Doc

And that is a problem that is entirely independent of season locations, season lengths, weapons used, and all these proposed changes. And there really is no practical solution to that problem.

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.

When we had the failed rifle hunting resolution proposed here in Ontario County, I really wanted to hunt deer with a rifle. Just everything about it seemed to point toward a better hunting experience for me. However, I am also a resident with a concern about extending the range of some of the goofy people that I have encountered while hunting. Both positions nullified each other and I spent the entire debate in sort of a neutral position. It certainly was a change that I would have loved to experience, but the additional risk was something I wasn't real crazy about.

Good question. I'll bet you do. I would think that a CO would see it all as being only one difference between target shooting and hunting. That being the presence of critters. On state land, there is always the presence of critters. I don't know, I have never seen anything in writing on that, but just applying logic kind of tells me that if you are afield with a loaded gun in an area where there are animals, one might think that you could be hunting.

Steve- I think the point that is being missed is that the 2nd amendment really has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. In fact, hunting is not mentioned there at all. Also, hunting is simply one of the legitimate uses of firearms. In fact it would not surprise me if I were to find out that the majority of firearms owners do not hunt, or that hunting was a secondary activity for them. Even as dedicated as I am to hunting, I would say that the first mission of my guns is to provide personal and family protection. For me there is no way to be too extreme about that. If you have heard the saying, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away". Well, when you live out in rural America, that saying takes on particular significance. I also am involved in target shooting. There too, extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Others are very serious about collecting firearms and I recognize their right to do that. I'm sure their tastes can drift toward the unusual when it comes to firearms selection and that should be their right. The point is that when you define the right to bear arms only in the context of hunting, your arguments get to be very limited, and a lot of other perfectly legitimate uses of firearms of all kinds begin to get left out of the discussion. That is one of the things that he NRA does. They complete the discussion by not leaving out any of the legitimate reasons for the protection of private ownership of weapons.

If you're really going to control that anti-social problem that you have, you're going to start getting serious about consistantly taking your medications. Those people can't help you if you don't do what they tell you.

My comment wasn't meant to argue the rightness or wrongness of what is going on, but rather to highlight and emphasize what I believe I see going on with the DEC's attitudes toward bow season. That was just in case anyone was missing the point that the DEC is involved in a bit of a hostile attitude toward bowhunting and perhaps is wishing it were not such a big deal in NYS. So any bowhunters who are feeling complacent or think that bowhunting has evolved into some kind of guaranteed right or enjoys the same level of protections that any of the gun seasons have, had better take a look at what is going on within the government organization that has the real control over this activity. Those that have a particular fondness for bowhunting had better keep an eye on what is happening and make their opposition heard. The nature of bowhunting is about to change and the actual negative impacts may be being led by the DEC itself.

And even if that's true (and maybe it is and maybe it isn't), why should the UN have any involvement in what takes place on our soil? I am not in favor of this idea of "one world government" that we seem to be heading for. I'm not really in love with most of the countries that make up the UN. They are a bit too much on the pinko side to suit me. I don't want them having even a "recommendation" role in anything that we own or do. So even if that is true, it still is bad news.

Those are some great pictures that show the deer in poses that are a lot different from most of what you normally see. Thanks for posting them.

I don't know. That rule number 7 is pretty darn clear-cut: "the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached". That wording doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle-room for stretching the interpretation. I guess I really don't understand the usefulness of that that rule as relates to any form of "fair chase". I just don't get the connection.

That's kind of the deal isn't it? There really is no reason why the rifle should not be used except for the fact that it would make some of the crazies that we have all seen afield, effective at even greater distance .... lol. That can be a scary thought.

Sounds like a Sarah Brady quote .... ..... Mind's made up! That's it! ..... Lol.

That's the one reason why I have never gone on a bear hunt. What would I do with it. I have this mental hang-up that relates eating bear meat to eating dog. And a bear-skin rug or wall hanging just simply does not go with the home decor. Besides, from what I understand the only effective way to get a bear is baiting. That is illegal in NYS and also a form of hunting that I don't care to be involved with. So the only way that I could ever get a bear would be by pure blind luck if one happened to walk in front of me while I was deer huinting or something. Not a whole lot to brag about with that scenario is there?

Living in the middle of the woods, my prime concern is fires. It's been a long time since I have seen conditions so dry. They are now talking about the situation resulting in a record July for lack of rain. What a weird year for weather. First we get flooded out and then just a few months later we are tinder dry. Must be that global warming of Al Gore's .... eh?

