Doc

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)

If the hunter numbers continue to drop and eventually reach the point where the DEC really does have an inability to correct over-populations, then I have to say that they will have no options other than replacing chunks of bow seasons and perhaps even muzzleloading seasons with more regular gun time. That's my honest opinion. I believe that that will happen long after you and I are gone. But if hunter numbers continue to decline or if certain mis-ques by the DEC regarding excessive regulations begin an even more serious decline in hunters it may happen even faster than we could imagine. I also believe that it will come in incremental steps with the introduction other weapons into bow seasons trying to make bow season more productive. Crossbows followed by muzzleloaders and eventually other firearms. Given their obvious attitude toward bowseason as a wasted harvesting opportunity, I believe that these changes are quite predictable However, let me point out that there is absolutely no evidence that I have seen where there is a general inability to stay ahead of over-population other than special unique areas of urban or suburban deer levels. I have yet to see any areas in NY where the numbers look like an out-of control situation that multiple permits wouldn't handle. I've seen it in 8N where the herd size was ridiculously high, and the issuance of even more permits quite quickly caused them to over-shoot their targets to the point where recently they had to reduce permits here. So my belief is that they are looking far into the future and are setting things up for forcasted hunter declines. They know that even though there is a fairly active archery lobby, bow hunters are still the easiest target to attack without unleashing a firestorm of protest. It is generally recognized that bowhunters cannot or will not organize themselves to the point where they can pose any serious political problem. So obviously this is a timeslot that can be quietly tampered with and changed up to be turned into a more effective deer harvesting time. It's all just a matter of time. How much time? ...... I wouldn't even hazard a guess. Maybe a lot less than we think. While I agree with most of this, I dont see the proposed changes as anything other than what they are at this point. Very limited use of MLs in area where they need population control, and the current set of seasons isnt having enough of an impact. Still waiting to hear your opinion on what should be done. In answer to your question, I think I have already said that the DEC is doing what they must do. Given the hunter decline phenomenon, they have no choice but to invade bow seasons with more efficient weapons. It's up to bowhunters to fight that if they want to preserve any practical aspects of pure bowhunting. With that battle being fought, hopefully compromises will occur that satisfy both sides as much as can be expected. I'm not sure just who we expect to carry the bowhunter part of the battle seeing as to how so many bowhunters refuse to organize. But that's another topic. I think I probably view the proposed muzzleloader seasons as being more of an impact than many others do simply because of my location. If there is any place in the state that the early muzzleloader season will be almost permanently installed, it is 8N .... lol. However, any WMU can eventually be impacted by the possibility at any time so I would guess that no bowhunter anywhere should ignore that as a real event. I might add that any limitations such as "doe only" can be changed at the mere stroke of a pen so I don't take a whole lot of solice in that rule. If you think back to what bow season was when it first started vs. what it is today you can readily see that rules and regulations are temporary at best. Also the early youth gun season is proposed as statewide as I understand it. The impacts of that are still only theoretical, but it does show the DEC's readiness to choose the one season where such an event would have the biggest impact on bowhunting. Incidentally, the choice for the location of that special season further convinces me that bowseason is looked upon as being sacrificial by the DEC. I believe that these proposed changes are simply incremental steps that even by themselves have some significant impacts on bowhunting but even worse it establishes the precedent of adding deer hunting gun seasons right in the middle of a bowseason. Once that is accepted, there is no limit after that. In my last reply above, I have listed the reasons why I believe that these things are not happening simply because of coincidence or oversight.

There is no place that they have proposed extending bow season without first introducing firearms into it as well. What they are proposing is creating a longer "early season". What those extra days in that longer "early season" are eventually used for is anyone's guess. But right now to temporarily keep peace in the family they have thrown bowhunters a bone while at the same time establishing an acceptance of deer hunting with guns mixed in with bows. Pretty clever I might add. In terms of the DEC adding money to their resources, we have all seen that they are not bashful about cranking up fees. They don't need additional kinds of licenses to do that. Also, as you just pointed out, they are very resourceful and clever at coming up with other ways of making money. So when the time comes they will make heroes of themselves to the majority of hunters (gun hunters) and for a small increase in gun licenses will offer them all kinds of additional hunting days ..... and in much nicer weather as well. Look, I am not going to say that bowhunting and muzzleloader hunting is going to go away, but the length and quality of bowhunting may very well see some severe concessions to gun hunting that we bowhunters may really not like. In fact the changes may make many question whether bow hunting is worth doing after they finally get through with the changes. And it sure seems like the DEC is primed to go ahead and do whatever they feel is necessary to get more efficient weapons into that prime segment of the hunting year. As far as sources are concerned, there was an article in NYS Outdoor News where one of the DEC hotshots was quoted as saying that bowhunters have essentially become buck hunters. I don't know whether it was Hurst or Stang, but it was one of the major players in the game management end of the DEC that was being interviewed. The implication being that bowhunters are not doing their job as herd-control tools. Also, there was a conversation that I overheard at one of the DEC deer management meetings where a biologist was (supposedly privately) discussing bow hunting as an ineffective harvest activity. Beyond that, anyone who pays any attention to what any one of the DEC people say, it is obvious that they are constantly searching for new ways to increase their ability to harvest does and impact deer populations. If you take note of the changes of recent years, there is an obvious pattern of re-regulation that assists in making doe harvests for effective. From the rule that allows signing over of permits, to the increases in permits, rules changes always seems to look like a frantic effort to implement new tools for hacking on the herd. It's not so much that they are hacking on the herd as it is that they are putting in place more tools for doing that when they wish to do so. My theory is that all this activity is geared toward a forecasted day when hunter numbers become so small that they need every trick in the book to control deer numbers. I think that is a very logical theory. And I am not saying the DEC is wrong to develop that kind of attitude and take steps to strengthen their ability to do their job. That's what they do. I am just saying that bowhunters had better be prepared to fight against hostile attitudes and actions, or face losses in things that make bowhunting practical.

