Doc

Even though it has been said already, I will repeat it. The "point count" style of AR is the one that most proponents take seriously simply because it is understood that the least amount of mistakes will be made using that system. Perhaps we may not like the results of that system, but it must be recognized that there are a large percentage of hunters out there that do not make much of a science of their hunting and wouldn't recognize the difference between a mature deer and an immature deer. I'm talking about guys that hunt primarily opening day only or maybe just a few days out of the season. I think we might be surprised to find out just what a large percentage of all hunters that is. So first of all, it is important to understand just how much actual experience (or lack thereof) many of our hunters actually have. Note that I am not slamming these guys. I'm a believer in letting people be as casual as they want to be about their recreations. But I am admitting that not all hunters are as deep into the sport as we on this forum may be. So to be looking for some statewide action that considers the actual maturity of the deer for balancing out the age structure of the herd is a nice thing to talk about, but don't be getting to serious about ever seeing that put into law. If that's something that private landowners want to dictate for their own properties or their hunters want to hold out as their own personal goals .... fine. However, if we have state-mandated AR implemented in NY, I will guarantee that it will be a point count style whether we like it or not and whether it really is the right thing to do or not.

I am surprised that one who constantly parrots back the mantra of every anti-gun organization across the country could be confused about the actual purposes of harrassment style gun laws. Your people have been pushing them for decades and you all really do understand the real purposes of those laws, and you also understand that it has absolutely nothing to do with effective public safety.

This just goes to show that state by state comparisons are completely irrelevant. We need to be concerned with our state, our conditions, and whether we think we are getting the proper bang for the ever increasing buck. Frankly, from reading almost all of the comments on here about the state of New York game management it doesn't sound like many of us think that we do. So when the DEC says, "I need a raise", just like any other business, I say "show me you deserve it".

Those of us that thought that it could never happen now get to read about it. I have often thought that the DEC was simply a well that politicians go to whenever they need to pay a bit on their squandering ways. They have just gotten very creative about it. Here is yet another example. Perhaps they have now gone just a bit too far this time and created a bit of larceny that is just too big to cover up or bury in financial mumbo-jumbo. We'll see.

I know it is ancient history, but when I took my original gun course, it was held at night in the school bus garage. I have no idea when they stopped that or why, but it was handy. As far as online hunter safety training, there is an awful lot of it that is simply lecture. I would think that that part could be handled on-line with some of the more "demonstration" type parts of the course handled in a much shorter time-frame at an actual class. If needed, a short test could be administered just to check that the online stuff was actually read. I think it might be surprising how much actual class-room time could be eliminated this way without losing any of the effectiveness of the course. We're in the computer age ..... let's use them.

It's true that along with NRA membership, gunowners have to also supply pressure on legislators. But I have to say that almost all of my knowledge about up-and-coming anti-gun legislation comes from NRA alerts. There is no way that I would otherwise have the time and resources to stay abreast of all of the various issues and the details of those issues that they make their members aware of. And I would be very surprised if there others of us who could do a very good job of that on their own either. Also, there is a much more effective lobbying effort that occurs when done by professionals than we as individuals could ever match on our own. The fact is that the anti-gun forces are well organized and financed and they are relentless. You cannot allow a situation where the legislators have only anti side represented that thoroughly. I know that in the past I have heard arguments on here from people who feel that we don't need organizations to effectively protect ourselves from the various anti-forces. The feeling is that individual letters alone can do the job. That just plain isn't so. That old saying, "United we stand - divided we fall" is never more appropriate than when we are talking about the NRA or any sportsman's advocacy organization.

If a judge decides to take those responsibilities in such a hap-hazard fashion, I can't imagine how you would write any law to protect against that. The description of the judge's questioning, indicates that he was really not all that serious about his duties. I'm not sure how the laws and procedures regulating that situation are worded, but the extent of the questioning certainly was nearly worthless. That's just one of the shortcomings in relying on judges. ....stuff happens.

So, now that you all have deserted the NRA, exactly how do you safeguard your 2nd amendment rights? ..... or do you just let others take care of that for you. I know there are some who figure that their gun rights will be ok through their lifetime so they might as well save a little cash and let others worry about it. By the way, before we spit out that word, "lobbyist" with such disdain, bear in mind that there are dozens of well organized, and well financed anti-gun "lobbyists" that would go completely unopposed if it were not for the NRA performing that function.

Uh ..... What was the question? ..... I forgot. :-[

A couple of years ago, I saw some of it growing along the East Lake Road along Canadice Lake. I haven't seen it since. Back then there was no one to call that I was aware of. I understand it's some pretty nasty stuff.

It's nice to see that everyone is so content with ever-increasing fees for the splendid game management of NYS. I know how thrilled you all are about the quality of the product we are getting . Frankly, I'm not ready to begin dancing in the streets and convincing the government that I am all mentally primed to accept whatever increases they wish to hand me. But then, I have to remind myself that this is NYS, and it is a tradition here for us to welcome taxation and then call it a bargain. And also, as a side issue, I'm not sure just what we are saying when we cherry-pick some states that are worse. Is the implication that we should be happy because there are others who are getting screwed worse? Or are we saying that we shouldn't complain until we become the most extreme example across the country?

