Doc

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.

The only problem is that all the variable scopes are bought, paid for, and mounted, and functioning well. Fixed power will be a good rule for any future purchases if they ever are needed.

That is exactly what my point was. We are trying to legislate dedication to hunting. It can't be done and shouldn't be done. And if we continue to try by thinking up whole shopping lists of new restrictions and new methods of throwing new frustrations into the requirements of hunting, we should not be too surprised if we are not also adding to the problem of disappearing hunters.

I don't take any running shots at anything with a rifle or my deer shotgun, so I have plenty of time to set the magnifications that I need or want on my variable power scopes. That's not a judgement on shooting at moving targets, it's just my way of doing business that recognizes my limitations (you all remember what Dirty Harry had to say about a man's limitations ..... ;D ). If I'm "wing shooting" birds or small game, my shotgun has no scope at all. But I have to admit that all my variable power scopes seem to always be set at the upper end all the time, so the "variable" feature seldom gets used.

I absolutely agree that the causes of hunter decline are a whole list of reasons. Hunter frustrations from rules and regs certainly does not lead the list. But that does not mean that it is not a contributer. Also, I think I did indicate that the first people out the door because of additional rules and regulations are most likely those who hunt in a rather casual fashion with a rather low level of dedication. That doesn't mean that we can afford to lose them. For one thing I doubt that anyone has a real good feel for how big a percentage of hunters are included in that description. I think we all understand how important numbers are when it comes to issues of politics and legislation. And politicians make no distinction as to how dedicated these missing hunters were. It doesn't do any of us any good to drive out any hunters whether they are serious hunters or not.

Now there is a study result that sort of confirms what I often thought might be the case. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that a lot of AR backers are under the impression that AR equates to easy harvest of plentiful trophy bucks. When that doesn't actually happen they become very dis-illusioned with the results. Ok, this is the place where everyone starts talking about how AR has nothing to do with creating trophies, but instead is all about revising the age structure of the herd. It's a "herd health" process. That may very well be the real textbook intent, but that doesn't mean that the majority of AR supporters don't unreasonably see the whole thing as an easy way to fill NYS with those freakish animals that they see on TV. What's the result? .... unmet expectations and dissatisfied hunters as the study suggests. Quite likely the bulk of supporters calling for AR are these misguided individuals who are looking for AR to supply something that never was claimed that it would. So one has to wonder how many people would actually support AR if they really understood what the realistic results are likely to be. As a side thought, I have to wonder what will happen to these dis-illusioned hunters when they are stuck with their AR and the monster bucks still are not behind every tree. Perhaps even more defectors from the ranks of hunting? .....Who knows???

I have seen it time and time again. Once a hunter drops out, very seldom do any of them ever come back...... regardless of the reason. They find new recreations and ways to occupy their time. I have also heard people say "if they aren't serious hunters that want to hunt my way, who the heck needs them anyway?" I guess I see things a bit differently, and I do worry about policies that might cost further decline in hunter population. I have no crystal ball that I can use to say for sure that AR would cost any hunters, but nobody else has one that allows them to say that it won't. I do know that we have lost a lot of hunters, there are darn few new ones coming in, and that the dedication of many of our current hunters is getting weaker and weaker to the point where it would take very little for us to lose them entirely. From the level of opposition to ARs, I can probably say with some degree of certainty that we would lose some more. That may not be a reason to shoot down AR, but it certainly should be considered.

I still can get a bit excited about a brown bear bow hunt or a good production on archery moose hunting, or any of the other more "exotic" animals that you just don't see that much. But the standard deer hunting show is just plain boring. There is nothing there that I haven't seen a thousand times before. Honestly, it is just like watching the same re-runs over and over. Different hunters ..... different deer ...... same results. In fact I do equate those deer hunting shows to the standard bass fishing show. Unless I am looking for a good couch-time nap, I never watch either anymore. The last deer hunting video that I actually enjoyed was Bowhunting October Whitetails by the Wentzels back somewhere in the 70's.

Some times there is a calming effect of seeing a sight picture that looks so big that you feel like you can't miss. It's the old confidence builder of being able to pick out which hair you want to hit. Rather than shooting at the whole animal, increased magnification aids in "picking a spot". Also, some predator hunters are trying to save the pelt, so head shots are preferred. So while the animal might be good size, it generally turns out that you are not shooting at the whole animal. Personally, I use the standard 3-9 variable, but I definitely understand if people want to go a bit higher. I might add that in my case, my .223 doubles as a target rifle for some casual bench shooting. That is a place where I definitely wish I had more magnification. There is definitely no question that when I use my Brother-in-law's rifle with the 20x scope, I can shoot much more accurately than I can with my own 9x. And finally, I suppose it just comes down to personal preference. And of course, that is why we buy everything that we buy .