The problem I have is that there is nothing inherent in a rifle that makes the shooter any smarter or more responsible than a shotgun hunter so I can't believe that just because a guy puts down his shotgun and picks up a rifle he all of a sudden gets smarter. As far as scopes are concerned, just about any shotgunner you run into will have one mounted on his shotgun. There really is only one difference between a rifle and a shotgun and that is the range at which they are normally shot and the distance that the projectiles can travel. And as far as what is inconsequential and what is not, I suppose that depends on just who the recipient is ..... lol. And while recognizing that shooting incidents happen with shotguns as well as rifles, lets no be thinking that there are no rifle incidents. And also, it seems that nearly every year there is the obligatory picture in the paper of some gray-haired old lady pointing to a bullet hole in their living room wall. So if some are concerned about extending the range of reckless shooters. I think I can share that concern to a certain extent.

Should be plenty of room for the frig, stove and recliner.

I think I remember some "lawn watering" bans in some of the towns around Rochester a bunch of years back because of extended drought conditions. See..... I tell ya it's that damned global warming. Somebody call Al Gore for some help.

Ah, the old emotional approach. That is a powerful way to steer an argument, eh?.....lol. But seriously, the fact is that gun control laws DO NOT work just as you said. So just how many more laws should we pass before gun violence is stamped out? When do we finally admit that these kinds of crimes are not impacted by gun laws no matter how stringent or numerous. How does that definition of insanity go? ..... something like, insanity is continuing to do the same things over and over and expecting different result??? That sure seems to be our approach to crimes involving guns, isn't it? Don't know what to do? ...... Pass more laws. Those laws trample on the rights of law abiding people? ...... so what? - who cares? I think the answer that some are looking for is the ultimate. Just simply outlaw firearms completely. But then any thinking person really knows that that wouldn't work either. So what makes anyone think that any laws short of a total firearms ban will work? I hate to say it but we seem to be trying to solve a social, cultural, and attitudenal problem with hardware solutions. Could be that we are trying to cure the symptom rather than the sickness. That sort of thing really causes a whole lot of wasted flailing around toward no practical end, doesn't it?

And here is another crock: Those that think that if an organization has one or two issues that you don't agree with that the whole organization is a bad thing. That is what has allowed the anti-gun forces to make the large advances that they have. Gun owners seem to think that the NRA or any advocacy group has to have attitudes that don't deviate one bit from our own. Well, I'll tell you one thing, as soon as you make that a litmus test for anything you want to belong to, you might as well say that you aren't going to belong to anything. And that is the prime reason that sportsmen cannot be organized. Frankly, I could care less one way or another about 30 round clips. But even if I did, I would never see that disagreement with that position as offsetting all the good that the NRA does (and has done) for our gun ownership rights. As long as we hold our advocacy groups to that kind of ridiculous and impossible standard, we will never be adequately organized. It's too bad that the antis don't seem to have those kinds of impossible standards because they certainly are highy organized and extremely well financed and all too often kicking our butt.

I'm afraid that if these proposed changes cause all the confusion that they seem to be doing now, and bowhunters and muzzleloader hunters start missing out on doe harvests because of it, this whole thing of "more effective doe harvests" will completely backfire. Also people who have been confused right out of applying for permits are not people who will be looking too happily at any new AR areas being established. And the same things will apply for those who normally would have automatically received the ability to harvest a doe, but who have lost that ability due to some fluke of the lottery system. Just the fact that it is a "lottery" means that some will be denied even if they "up" the numbers. It also puts bowhunters and muzzleloaders now in competition with the regular gunners for those permits. I'm having a hard time understanding how any of this will improve the doe harvest as the DEC claims that they want. It seems like they are asking for doe harvests and then throwing all kinds of frustrations in as far as actually accomplishing that. Also in a different aspect of this thread, I guess I am not all that in tune with the attitude that I have heard from a few that basically says that producing a 5 year plan is a wonderful thing even if some or all of it is wrong. Change, just for the sake of change is NOT a good thing. It can result in aimless flailing around that does more harm than good. I think I detect some aspects of that in this plan.