind of "support" is a very hollow and meaningless gesture and perhaps is more worthless than no feigned support at all.

I'm not sure it is always the clicking sound that gets their attention. I am thinking it is more having to do with scent and perhaps sight of the camera. Here's the reason I say that. Pictures like the one above show the deer looking directly at the camera. That would have to be some pretty darn fast reaction time. To me, it looks like the camera has already gotten the deer's attention long before the camera does anything.

As proof of what is said above, note the picture provided that shows you would have to boot them in the butt to get them moving. And then I wonder if they would move even then.

Not if they walk out the door and shoot a spike or 4-point buck. That is just a case of "do as I say, not as I do". That's not support, that's simply being dishonest..

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.