Doc

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.

It is kind of interesting how the DEC is always acting like they are so concerned about the diminishing numbers of hunters and yet seem to be devising new ways everyday to screw the ones that they have left along with the future hunters that may be considering entering the sport. It all seems like some pretty short term thinking on their part unless they have just given up and now intend to get as much as they can, while they can.

I guess that's a new one on me. I never met anyone who called me a bow-waiter before. I always thought I was bow-hunting. Well, I guess you learn something new every day. No offense, I realize that is just your opinion, but I have to point out that that is just damn foolishness. :

Except for the fact that you have claimed in previous quotes that that sitting in treestands or waiting in ambush at food plots (or waiting in ambush anywhere) is not hunting. So I think what you have been saying is that if you don't hunt deer on foot, you are not a real hunter because you are not really hunting..... Have I got that right?

This according to a recently completed survey of 2500 does conducted by a research team from Cornell University. 62% of the respondants claimed that age does matter.

I am and have been for decades.

Lol .... Now who do we rely on to see if these people have an axe to grind with gun ownership. Anybody know of organizations that rate the raters . My source is better than your source Nyah - nyah. ;D

Actually if you consider gun hunting, I do a majority of my gunhunting by still hunting. What I have found is that sitting is great for opening day, but after that the deer develop a hide and seek tactic that makes them seem to have disappeared. Regardless of how few hunters show up in the following weeks, or how little they seem to move about, the deer still play the disappearing act once they have had the initial opening day trauma. I guess there are still enough hunters walking the woods spreading "hunter stink" that even if the shooting subsides, they still know we are after them. So as the Wentzels say, this is the time to employ the "you go to them" strategy. There's not enough guys out after opening day to really get deer moving to my stand, so I have quite a few strategic routes where I move like a snail with the wind in my face. And by golly if you're persistant enough and slow enough, and quiet enough it is a very productive method......for GUN hunting. For bow, I have had still-hunting work only a few times, but I must admit that most of my still-hunting during bow season really has the goal somewhat diluted by in-season scouting. So perhaps I do not do it with the same intensity that I do with the gun. But there is also the added challenge that when I have a bow in my hands, I really have to get within 30 yards or less of the deer. Not so with a gun. Big difference! My bread and butter for bow hunting is sitting in a ground blind. I consider both methods to be hunting. Both have their challenges, and neither is to be considered a piece of cake or offering any kinds of guarantees.

And yet it is pretty much impossible to ever find anyone who has been surveyed even though these kinds of surveys have supposedly been going on for decades (Cornell and all ... lol). I really wonder what kind of credibility these surveys really have when you consider the tiny percent of population surveyed and the obvious failure of them to reach anyone that we know. But I guess, if policy is going to be made and laws passed, there has to be some attempt at legitimizing them. And holding up a survey done by a leading university probably is what keeps support for the things that the DEC wants to push. Who can question the findings of a university .... eh?

It is ..... just took a short side trip for a few minutes. ;D

Lol ..... I had to replace a belt on my Dr Trimmer yesterday. Not much of a surprise ...... It's 12 years old now and I definitely work the heck out of it. In fact today I put in 4 hours of constant pushing that thing. I do my 1000' driveway edges. Because of the steep ditches, each pass is like some kind of gym workout with pushing the thing down the side of the steep ditch as far as I can reach and then pulling it back up. Right now I feel like one great big ache ..... :-[ . By the way, if anyone wants a recommendation on the Dr Trimmer products, I can only say that for the money, I have never had such a quality built and useful item. There absolutely would be no other way practical for a tough spot like my driveway, especially with all the trees along the side. If this thing ever dies, I will not hesitate to buy another one.

Lol.....wouldn't it be nice if we could rely on common sense. We wouldn't need any of these kinds of laws.

Wouldn't it be interesting if it became law that stalking was the only legitimate way to hunt. The entire hunter population would be on their feet walking over, under, around, and through, each other .... lol. It certainly would keep the deer moving. Actually, back in the old days, before all this wonderful high-tech clothing, we used to see that exact scenario after the first few hours of the season passed and everyone started to freeze up. It was like a perpetual drive throughout the entire woods. And we sure did see a lot of deer!

Yes, I assumed that the wording would have to be obviously worked out to include buildings in sight. I am picturing someone shooting at a deer with a nice shiny house just beyond the 500' limit, showing up right behind the deer. In the case of a rifle, what the heck good is 500 feet. Why should that scenario be legal? With rifles in the season, distance is not really the proper criteria for safety. That is obviously my point. 167 yards??? ...... That's even questionable with a shotgun or muzzleloader.

Someone on this forum once said something to the effect of guns during the gun part of the season and bows during the bow part of the season. That seems like a lot better thing than jumping back and forth from bow to both gun and bow, to bow, to gun, the back to both bow and gun. Doesn't that all sound just a bit goofey? It actually sounds like they are slowly trying to evolve the bow season into a general, anything goes season by getting us used to and accepting some more gun/bow seasons. What's the real agenda here? At times, I get the impression that some people and even the DEC have an issue with bow hunting and bow hunters and would like to arrange just about everything that they can to maximize harrassment of bowhunters. Sometimes all this nonsense really makes you wonder.

