Doc

I haven't seen any super-detailed reports on NYS hunting accidents, especially when it comes to "distances". You might check with your DEC regional headquarters. When it comes to media reporting, they often do not even report non-fatal accidents, so it's really quite hard to say if there is even a pattern to the distances. My "guess" would be that most accidents probably occur within 100 yards ..... especially with shotguns. However, that's not to say that longer range accidents don't happen. In fact I do recall a case where a bullet passed through a house wall and passed through a baby's empty crib matress a couple of years ago. That one was claimed to have been shot at a distance of a couple hundred yards.

Nope, I do not know anyone killed in a shooting accident. However, I have had a few close calls that easily could have gone another way. Countless times over the years I have had to tell hunters to point their gun in a safe direction. I don't mind talking to other hunters when they come up to me, but that habit of supporting the gun in the crook of their elbow with the muzzle waving back and forth across my knees or belly has happened way too often. Some of them like to grab the barrel and support the gun on their shoulder with the barrel pointed at anybody who is standing in front of them. They all probably think I'm paranoid to because I'm usually not to calm and kind when I tell them to point that thing somewhere else. Had another guy resting the muzzle of his shotgun on the top of his boot, while leaning on the butt. Ran into another guy who was just able to stand up that smelled like a whiskey barrel. Kind of tough even understanding what he was trying to say. No, that wasn't a near miss (as far as I know) I have also heard that buzz of a slug that passed near me. While sighting in our shotguns, I had a couple of Canadians that my Brother-in-law brought down. One had the thought that he should be practicing rapid fire. The other one was fiddling with his gun while we were walking up to check the targets and accidentally touched off a shot behind us. Those two were instructed to hunt on the far hill, and my Brother-in-law was instructed never to bring any more friends. I also watched a guy off quite a ways swinging on a deer that was running between us. I guess my orange suit must have caught his attention before he hit the trigger. Thank God for blaze orange! I have watched all kinds of people mis-handle their weapons from a safety aspect including hunters on TV on safari that seem to think it's cool to grab the barrel and balance the rifle on top of their shoulder ....... with the muzzle pointed directly at the back of the guy in front of them. Check some of those programs out. You won't have to watch too many of them before you see that little trick. So maybe the fact that we don't all know somebody shot during season is more a case of dumb-luck than anything else. You know.....It's not real nice to have your life counting on dumb luck. So if some people get a bit paranoid and begin to take self defense into account when they are hunting, I guess I would rather hunt with them than the guys who think that accidents never happen to them. Over the years, I have developed some extra-special defensive maneuvers and rules for my hunting. I have no idea whether that has saved my life or avoided some life-altering wound, and I don't even care. Paranoid??? .....Maybe. One other thing that I might mention is that quite often we hear about hunting fatalities, but seldom does the maiming accidents get widespread coverage.

Lol.... there goes that old "selfish" allegation that is such a favorite on this forum. I guess when you don't have a clue what else to say on a subject, throw in a few insults. One thing that seems to elude a lot of people is that it was the either sex aspect of bowhunting that has made the sport grow to the extent that it has. Many bowhunters without the either sex harvest capability would have given up bowhunting a long time ago. And don't be giving me that "back-patting" crap about how they must be some kind of deficient hunters if they need that kind of incentive. That's just the way the sport evolved and being that bowhunting is already a highly handicapped way of harvesting deer, it has worked out very well for the sport and actually makes a lot of sense. Furthermore, I have never seen any proof that the antlerless harvest due to bows has ever made the deer go extinct anywhere in the state or has had any significant impact whatsoever. If it has, I would like to see some sort of documentation. Basically inspite of a few very brief situations due to things other than the bow harvest, the DEC is normally in a constant battle trying to reduce the ever expanding deer population. I know there are a lot of people that claim the DEC has totally removed deer from their area, but it usually isn't very long before they are talking about seeing deer all over the place again. So before people start talking about further limitations on bowhunters, and talking about how "selfish" they are, perhaps a little proof that the either sex harvest capability is really doing some harm might be appropriate. In the very few areas where there might be a problem maintaining deer, there might be some local actions that might make some sense. But making a statewide change is the same sort of tunnel-vision solutions that show up so much in the suggestions read on these forums.

