Doc

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.

Ah, but the dilemma is when you vote these clowns out, what new batch of clowns come in to replace them. Remember, every jerky politician that we have now replaced someone before them. :

It has to be done. We have had decades of incremental growth of government, and the only solution is just like private industry ..... downsizing. We have grown beyond our ability to support what we have created. But now the only question will be whether we wind up cutting the right stuff. That seems to be something that is seldom done correctly even in private industry. Let's see if duplicate activities and all the favorite social bells and whistles get pared back. Let's also see if all the layers of management that have been added over the years get peeled back or whether it is just the workers who actually produce that get the lay-offs. Frankly, since it is management that makes the decisions, they likely won't be cutting their own ..... . We have to remember that this is NYS ..... the state that loves its liberalism. Can they make the correct hard decisions? Well, if they do, it will definitely be a first.

Maybe yes .....maybe no. I'm thinking, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... well you know the rest.

The proposal that we are talking about pertains to statewide situations and so my comment was aimed at the situations of the overwhelming majority of properties and their use.

Personally that change would be of no use to me. I have no intentions of hunting less than 500' from somebody's buildings. Also, I don't think I would be real happy about looking over on a neighbors property and finding someone staring out of the bushes at me ..... lol. In fact, in the interest of low-impact hunting among non-hunters, I think I would leave things the way they are now. Frankly, I don't want to be viewed as a pest, threat, or hindrance to anybody's privacy. I also look at buildings as places of human and critter activity, meaning that people and pets and farm animals are likely to be wandering around considerably closer than the structures. If there is interest in hunting densely populated suburbia, I think it is not completely out of the question to simply get permission. If the deer population in such a setting is truly a problem, they will be more than glad to grant permission.

What a great demo item for bowhunter safety training instructors. It looks pretty slick. I don't see it as being too useful for pre-shot action in the field, but for study ahead of time just to get familiar with the effectiveness of different kinds of shots it looks pretty good.

The one version of AR that I am very much opposed to is the "antler spead" version. That particular type of AR is just custom-made for mistakes. Particularly for bow hunting, the shot that I am looking for is a totally unaware broadside shot. I don't want to be looking at a side profile of the buck trying to guess whether the antler spread meets the legal criteria. I also do not want to be forced to get the deer's attention to make him turn his head toward me so I can see the spread. I also don't want to be finding bucks rotting in the woods because someone else made a bad assumption based on a side profile view. Beam spread may be a much better indicator of maturity than point-counting, but it is also a much tougher feature to verify.

It is totally amazing how you are able to spout all of their talking points so perfectly without actually being a member of at least one of the anti-gun organizations. I have yet to find even one point on which you have stepped off the party line. So it must be one unbelievable coincidence. Well anyway, there seems to be absolutely no difference between you and any one of those that never read a gun control law that they didn't love. By the way, are there any gun control laws that have been proposed in the last few decades that you actually don't support? Since you used the word paranoia, let me explain that the best example of paranoia that I can imagine is a government or a bunch of "they're all out to get me" individuals and organizations that want to burden and harrass law abiding citizens with worthless laws based on their belief that these people cannot be trusted with private ownership of firearms. No, we are not all out to get you, and you really don't have to adopt a campaign of harrassing law-abiding, gun owners with a bunch of "just-in-case laws". Further, in the rare instance that you can get an anti-gun organization member to speak with a bit of frankness and openess, and honesty, they will eventually admit that they have no intentions of merely controlling guns, but have true desires to make private ownership of firearms a thing of the past. And if it takes legal harrassments to do that, they are not above using that tactic as well. If somehow those facts have escaped your notice and understanding, you might be well advised to pay a bit more attention. That is if contrary to my suspicions, you do not already share those same goals.

My guess is "No" ...... . So anyway ...... If you ever had any doubts about where issues of environment, hunting, fishing, and nature sit on the state's priority list, this should clear up those doubts. The DEC is merely a source of revenue for the state. And all that extra money for license fees that was supposed to rescue the financials of the DEC? ...... well, I'm sure our legislators are very thankful for it right along with our P-R funds and the D-J funds. ;D The only thing is that this attempt to steal our funds may have backfired, and perhaps nobody is going to get their hands on it. I've got a feeling that this story is not over just yet. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar, but it may not be too late to back out and recover if public outrage gets to be loud enough. But the interesting thing is that this whole thing, regardless of how it eventually plays out, still shows the blatant disregard and contempt that the administration has for the DEC and their responsibilities.

And isn't it a fact that periodically (usually close to election time), we always hear some politicians ranting and raving about how "we must have an investigation into the gas price gouging and area income profiling". And then, mysteriously all demands for investigations quiet down and go completely silent. In recent years that has become quite predictable. I have to believe that there are some anti-trust violations being committed that implicates all the petroleum companies. I also believe that localized variations from one region to another are created and agreed upon. I have heard that it involves the financial demographics of an area (in other words price setting according to general incomes and ability to pay of an area). And yes, when it comes to the differences from one state to another, you can look directly at the state taxation policies. We do love our taxes in this state ..... lol. At any rate, I am getting convinced that there is some real price fixing when it comes to fuel prices and an awful lot of close cooperation between companies. I am also getting convinced that our politicians only get involved to the extent that their meaningless rhetoric is useful to their campaigns. In truth the only thing holding prices from going farther is the fact that when prices do get too high, the public does begin to modify their consumption, and that is not a a real good thing for the petro-business. There are simply some businesses that have more power and influence that our government itself.