Doc

And yet it is pretty much impossible to ever find anyone who has been surveyed even though these kinds of surveys have supposedly been going on for decades (Cornell and all ... lol). I really wonder what kind of credibility these surveys really have when you consider the tiny percent of population surveyed and the obvious failure of them to reach anyone that we know. But I guess, if policy is going to be made and laws passed, there has to be some attempt at legitimizing them. And holding up a survey done by a leading university probably is what keeps support for the things that the DEC wants to push. Who can question the findings of a university .... eh?

It is ..... just took a short side trip for a few minutes. ;D

Lol ..... I had to replace a belt on my Dr Trimmer yesterday. Not much of a surprise ...... It's 12 years old now and I definitely work the heck out of it. In fact today I put in 4 hours of constant pushing that thing. I do my 1000' driveway edges. Because of the steep ditches, each pass is like some kind of gym workout with pushing the thing down the side of the steep ditch as far as I can reach and then pulling it back up. Right now I feel like one great big ache ..... :-[ . By the way, if anyone wants a recommendation on the Dr Trimmer products, I can only say that for the money, I have never had such a quality built and useful item. There absolutely would be no other way practical for a tough spot like my driveway, especially with all the trees along the side. If this thing ever dies, I will not hesitate to buy another one.

Lol.....wouldn't it be nice if we could rely on common sense. We wouldn't need any of these kinds of laws.

Wouldn't it be interesting if it became law that stalking was the only legitimate way to hunt. The entire hunter population would be on their feet walking over, under, around, and through, each other .... lol. It certainly would keep the deer moving. Actually, back in the old days, before all this wonderful high-tech clothing, we used to see that exact scenario after the first few hours of the season passed and everyone started to freeze up. It was like a perpetual drive throughout the entire woods. And we sure did see a lot of deer!

Yes, I assumed that the wording would have to be obviously worked out to include buildings in sight. I am picturing someone shooting at a deer with a nice shiny house just beyond the 500' limit, showing up right behind the deer. In the case of a rifle, what the heck good is 500 feet. Why should that scenario be legal? With rifles in the season, distance is not really the proper criteria for safety. That is obviously my point. 167 yards??? ...... That's even questionable with a shotgun or muzzleloader.

Someone on this forum once said something to the effect of guns during the gun part of the season and bows during the bow part of the season. That seems like a lot better thing than jumping back and forth from bow to both gun and bow, to bow, to gun, the back to both bow and gun. Doesn't that all sound just a bit goofey? It actually sounds like they are slowly trying to evolve the bow season into a general, anything goes season by getting us used to and accepting some more gun/bow seasons. What's the real agenda here? At times, I get the impression that some people and even the DEC have an issue with bow hunting and bow hunters and would like to arrange just about everything that they can to maximize harrassment of bowhunters. Sometimes all this nonsense really makes you wonder.

I'm wondering why the law never specifically makes it illegal to knowingly shoot in the direction of a building regardless of the distance. With so many counties now allowing rifle hunting for deer, the 500' minimum for guns really seems inadequate. I know this thread is dealing with archery regulations, but a few replies relative to guns have been stirred in as well, and it brought this thought to mind. In fact even with bow shooting, I would think it would be a good idea to include some language outlawing shooting directly at houses and other structures. Can anybody lend any theories why this "directional" thing has never been brought up?

This is just the kind of safety relaxation that will result in even more property being posted. When landowners find out that the only legal recourse to keeping people from shooting next to their house is to post the entire property, that's exactly what they will do.

Isn't it amazing how we read several studies that tell us solid facts about buck patterns and other deer behavior "facts" that may last for a few decades or more as recognized absolute gospel created by some very well respected experts, and then along comes some other "expert" with equally qualified studies that trashes all that went before? It kind of makes me wonder just how much stock you can put in any of it. I mean, we have all these expert biologists who have learned to prove whatever they want about whitetails, and by the way have been able to make a decent living at doing so. And along comes the next generation of "experts" that disprove everything that we have bought into over the years. It's not just hunting that is playing this game, but all kinds of things that men of science have laid claim to with their computer models and their statistical proof. And what the heck, we sit here nodding our heads up and down swallowing all of this because we believe the experts when they speak. Who else can you believe? I am getting awful cynical about this stuff ..... all of it. It puts a little more creedence in only what I see and dope out for myself.

nyantler- It really doesn't matter how you define hunting. That is one of those personal opinions that everyone figures out for themselves. But I will point out that there are many ways to hunt that are completely valid and have universally been accepted for centuries by all kinds of people, cultures and traditions. The idea of taking game by having them come to you fits most anyone's definition of hunting just as well as the methods that require you to go to the game. I too have some rather specialized ideas when it comes to what I consider to be hunting, and they are pretty darn rigid. But I also have to recognize that other people have experiences, backgrounds and traditions that differ from me and form their way of hunting. That doesn't mean that at times I don't get downright vocal about such things, but in the end I do have to admit that their opinions about what constitutes hunting for them are just as valid as my own.