I'm wondering why the law never specifically makes it illegal to knowingly shoot in the direction of a building regardless of the distance. With so many counties now allowing rifle hunting for deer, the 500' minimum for guns really seems inadequate. I know this thread is dealing with archery regulations, but a few replies relative to guns have been stirred in as well, and it brought this thought to mind. In fact even with bow shooting, I would think it would be a good idea to include some language outlawing shooting directly at houses and other structures. Can anybody lend any theories why this "directional" thing has never been brought up?

This is just the kind of safety relaxation that will result in even more property being posted. When landowners find out that the only legal recourse to keeping people from shooting next to their house is to post the entire property, that's exactly what they will do.

Isn't it amazing how we read several studies that tell us solid facts about buck patterns and other deer behavior "facts" that may last for a few decades or more as recognized absolute gospel created by some very well respected experts, and then along comes some other "expert" with equally qualified studies that trashes all that went before? It kind of makes me wonder just how much stock you can put in any of it. I mean, we have all these expert biologists who have learned to prove whatever they want about whitetails, and by the way have been able to make a decent living at doing so. And along comes the next generation of "experts" that disprove everything that we have bought into over the years. It's not just hunting that is playing this game, but all kinds of things that men of science have laid claim to with their computer models and their statistical proof. And what the heck, we sit here nodding our heads up and down swallowing all of this because we believe the experts when they speak. Who else can you believe? I am getting awful cynical about this stuff ..... all of it. It puts a little more creedence in only what I see and dope out for myself.

nyantler- It really doesn't matter how you define hunting. That is one of those personal opinions that everyone figures out for themselves. But I will point out that there are many ways to hunt that are completely valid and have universally been accepted for centuries by all kinds of people, cultures and traditions. The idea of taking game by having them come to you fits most anyone's definition of hunting just as well as the methods that require you to go to the game. I too have some rather specialized ideas when it comes to what I consider to be hunting, and they are pretty darn rigid. But I also have to recognize that other people have experiences, backgrounds and traditions that differ from me and form their way of hunting. That doesn't mean that at times I don't get downright vocal about such things, but in the end I do have to admit that their opinions about what constitutes hunting for them are just as valid as my own.

That's a good point. I would hate to see you mess up a good shooting set-up chasing another foot or two per second. Just make sure that what ever you do you can backtrack to whatever is working now (assuming that your accuracy and consistancy are good now). I've seen guys get into all kinds of problems in pursuit of speed.

Centerpunch- Who were the "Hunters for hunters"? Was it anyone who is likely to have any impact or influence on the DEC plan?

Begin a campaign of hiking, fishing and camping and teaching woods lore to instill an enjoyment and appreciation of nature and outdoor activities. Do that early in the child's life and make it a lifestyle. All that stuff taken together is what creates the desire to be involved in the rest of it (hunting).

I'm thinking the above comment is relative to a couple of replies on the previous page. It could be that a line was indeed stepped over there.

I think we often become a bit complacent on this point and sometimes bury our head in the sand about just what kinds of impacts the animal rights movement has really had on social attitudes toward hunting. Yes, some of the more extreme rantings and ravings are quickly dismissed by the general public, but a lot of the quieter persuasion in our schools, the media and other sources of influence continue to chip away at public support for consumptive outdoor activities. We think of all kinds of reasons why hunter numbers are on the decline, and most of them are true, but we seem to want to ignore that the biggest problem is that hunting just isn't "cool" anymore. It has lost favor among our youth, and is also being abandoned by more and more adults. I'm thinking that a lot of that cultural change is being driven by the decades old constant drumbeat of campaigns from the animal rights wackos and their millions of dollars that they spend on lawsuits and P.R. attacks on hunting, fishing and trapping. We can ignore all that if we want to, but that doesn't make those impacts go away. The point is that while they operate with a highly organized and financed front, we sit back an nit-pick our own advocacy groups to death. It has become a one sided argument with no one from our side with matching resources to push our arguments. Frankly, I will never down-play the threat that they pose to hunting.

I'll bet that most of the problems of hunting access occur because so much of rural America has been continuously chopped up into smaller and smaller parcels. If you take an area that consists primarily of 10 or 20 acre parcels and plunk a house, yard and out-buildings in the middle of it, that doesn't leave a lot of room for any safe hunting activity. Also I believe that the rural areas are being populated by more and more anti-hunters. I do know of a couple of large parcels that are owned by people who actually hate hunting. No one hunts those anymore. And then there are some of these places that are locked up by commercial hunting places, complete with the high fences and all. If you've got the cash you can hunt there, but for the most part they are large under-utilized chunks of good deer habitat. There are also the pieces of leased land. Many of these are locked up because the guys are paying some pretty heavy chunks of cash for the priviledge of hunting there and free-loaders are not welcome. And while I don't personally know of any around me, I am sure there are other properties that are heavily controlled by those who have invested time and money applying QDM efforts, and they only need enough hunters to adequately control populations to their specifications. I look at a lot of these places that are now denied to today's hunters and I can't think of a single thing that the government could do to open them up to public hunting. Further if you look at a lot of them, they are the sort of thing that will continue to grow and make the situation worse.