Basically, we harvest what the paid experts tell us is appropriate. We are not the biologists. We pay the DEC to make their decisions based on what we hope are sound scientific principles. I guess what we are saying is that they cannot be trusted to do that. My take on this DMP application to bows and muzzleloaders thing is that as long as there is a single antlerless permit being given out in any particular WMU, then the either sex tag in Bow or muzzle loader is appropriate in that WMU. Those areas where they have shut off permits completely indicate a severe and un-natural problem and there might be something there to be talked about. However, I have looked at the permit allocations across the state and have found only a few WMUs that have shut off permits. It is a rare case. Those very few special cases may have cause to nullify the doe harvest ability of bow and muzzleloader licenses.

I enjoy shooting my compound and then using it to harvest some meat. The combination of a challenging gained shooting skill and then applying that skill to my hunting makes it the perfect hunting experience. I have no need for a crossbow.

Most likely your observations come less from the style of weapon than from the fact that most "shotgun only" counties are closer to cities and thicker population areas which of course supply a greater volume of hunters per square mile. I myself have seen some state land conditions where I was constantly running into other hunters. My guess is the general rule might be that "the more hunters packed into any one area, the more likelyhood that some percentage of them are careless or reckless". I guess that's probably why they became "shotgun only" areas in the first place. Placing a rifle in their hands is not going to change the attitudes of unsafe hunters. But it will extend the range of their recklessness. I have to be honest, I think it is the crazy stuff that residents in these more populated areas have seen during shotgun seasons that make them a bit concerned about the change to rifles. Don't get me wrong, I was pushing for the change to rifles in Ontario County. I have no love affair with that 12 guage Ithaca mangling my shoulder every year. But I have also listened to concerned people and much of what they had to say was very hard to argue with. When you talk to anyone that adjoins state land, they all have a long list of personal horror stories, so their opposition comes from some very real scenarios.

I've got to ask again.....Does anyone know of an area that is not regaining its population because of the does being taken by bowhunters and muzzle loader hunters? And I'm not talking about perception, but actual DEC stats.

Last time I looked, there were way more WMUs where permits are issued than not which indicates that they are mostly engaged in shrinking or holding steady deer populations. Yes there are some areas where they are trying to rebuild the herd but they are generally few and are the exceptions rather than the rule. Now, relative to this idea of increased "control", per the proposed changes, if I purchase my regular bow license, I would assume that that would come with a buck tag only. Also, as proposed, I would not have a legal right to shoot that doe if I didn't put in for the DMP, or if I did apply for it and because of the luck of the lottery was denied. In effect we have changed from a system where I definitely would have the ability to harvest that doe to one where I can't unless I successfully get selected for a permit. Am I mistaken about anything so far? If I have all that right so far, it doesn't matter if the buck and doe were standing side by side or the doe came out by herself, in neither case would I have the legal right to harvest that doe.... period. The way it is currently, if that doe comes down the trail I can and would take her. So if the DEC wants that doe taken, they have potentially lost the ability to allow me to do that with this proposal. So in effect they have lost some level of control on the reduction side of the equation because they have taken some of the bowhunters and muzzleloader hunters out of the doe-harvesting pool. So yes, if they want to build up the herd, they have an ideal tool for shutting down the doe harvest. For population reduction however, they would have just shot themselves in the foot. Is that better control? Probably not when you consider that herd reduction is primarily what they are faced with over most of the state each year.

Actually we have two threads pertaining to this same question of supposed control claimed by changing bowhunter and ML to the DMP system. I addressed this comment on the other one.