That's a good point. I would hate to see you mess up a good shooting set-up chasing another foot or two per second. Just make sure that what ever you do you can backtrack to whatever is working now (assuming that your accuracy and consistancy are good now). I've seen guys get into all kinds of problems in pursuit of speed.

Centerpunch- Who were the "Hunters for hunters"? Was it anyone who is likely to have any impact or influence on the DEC plan?

Begin a campaign of hiking, fishing and camping and teaching woods lore to instill an enjoyment and appreciation of nature and outdoor activities. Do that early in the child's life and make it a lifestyle. All that stuff taken together is what creates the desire to be involved in the rest of it (hunting).

I'm thinking the above comment is relative to a couple of replies on the previous page. It could be that a line was indeed stepped over there.

I think we often become a bit complacent on this point and sometimes bury our head in the sand about just what kinds of impacts the animal rights movement has really had on social attitudes toward hunting. Yes, some of the more extreme rantings and ravings are quickly dismissed by the general public, but a lot of the quieter persuasion in our schools, the media and other sources of influence continue to chip away at public support for consumptive outdoor activities. We think of all kinds of reasons why hunter numbers are on the decline, and most of them are true, but we seem to want to ignore that the biggest problem is that hunting just isn't "cool" anymore. It has lost favor among our youth, and is also being abandoned by more and more adults. I'm thinking that a lot of that cultural change is being driven by the decades old constant drumbeat of campaigns from the animal rights wackos and their millions of dollars that they spend on lawsuits and P.R. attacks on hunting, fishing and trapping. We can ignore all that if we want to, but that doesn't make those impacts go away. The point is that while they operate with a highly organized and financed front, we sit back an nit-pick our own advocacy groups to death. It has become a one sided argument with no one from our side with matching resources to push our arguments. Frankly, I will never down-play the threat that they pose to hunting.

I'll bet that most of the problems of hunting access occur because so much of rural America has been continuously chopped up into smaller and smaller parcels. If you take an area that consists primarily of 10 or 20 acre parcels and plunk a house, yard and out-buildings in the middle of it, that doesn't leave a lot of room for any safe hunting activity. Also I believe that the rural areas are being populated by more and more anti-hunters. I do know of a couple of large parcels that are owned by people who actually hate hunting. No one hunts those anymore. And then there are some of these places that are locked up by commercial hunting places, complete with the high fences and all. If you've got the cash you can hunt there, but for the most part they are large under-utilized chunks of good deer habitat. There are also the pieces of leased land. Many of these are locked up because the guys are paying some pretty heavy chunks of cash for the priviledge of hunting there and free-loaders are not welcome. And while I don't personally know of any around me, I am sure there are other properties that are heavily controlled by those who have invested time and money applying QDM efforts, and they only need enough hunters to adequately control populations to their specifications. I look at a lot of these places that are now denied to today's hunters and I can't think of a single thing that the government could do to open them up to public hunting. Further if you look at a lot of them, they are the sort of thing that will continue to grow and make the situation worse.

I know that NY is not the first to propose or implement youth seasons. There seems to be a lot of stock placed in that activity, and unfortunately it seems to be the sum total of the everyone's plan to bolster hunter numbers. however I also note the continuing reports of hunting numbers still plummeting, so I can't help but not have a lot of faith in these schemes. However, for the sake of the sport I really do hope you and the rest of the believers in these programs are right. Something has to work or hunting will continue to fade from our heritage. I would feel a whole lot more reassured if there was some tangible evidence that these things actually were having some effect on improving the hunter replacement numbers. Even more reassuring would be any sign that there were other activities aimed more at turning social attitudes toward hunting and other outdoor activities around. I'm afraid that the DEC is feeling quite satisfied with their efforts and are calling the job complete. I honestly believe they have hung their hopes on something that won't even show up as a blip on the hunter population stats.