Frankly, I enjoyed the different classes too. But I also understand the extraordinary inconvenience that the length of many of these courses creates. Anyone preparing for gun hunting and then bowhunting, and then trapping is in for a whole lot of hours to be scheduled. Probably enough to deter a certai number of youngsters that are just considering getting involved with these activities. You would think that there would be a way to streamline some of that. I think that the use of the computer for at least parts of some of these courses is not really a bad idea.

Or, like another member of the bird family, the osterich, we can all just stick out head in the sand, Not think about potential future implications of current actions, and simply live with whatever surprises come our way. I don't really have a problem with people trying to look ahead a bit and pointing out possible scenarios. Sounds reasonable to me. Frankly, I worry more about those who just shrug their shoulders, open up their wallets and pay whatever the government demands without a word of protest or any sort of forward look as to what is likely coming.

If that sort of voluntary compliance is having a noticeable effect in non-AR areas, then there is no reason to waste the ink on any new regs.

Who knows just what it takes to drive hunter numbers further down. My impression is that it doesn't take a whole lot anymore. And I am talking about the average, casual hunter and not the more dedicated ones like you might find on this forum. I would have to believe that anything that hunters perceive as being negative (shortening the season falls into that category) would probably be reflected in additional declines.

I am getting more and more convinced that the DEC really is working toward more productive seasons at any cost. I also believe that bowseasons are being viewed by the DEC as a very inefficient waste of prime hunting time. I believe that they are trying to manipulate the nature of bowhunting to change that.

Assuming the article is complete with all of the facts, the issue here is more about the competency of judges than anything written in law.

No, I just threw those questions out there just to make sure that the right thing is given credit for our observations. The reason that crossed my mind is that I too have noticed an increase in recent years of older and bigger deer, and we don't have AR. So it makes me wonder if there aren't far more reasons than simply AR that could be responsible for changes in any particular localized herd......Just a point of curiosity.

Lol.... what is supposed to happen in the next two years that will eliminate resistance?

Just a thought, but I wonder how many of you are reaping the benefits of food-plotting vs. AR? I know some of you that are talking about how AR is working well are also very active in creating food plots and perhaps other QDM habitat improvements. I'm also curious as to whether AR opinions vary depending on whether a hunter hunts primarily state or any kind of public land vs. those parcels that are private, posted and locked up with hunter pressures more regulated (restricted). Don't know if there is any correlation ..... just asking the question.

So what's the deal? Are we all supposed to cheer the fact that fees are going up? Are we supposed to be happy that NY is trying to weasel out of committments to life licenses? Are we supposed to be cheering for the fact that NYS is trying to emulate a few other states that are gouging the hell out of their sportsmen? I guess I don't understand all this rooting for trying to price and regulate hunters out of the sport. I happen to think that such things should be the absolute last resort, and that they should have their feet held to the fire until it is proven that all this crap is indeed the last resort. Until that happens, I feel justified in being a bit disturbed by what appears to be a DEC that is increasingly becoming more and more hostile toward sportsmen and women.

Of course repeating something many times does not lend any credibility to a statement does it? As far as what is classified as what, the only observation that I might offer is obviously the place where the x-bows have been located in ....... the gun season. That may or may not be where it remains, but their first instinct as to where it belongs turned out to be in the gun season. I think they got it right the first time.

The consistancy of the hair on the summer coat tends to show every body feature because it is much finer than the larger hair diameter and heavier winter coat. Also, as has been mentioned, feeding fawns does take a bit out of their weight gain. Some just show it more than others. Around here, at this time of year, you do see a lot of "ribby" looking does. But by the time hunting season rolls around, they look just fine.

Ah yes ...... the great escape.....lol. You are the one who made the statement indicating that stand hunters are not hunters at all. Why are you so surprised that such an offensive statement would invite a firestorm of replies? If you want to make controversial statements, don't be surprised if there are more than a few contradictions. It goes with the territory .

Declining hunter numbers are not unique to NYS. It is a national problem. Perhaps other states have been a bit ahead of us in gouging sportsmen, but that does not justify NY following suit. It appears that our state is now intent on catching up and they know they can get away with it because we don't really voice our concerns in any kind of serious manner. The shrinking hunter population may just be indicating that a lot of hunters frustrated over these obvious attempts at taking advantage are becoming ex-hunters regardless of which state is doing the gouging. However, license fees are only one part of hunter frustrations. Couple cranking up fees with a shopping list of additional regulations and items that in effect reduce hunter opportunities certainly and it's easy to see that there is nothing there that is going to increase participation or reduce the rate of shrinking hunter numbers. So one has to wonder if the DEC really cares about that sort of problem other than just providing lip-service.