The other thing that nobody ever thinks about is the predator hunters with their rifles, or the muzzle loaders which seemed to have been implemented without any county input. I realize that it isn't quite the same thing, but is somewhere between a shotgun and a rifle. What I found in our little struggle with deer rifles in Ontario County was that what people don't know doesn't seem to bother them.....lol. The deer rifle proposal actually passed the county legislature once and made it through the state senate and assembly and was laying on the Governor's desk. Then they realized that the wording allowed rifle use in all of Ontario County which they didn't want so Ontario County requested that the Governor veto it ..... which he did. Second time through, the bill died in the senate committee because they were all tied up doing the state budget. On the third attempt, it went back to square one, with a public hearing (which they didn't do first time around) and a new vote by the County. This time everyone was aware what was happening and those against rifles got organized and it didn't pass. So we actually had the whole thing in the bag as a nearly done-deal when nobody knew what was going on .... . That's a little heads up for those that are trying to implement rifles into their counties.....lol. So yes, pistols and all kinds of flatter trajectory weapons have been and will be used in NYS deer season and out of deer season, but that doesn't seem to occur to anybody. What I don't understand is that rifles in deer season seems to be a county by county decision, and yet all these other situations seem to be changed at the overall state level with no county input. Why is that ?

The wife and I do a 3 mile hike daily (weather permitting). In fact we have been doing that for more than 4 years now. In the winter months it's 3 miles on the treadmill. And all that is probably the least of my exercise during the summer months with all the grounds-keeping activities and other projects....lol. As far as running is concerned, I don't do run. That's nothing new, I haven't done anything other than a fast paced walk for many decades. Favorite place to walk is the old logging and access road down the west side of Canadice Lake. I can also be found down at Hi-Tor in Naples, Kershaw Park in Canandaigua, or the gravel access road along Hemlock Lake. Hunting is no strain for me although I will say that deer dragging can be a bit of a struggle. That's kind of hard to develop an exercise for ..... ;D .

I see that so-called "improved control" only working in one direction, that direction being in rebuilding a decimated herd. Yes, the DMP system can shut down doe harvests. However, as far as the other, more frequent, direction of removing population (which is mostly what they have historically been trying to do), I do have difficulty understanding how taking away automatic issuance of antlerless tags from bowhunters and ML hunters and maybe returning tags back to them via a game of chance is really going to accomplish that. Very likely they will further discourage bowhunter and ML participation in doe harvests by charging an application fee for the permit lottery as well. So, on one hand we are whining about how poor the doe harvest rate is and on the other we are trying to throw all kinds of roadblocks in front of those harvests. And you're trying to tell me that makes sense? What is perfectly clear is that this is just as someone else commented .... it has nothing to do with better management, but has everything to do with selling antlerless tags. It suddenly occurred to them that they have all these people with free antlerless tags that they could be making some cash off of.

So if I take away all antlerless tags from a bowhunters and ML hunters that they currently get automatically, and make them instead apply for a chance at getting one (meaning some will not), I am somehow improving the doe take? And somehow forcing them into a lottery proves something about their intent to use them, which helps the doe harvest how??? Doesn't make a bit of sense to me. There has to be something I'm not catching on to here.

I may not be understanding the question very well, but perhaps the answer lies in the theory behind the DMP system. Theoretically WMU 8H with the larger population would be issued more permits and so more hunters would have better odds at successfully being chosen for a permit and result in harvesting more does. 8M on the other hand, with fewer deer would be issued fewer permits and the odds of hunters getting those permits would be smaller. So the area with the thinner herd would have a lower harvest of does. Now what impacts that you might see as you get close to the border may or may not be what the DEC was really after, so the DMP system may not work quite as well in those localities. I probably missed the question by a mile ..... lol.

And of course it's not a magic bullet or a step in the right direction because of the remainder of my reply above.

My point is that you were stating how you "feel safer sharing the woods with hunters armed with scope sighted rifles" as if simply because someone is using a rifle with a scope that somehow they become super responsible and safe. Well given the example that obviously isn't true. And also, you seemed to forget that I gave two examples. The second situation also involved a rifle and was way beyond the 500'. But I'm not going to discuss individual incidents because I'm sure there are far more of them than I am aware of. Just let it be sufficient that the point has been made that rifles don't make safer hunters. That coupled with the fact that reckless hunters who are given a weapon that can extend the impacts of their recklessness might just cause a reasonable person to have some concerns. Now if you can't understand why people might have some concerns along those lines I can't help you out there. I am simply explaining why I think Ontario County nixed the rifle bill. And while I would have loved to use a rifle for deer, I am not completely unsympathetic to those who had some doubts about the change.