Unless you have actually seen it, it is very difficult to believe how sloppy users of state land are. I used the generic phrase for these users because it is not just hunters that have proven themselves to be pigs on state land. I have found discarded beverage cans, plastic zip-loc bags, and candy wrappers, potato chip bags and other forms of debris along the hiking and mountain bike trails. It's pretty disgusting how these people treat our resources. I have made it a practice to carry a garbage bag along whenever I know I am heading out on state land, and I seldom come home with an empty bag.

When you say the youth turkey season seems to work, what criteria are you judging that by? How many of those participants become recruited hunters vs how many make the old man happy by going out with him? In other words are there any stats that show that we have added X% of hunters to our ranks that otherwise wouldn't have been there? If these programs are creating any statistical difference, I would guess that the DEC with their love of statistics would be trotting them out there. So far I haven't seen anything of that sort. Participation numbers in one-shot activity is not necessarily recruitment into the ranks of the hunters. Without concrete data that such programs are making real honest improvement in hunter numbers, I guess I am a bit skeptical, and a bit reluctant to say that they are a success. And yes, if no one is serious enough to analyze the results to determine if these programs are really working (here in NY or elsewhere would do), I do view it all as panicky pointless flailing around with no particular valid direction. Yes, this is a point on which my mind could be changed if anyone has any evidence that it is making a difference in a way that changes the decline of hunter recruitment (which is the only metric that I recognize as being proof that special seasons work). Otherwise, logic tells me that these programs are likely window dressing that ignores the real fundamental problems with hunter populations. I don't know, others may be perfectly content to believe that the DEC is doing something meaningful regarding hunter population losses, but I prefer to see more proof than simple hope that their efforts are worthwhile.

That's where we disagree. I don't think it is even a "step". especially while we are ignoring (or seem to be ignoring) the foundation activities that maybe might make a special season work. I also have other questions involving these special seasons. How many parents are willing or legally able to accompany these kids? How many non-hunting parents take time out from their schedules to actually take the lengthy hunter safety courses required so they can accompany their kids during this 3-day event? Are the number of kids that actually turn into hunters from this program even expected to be statistically significant? Is that even be possible. Has anybody invested any research on whether such a thing is worthwhile? As I said once before, this youth hunt seems really to be more of a blind, pointless, flailing around trying just anything in hopes of getting lucky. I have a real hard time getting enthused about something like that that seems so poorly thought out. I don't know, I guess I'm just not being sold on the whole concept. I think the whole thing is a massive, almost impossible uphill battle, and I really hate seeing efforts wasted on something that has such a small chance of making any difference at all.

That is something that I have been known to often say over the years. Anyone who thinks they really own the land, should just try to withold their school taxes or town or city property taxes. Real quick you will recieve notification from the real landlord demanding his "rent" and clarifying who really owns it. Also, if you think that you even have some kind of control over it, just try building a garage that doesn't conform to the local zoning regulations. You just might be surprised how much they have to say about where and what and how you are going to build it. And perhaps if you have no conforming location for it, they may tell you that you can't build it at all ..... lol. On the other hand, you do get the right to take on all the liabilities related to the property.

This reminds me of an interesting experience that happened one time when my brother-in-law from Canada brought two of his fellow rail workers down for a hunt at my place. The first thing we did was to set up a target and get back to see how everyone was shooting. Now this is not to imply anything about Canadian hunters, but the whole shooting thing was a total fiasco. The older gent that he brought down proceeded to rip off 5 shots as quick as he could pull the trigger. I looked at my brother-in-law and got kind of a "don't ask me" sort of look. We each took our turns, checked the targets and went back for another go at it. Again rapid-fire .... 5 shots. So this time I had to ask about that. The explanation was that he was raised when they could hunt deer with dogs and rapid fire was the normal way that he was taught to shoot. Right away that told me that I would have to get as far away from him as possible when we went out in the morning. But anyway we continued to shoot and on one of the trips up to the target the younger Canadian was kind of lagging back apparently, unknown to us he was fooling with his gun. When we were almost to the target, I heard a loud bang behind us. I never did figure out what he was doing or what happened, but the gun went off when he wasn't expecting it. That was when I called a halt to the shooting preparations and pointed across the road to the far hill explaining (quite seriously) that that was where the two of them would be going in the morning. My Brother-in-law and I would hunt my side of the valley. So when you mentioned how some landowners are uncomfortable hunting around someone they are unfamiliar with, this little episode came to mind ..... lol. I think I now fall into that category.