So what is being said here is what I have been hearing directly and 2nd hand from the DEC already. Basicly they have and still do think that bow season is an insufficient weapon for deer control and they want to install a precedent that allows them to slip in a gun season or two (muzzle-loader for now) at any time they feel a need to hack on the deer population. In other words bow season is to be used as the sacrificial time of the year where they can implement whatever weapons they deem necessary to get the job done. I believe that this is the attitude that keeps this early muzzle loader season reappearing every so many years. It also explains why they have been dragging their feet on setting an October 1st opener for bow season. They wanted to wait until they were able to establish a few early gun seasons to increase the harvest effectiveness first. They know that because of the NYB they have to go slow, but keep sticking that toe in the door and laying the ground-work at every opportunity. So as hunter numbers and efficiency continue to decline, I guess we can expect more and more of the bow season to be filled with guns and other more efficient weapons. Not really a surprise.

I have to admit that (in fact I think I already did) that the reasons for the decline in hunters is a huge and varied list. When compared with some of the real heavy hitters, rules and regs are most likely not even real high on that list. But I have no doubt that just because there are already a whole bunch of reasons for hunter loss and poor recruitment that certainly is not a signal that we should be giving those that are on the fence a little push away from hunting. I keep hearing some comments from others that it is a good thing that we are losing hunters. Fewer hunters improve the quality of the hunt. In my mind while that may be true in the short term, that is indeed a short sighted view that looks only at our own individual wants without a care for the future of the sport. Personally, I have a lot of years dedicated to these outdoor activities, and I would not like the thought of my descendants being deprived of the same enjoyments that I had throughout my life. Another thing that I keep thinking about is that the smaller our numbers get as an already tiny minority the less our political influence becomes and the stronger the ever-growing animal rights people's influence becomes. yes, I feel quite confident that hunting will be there for me and my kids and maybe even my grand-kids for most of their lives. But I am almost convinced that the demise of hunting is just a matter of time. The best we can do is to stall it off as much as possible. Harrassing hunters out of the sport through unnecesary restrictions is probably not a real good way to stall off the end of hunting. At any rate, those are my concerns and the reason for my comments.

If you lose every hunter then you have no deer management... that just will not ever happen...there will always be a percentage of hunters that will hunt no matter what... and if resident hunter numbers diminish too far... surrounding non-residents will be encouraged to pick up the slack with reduced license fees and other insentives... yes it is true that hunter satifaction is part of the equation, but hunter selfishness should not be... No, you do not have to lose EVERY deer hunter to get into a position of not being able to keep up with the expansion of the deer population ...... And the DEC knows it. There are already some places that pose control problems because of limited hunters. I and others have already noted places where the hunting pressure is a lot less than it used to be in the past. The DEC is obsessed with having the hunters in sufficient numbers to do the job, and there is no question that they feel that they need to improve the efficiency of the shrinking hunter numbers. I don't doubt for a minute that they recognize the importance of not frustrating hunters out of the sport. They understand that their only chance at controlling deer numbers lies in having a large enough force of hunters to do the job. I also believe that that is the prime reason for their foot-dragging when it comes to the implementation of AR. Everytime the subject comes up they talk about the polls that show a significant percentage of disapproving hunters. Why do you suppose that they worry about such things? The answer is simple ........ They understand that there could be a negative impact on their hunter population and that that impact could have a negative effect on their ability to manage the deer numbers.

So exactly when was it that video-makers decided that their product should not inform and educate? They don't even do a decent job of entertaining anymore. It seems that at some point they gave up on that mission and have simply become redundant info-mercials that are competing with each other to show what it's like to hunt a deer farm with an emphasis toward cramming as much commercial stuff in as possible. There used to be some quality videos made a few decades ago, but the mission seems to have shifted as a mere show-case of manicured and groomed trophy deer. There is no creativity or imagination used in the production anymore. The story-line is so predictable that it is burned into our minds through repetition. Frankly, I can't watch a whole lot of that stuff anymore.