I'm not really sure what the options are for making sure that things come out the way we want them to. Perhaps this is where our sportsmen's organizations get a chance to be tested on their strength and power. As individuals we can write the usual letters of protest, but I've got to say that sportsmen are not the most organized of people since we don't seem to believe in that sort of thing. So I'm not sure just where the ground-swell of protest and leadership is going to be coming from. Frankly it likely will turn out that "hoping for the best" is the only option that really will come about .....lol.

This is pretty much my attitude on AR except that I do see one potential way that state-wide mandated AR could impact my hunting and the sport of hunting in general. That would be IF the imposition of AR had a significant negative impact on the decline in hunter numbers. I have no way of knowing if AR might be the final straw that drives on-the-fence hunters over the edge. Actually, I don't know anybody who can say for sure. However, put in combination with the fee increases, and a few other moves I have to wonder if we aren't simply accelerating this decline with every new restriction and hunter irritant. I don't know, but it certainly is something to think about.

That's what I think will happen. I don't think they saw the action by the fed coming. This now puts a very public aspect to their little light-fingered scheme. I don't think they have much choice but to quietly close up the trap-door to the funds and satisfy the original intent of the federal program. Frankly I believe they cannot run the DEC without those funds and shutting down the DEC is not an option. In other words, if they don't make things right, things will get very messy. It's a political nightmare. They have to make it right ...... or at least I hope that's the way it all works out.

This whole part of the discussion about hunting in suburbia is a subject that really poses some potential sticky situations. To me it transcends the distance issue and the permission stuff and gets involved with whether I would ever want to to do it in the first place for all kinds of reasons. I can picture situations where some bloody old deer drops dead in some kid's sand-box, or a school yard, or creates some kind of spectacle on the streets or sidewalks. What the heck.....how do you even handle the gutting situation without looking like some kind of crazed slasher to the housewives and kids and for that matter, the new breed of neutered suburban male. The whole thing just sounds like an activity that has a high probability of placing the hunter in a very public and unpopular situation. It sure wouldn't be for me no matter how the law was changed.

If some hunters are hypnotized by what they see on TV and they decide to try to increase their odds of bagging one of those monsters by excluding other hunters, or doing anything else within the law to attract and hold deer, that is indeed their right as property owners or lease holders. We may not like it, but there is no choice but to get used to it as more and more hunters put their money and labor where their mouth is. I really hate to see hunting go that way, but the TV shows have really had their influence. Hunters dreaming of monster bucks have taken to pursuing the biggest bucks that money can buy. Deer farming techniques, fencing, and the best hunting technology that money can buy, along with any other things that the law allows are all being gobbled up by antler crazed hunters/landowners. It's just the way hunting is going. It is all spurred on by the selling of deer hunting by TV programming, all subsidized by the sporting equipment manufacturers through advertising. And it's all legal and increasingly accepted and even expected. Hey, things change ..... not always for the better but evolution happens even in our traditional and cultural activities. So we can complain about it all we want, but in the end, anyone who believes in the rights of private ownership of property (as limited as that term really is), and the right of free enterprise, has to accept all this as just a natural way for hunting to go. I am only glad that I can say that I enjoyed hunting before commercialization grabbed the sport with its strangle hold. I truly treasure those early years when hunting was just hunting, and the science that drove the sport was limited to that which was imparted directly from parents, other relatives and aquaintances and ones own observations and conclusions. The whole activity seemed a whole lot more personal and self directed. But like I said, all things change whether we like it or not. And if people now find it necessary to complicate their hunting, and exclude others to get those TV bucks, well thats all part of the changes too. It's a harsh thing to say but, "get used to it!" It isn't going to change back.

When you consider what really is happening, it is a wonder that NYS hunters, fishermen and trappers are not staging some sort of protest revolt. Think about it ...... They have raised the fees on our licenses, and then the state makes provisions for raiding the P-R and D-J funds and also stages several slash and burn raids on DEC resources throughout the past couple of years. So what just happened? Essentially sportsmen and women have been singled out from the rest of the population and taxed by the state government to pay for general state budgetary activity .... not really anything to do with DEC needs or solvency. Did you all get that? ..... we as a group were singled out to help bail out the government. None of that had anything to do with environment, game management or anything to do with nature. And by the way, we are sitting here, apparently contented about all of that, claiming that we are getting a bargain ;D .

Yes, the money is being collected under a federal program and apportioned back to the individual states. If they see that the funds are being stolen and used inappropriately, they certainly do have a right (and duty) to enforce the intent of the program or withold the funds from the offending state. Sounds like an appropriate response by the fed.

And we all know that even with the best intentions and flawless execution, stuff happens, doesn't it? Not nice, but still is a fact of life.