Yeah, I was young and trusting back then....lol. Even though I did have ample warning from my father's experiences with his property. Once the situation gets out of control on the initial small scale, it escalates and begins to involve people you have never met and/or have no rules setting communications with. Also, there are all kinds of people who feel that just because they received permission once that that is a life-long invite and even when rules change there is no line of communication other than posted signs. This guy that was setting up the drive in front of my house was never really directly invited out and even at that I hadn't seen in several years. And even if he really believed he had some kind of unspoken life-long permission to hunt here and some kind of implied permission to bring carfuls of hunters onto my property, I still don't understand what made him think it was alright to set up a drive right in front of my house, especially without checking in at the house first. Since then, I find it much less of a hassle to limit the invitees to only those closely screened individuals that I have experience with. Even at that, there are still enough people hunting that acreage so that the hunter density is about at the maximum that I feel is safe and manageable. That doesn't make people that I refuse any happier, but that is just the way it has to be. It may very well happen that they go away muttering about selfishness and deer hoarding and any other negative thing that they may be thinking, but that's only because they don't know the history behind those posted signs and that refusal. And somehow, I don't really believe that I am alone in that history. If my experiences seem a bit much, you should hear some of the horror stories that I have heard from farmers over the years. Cut fences, open livestock gates, rutted up laneways and even rutted up and destroyed crops, garbage bags full of trash, etc., etc. You get the idea. It really is a shame that the bad ones can have such a lasting negative effect for the good ones, but that is just the unfortunate way it usually works out. Somebody is always stuck in the position of trying to maintain control, and in the case of hunting it usually turns out to be the landowner.

I have to wonder just what the reaction of most landowners would be if they had a buck that they patterned, had a stand set up waiting for exactly the right wind direction and after all of that the wind direction finally was just right and it was time to sneak in there and take advantage of that "first-time-in" opportunity. And then as you closed the last 25 yards toward your stand, there sat a portable ground blind set up by someone who didn't think that it was necessary to get permission to hunt your property. How would that set up your day? Yeah, I know you all are going to say "oh well, that's the way it goes ..... what the heck. There's always next year". However if the truth were really to be told, I'm pretty sure that you would be mad as hell with weeks maybe months of scouting, planning and waiting for just the right conditions, all trashed. Or how about those of you who actively manage your land, applying all the QDM principles, and you came across signs of "brown and down" hunting taking place there. Might you be a bit upset that you didn't get around to putting up those posted signs? How about if you arrived at your favorite stand and found the ground under it littered with candy wrappers and cigarette butts. Or you arrived at your camp to find the place vandalized and trashed. Or everytime you walked your property, you came home with pocketsful of plastic sandwich bags, candy wrappers or pop cans. Or how about you get to the top of your hill just to find the place ripped up with ATV tracks. Maybe you might get a bit disturbed by someone thinking you needed a wake-up call by ripping off a few shotgun rounds a few yards from your bedroom. Or maybe you might get a bit put off while watching a massive drive setting up in front of your house. These things and more are problems that landowners wrestle with each season, and believe me there is no philosophical "oh well ..... what the heck ..... things happen" kind of attitude. Instead, most landowners rightfully lock the place up, and throw some pretty heavy restrictions on just who is going to hunt there, and see to it that only a few well-known hunters who can be somewhat controlled and trusted are allowed on that property. I have experienced some of these situations (and others not mentioned), and I can assure you I did not take those infractions lightly and I didn't just shrug my shoulders and say "oh well .... what the heck". And by the way, I will say that hunters are not the only reason for posted signs and a general cautious attitude toward granting random permissions. I have had dirt bikes ripping up the hill, and hoof-pocked, mudded up, horse trails established (including tree cutting and having the whole place decorated with surveyor's tape). I have had ATV trails built across my property. I have found old camper's fire locations. All this without a single word or attempt at receiving permission. So whether anyone wants to listen or not, I will repeat what I said on the other thread: Do not assume that because there are posted signs or because someone has refused you permission that there is something evil or sinister in that refusal. Most posted signs have a long history of abuse behind their existance and very little of it has anything to do with selfishness. It's usually not a situation of them trying to hoard deer but it is simply trying to control the mayhem that occurs these days on private property when certain safeguards and restrictions are not taken. So while we all wish that all hunters and other property users were trustworthy, thoughtful, people that self regulate their behavior, numbers and their activities, the fact is that they do not. And so it is up to the landowner to establish control in any fashion that is legally available to him.