I've been trying to figure out how removing the current automatic antlerless tags from bowhunters and muzzleloaders and making these tags subject to a lottery is really going to help control herds on posted land or anywhere else. Just the fact that it is a lottery would seem to indicate that some of those hunters will be denied an antlerless tag. So if archers and ML hunters are already inefficient at removing does, how are you going to make them more efficient by putting the element of chance into antlerless tags? I guess I don't follow that one.

Hi Mr. Personality. Good to see they let you out again .... or did you escape. ;D

I am surprised that so many people have so much "trust" in a government agency that has not really shown itself to be all that adept at doing their job in the past. And that phrase "Trust me" seems to have special significance here and probably should have been added on at the end of the entire proposal ..... lol. It is nice to have blind optomism I guess, but when it comes to the government, I tend to lean in the opposite direction and assume the worst until they can prove to my satisfaction that they really do know what they're doing. As far as the attitude "Don't sweat it ..... that is somebody else's problem", well think about that a bit and I'm pretty sure you will see what's wrong with that line of thought..... As others, I would like to be able to assume that all the gaping loop-holes in this proposal will be filled in a way that ends well. But I always get that nagging feeling that just maybe they cannot be trusted to always do the right or even logical thing.

Picture what you want, however it doesn't change my reply. That family up in Swan Lake have a hole in the wall to look at, and a 4 year old dead grand-daughter to go with it, and it had nothing to do with shotguns. There is also another hole in the wall that passed through a baby's crib mattress before it made a second hole in the next wall. That one had nothing to do with a shotgun either.

So what brought on this sudden outburst? Would you care to explain a bit of that ridiculous statement?

I hate to be a wet blanket, but some are talking like simply changing everything to a DMP lottery system will be the magic bullet that makes doe control all better. To me that all sounds a bit naive. It's really kind of funny that anyone thinks that the paltry few does killed by bows and muzzleloaders makes the difference between controlling deer herds and not controlling deer herds. If they have areas that are over-harvested, the population will be such that the bowhunters and muzzleloaders will have even less success and consequently even less impact on doe harvests..... automatically even under the current system. I have to ask, has there ever been an area where the herd was decimated and was unable to be brought back through reduction of gun antlerless permits? All of a sudden now the success or failure of harvest planning relies on what happens with bows and ML?? I don't buy it. If that is a provable case, the DEC should be publishing charts and graphs to back up their contention that this action is needed. Well, maybe that is impossible to do because harvest reporting has been reduced a voluntary system that relies on convenience to the hunter instead of an enforced system of mandatory reporting.

Busy day here on this thread. It's tough to keep up on all the different twists and turns that this thing is going through ..... lol. I came back in and there was something like 3 pages added. :-\

I maintain that given the events of the day, even if they had had the same weaponry that we have today, the wording of the 2nd amendment would not have changed. While the times may have changed, the sentiments behind that amendment haven't. Your example of a flawed gun law makes me wonder just how you would write a law to take care of that situation. Would you outlaw all firearms that are not single shot? I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, I am genuinely curious as to how far some of you people would go before you were satisfied that gun laws were adequate to end gun crimes. I realize that you are just one person on that side of the debate, but I think it would be instructional to at least get your opinion on how far is enough. As far as who is at the head of the NRA, I guess that just like my relationship to the US ...... the leadership doesn't always come up to my liking, but that doesn't have me deserting the country....lol.

Not everywhere on the early ML, just locations that need more herd control. That's another thing that I think is a bit weird. A season that may or may not be there when you want to use it. There is no way of planning for using that season since no one knows until kind of late in the year whether it will be offered or not. Trying to guess the possibilities on antlerless permits is always a pain, but even if you don't get a permit, you can still hunt for a buck. But here is a whole proposed season that may simply vanish at the last minute because of a change in herd size estimate. I guess if you are planning a vacation for that ML season, you had better have some alternative plans .... lol. Pack your bow just in case (If you have one ....lol)