Yes you do need the lecture. I hate to tell you but no matter what you do as one lone individual, there is no way that you have any effect that any legislator would ever pay one minute of attention to, and you know it. So basically, you have given up all effective support of your gun ownership rights, and have left the only effective organization that has ever done anything to protect our 2nd amendment rights out there without your support. You can pretty that all up anyway that you want, but you are essentially leaving all defense of private gun ownership to others while you take a free ride. As far as any organizations that you may have belonged to, I can assure you that it is not their position to impugn the NRA and it is also quite likely that most of them are affiliated with the NRA in one way or another. That's assuming that these organizations are not anti-gun organizations.

Actually, declining hunter numbers is bigger than just a state problem ..... it is a national problem according to the stats. There really is a cultural shift that has more to do with the problem than anything that the DEC or hunter organizations can really have any effect on. As I said in an earlier reply, the animal rights wackos have been taking their toll in this culture shift even though we may not want to admit it. Their constant whining and consistant organized messages have been having their impact on society over the decades. Yes, there are times when they appear a bit pathetic and looney and totally without credibility, but the general message plays on the emotional aspects of human relationship with animals. We understand that relationship in a bit of a more scientific way, but it is the emotional arguments that find the most sympathy with the general public. That is what makes this bill more necessary. As we hunters, fishermen and trappers become a smaller and more disorganized force in the community, and as the effects of the anti forces continues to erode support for hunting, it really is a good idea to put the force of the law on the side for sportsmen.

It's true. The DEC has become super-diluted with a whole diverse range of responsibilities on their plate. That makes it real easy to take hunter's contributions and divert those funds to things that concern the general public rather than just hunters. When you think of the wide variety of environmental things that the DEC has management responsibilities for, It's pretty easy to see how they might be tempted to comandeer some of that money that was supposedly earmarked for fish and game management. And now with the administration dipping into those funds for general state operation, the game management activities take a further hit. I will say that with a fish and game division inside of the DEC, it would be a lot easier to monitor when these kinds of misappropriations of game management funds is occurring.

Just a word or two about the need for hunter satisfaction. The DEC has only one tool for adjusting herd sizes and that is the hunter. If you lose the hunter, you lose the ability to manage deer. So absolutely, hunter satisfaction had better play a part in any process or thinking that involves hunting rules and regulations.

squatsinbushes- Not everything is about crossbows even though your diminished intellect seems to only be able to handle that one subject.

My only concern is how it may aggravate the existing decline of hunters. I know there is significant resistance to AR, and many of these people are very serious in there opposition. Depending on herd conditions in their area, they may be very justified in their concern. There is also a fear that some of the AR requirements may be twisted into beam spread instead of antler tip count, which I believe may result in a lot of mistaken measurement guesses and some rather nice deer lying abandoned in the woods. Deer don't always pose for you with a face-on stance. Other than those two points, ARs will not impact my hunting at all. But then our area has a lot of good bucks, and we have always had ample numbers of antlerless permits to ensure venison in the freezer. I have to wonder about those guys in areas that don't have it quite as good as I do. It sure would be interesting to hunt an area where permits were denied, and somebody was telling me that any buck that I see are likely to be illegal to harvest. If I am not allowed to harvest anything, I guess I probably would not be buying a license. Maybe I would take up bowling.....lol.

And again, I have to state that we should not be imagining that what we see in our own small acreage of hunting is the same across the state. It's a common mistake that people often make when performing arm-chair game management. There are certain WMUs around the state that don't even issue antlerless permits and others where permits are severely limited. I can imagine the defeated feeling that a hunter in those areas would feel when they are told that none of the does are eligible for harvest and now the DEC wants to make all of the bucks that they are likely to see illegal to shoot at. Why would they buy a license? Better they should forget the gun, the bow and the purchase of a license and just go out with a camera where so far no one is trying to tell them what is worth taking. I don't think that would be an unreasonable reaction. Apparently some of the hunters think that is even a good idea. If we want to "weed out" hunters that don't have time or even inclination to hunt with the intensity that we do, I suppose some of these restrictions are useful for that purpose. I just don't happen to think that given the state of hunter decline that such thinking is right minded by the DEC or hunters in general. And since the DEC has already publicly stated that there is no biological need or benefit to be reaped from AR, I don't see why they should be pushing them unless they are interested in getting involved in this "weeding out" process. Thankfully, I don't think it is in their financial interest to get into the position of mandating "hunting dedication" as a pre-requisite to the right to hunt. I cannot agree with policies that have that as the intended result. I just don't have it in me to insist that there is some magical level of dedication that must be adhered to and that frustrations and restrictions should be added until we have a pared down elite group of hunters remaining.