Doc

The guy definitely brings it all on himself. All these little vid-clips always seem to be aimed at just trying to get attention. What ever ya gotta do to try to keep yourself relevant .... eh? I don't blame him. It's probably an age thing ..... lol.

Very recently I read that the European cost for a gallon of gas is $9.69 (adjusted to U.S. dollars). When we start approaching that level, I think our entire lifestyle, and economy will be seriously and negatively impacted. And yet there seems to be nobody of any power that is actually concerned. What do you suppose these kinds of petro-costs are doing to inflation? Aside from our own personal finances, just about every purchase here and abroad are impacted by gas. These inflationary pressures are not being ignored by those that hire us. One would think that there might be some extreme pressures brought to bear on oil producing nations to pull in the reins of this warfare on our economy. It's getting to be time that we start attaching some strings to our overly generous taxpayer funded foriegn financial and technological assistance to these countries before our entire economy becomes trashed. It may also be time to quit merely shrugging our shoulders, and start explaining to our legislators that we expect this problem to start receiving some attention.

It's very weird ...... There's nothing that he says that I actually disagree with, but there's something about the way he says it that makes me feel like I just heard the ravings of a drug burned-out madman. What a shame that his message is so mangled up in all that pycho-babble that he actually takes thoughts that I hold close and turns them into something that would turn off just about anyone who hears it. I've heard him described as a spokesman for sportsmen and women, but there is a sound of lunacy whenever he supposedly speaks on our behalf that seems to have a very negative affect to anyone listening. Our spokesman? Not in my view.

I sure would like another kind of tasty thing around to hunt, and I do like pork (although I have heard mixed reviews on the taste of wild boars). But some of these critters seem to be of a real nasty disposition. One thing I really don't need is some 400 pound tusker charging out of the bushes while I stand there with just my bow and arrows for defense. Also, the damage that they do to the habitat is something that we probably wouldn't appreciate too much either. However, I'm not sure that we will really have much of a choice in the matter since they seem to be expanding their range northward all by themselves.

Do you really think it picks back up at the end of the season? I've got to say that at the end of the season around the valley here, it is pretty darn hard to tell there is even a season in progress. Generally the state parking lots are totally empty, and the woods are absolutely dead quiet.

Our bear population in Ontario County is so small that it hardly makes any difference that we now have an open season. We had a bear wandering around here about 2 years ago, and nobody has seen him since. However those two nights that he raided the bird feeders (destroyed them actually), and then dragged my garbage cans up through the woods strewing trash for hundreds of yards, kind of convinced me that feeding these critters would be a big mistake. The muddy paw prints on my neighbor's porch door was a nice reminder that feeding these guys and removing some of their natural fear of man, probably is not a real good idea. However, if the enforcement boys are going to interpret this new law as pertaining to the rotten meat in every trapper's dirt-hole set, or some dead animal that a farmer has dragged off into the lower forty, or some dead critter that a photographer placed in the woods for a couple of pictures, then I think it would be nice to know that before we are faced with a CO writing us up with a nice expensive ticket for some inadvertant offense that never occurred to us. That is the reason I brought the subject up. I just wanted to see if anyone had gotten any sense of how nit-picky the authorities might get over this new law.

I would like to see a graph or chart that shows the number of deer taken on each day of the season. I know that some deer are taken on days toward the end of the season, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the numbers during the last week or so are probably quite insignificant. If I go by the number of shots that I hear during the last couple weeks of gun season, I have to say that shortening the season would be silly and would make almost no difference in the deer take. Those two weeks are just good P.R. for deer hunting and have more of a harmless effect of making hunters just think they are getting a better deal than they ever will actually take advantage of. Has anyone ever seen any documentation that shows just how effective those last couple of weeks actually really are. I mean, this whole thread was based on the fact that shortening the gun season would have some real meaningful effect. I really question that premise. As a sales gimmick for hunting licenses, I think it is great and makes hunters think they are getting a great deal and perhaps that keeps some hunters from complaining too much about the current cost of licenses. But in reality I think it has a rather minor influence on deer take. And yes ..... I know there are all kinds of people who will talk about the deer that they got at the tail-end of the season, but I seriously would like to see some real numbers just to see if this whole argument is mostly about nothing.

I guess we need to concentrate less on people falling out of their treestand and more on crazies that are wobbling around on rickity step-ladders up on their raised decks. Anybody else wonder about the sanity of this guy? That was some pretty good shooting, and it's nice that he was able to gratify his need to show off a bit, but he sure didn't impress me at all with that nutty stunt on the step-ladder.

Just finished watching a new show on the Discovery Channel called "Hogs Gone Wild" which is kind of a follow-on series to "The Pig Bomb" and a couple of other recent wild boar shows that have been highlighted on that channel. I'm not sure how much of the content is a bit over-dramatized, but it is a pretty interesting show about some of the trouble areas of the U.S. where wild hogs have gone completely out of control in terms of numbers, destruction, and dangerous encounters with humans. The show that I recorded and watched this morning was about a family in Hawaii that was completely surrounded each and every night by quite a few of these critters to the point where they didn't dare go outside after dark. There was another segment about a Texas family that had a rogue 400 pounder that was threatening livestock and causing some severe habitat damage. These things are not the lazy cute piggies that we have on our farms. They seem to be kind of nasty tempered, especially when they get old and big. The show was about animal control experts removing problem critters, and some of the unusual ways that they do it. Most of it looked like hand-to-hand combat. These guys have dogs that go in and grab the hog by the ears and hold him down that way while these guys reach in, grab a rear leg and then jump on top of the pig pinning it down. I'm sitting there scratching my head wondering why they simply don't shoot the critter ..... But apparently they are determined to catch them alive for some weird reason. The only thing I could figure out is that maybe it is illegal to discharge firearms in that area or something. In one case one of the guys had to use a knife to kill a 400 pounder because he was in danger of losing his grip on it ..... it was too big to handle. Anyway, I figured that some of you might be interested in catching any of the new episodes or re-runs of this one. I think they said that next Tuesday at 10:00 there was going to be the next installment on The Discovery Channel. You might find the program pretty interesting. One thing this program has convinced me of is that I don't want anything to do with having those things here in NYS.....lol. Doc

Like I said above I am not any kind of authority on plots, but I thought the distinction trying to be made was between a plot that was intended to be hunted vs. one that was put in only as supplemental winter deer food. If I had to guess, I would think that a plot that was put in strictly for hunting over would be rather small to make deer locations more predictable and highlight foods that would be attractive during the fall (hunting) months. Plots put in as a winter food source primarily to highlight a hi-carb food source available later in the season at a time that might benefit winter-weary deer. It might even be large enough where it might simulate typical agricultural fields which are not always all that useful in hunting situations. Supplemental food plots may still be created by hunters (or not) could very well have some distinct differences from hunting food plots. At least that was the what I thought was being implied when the two terms were being used in the original post.

I have heard quite a few instances where the intent of laws has been stretched way out of shape by over-enthusiastic COs intent on applying them way beyond what they were ever intended to. The cases that I have heard of had no warnings involved. I just thought that this law may be tailor-made for over enforcement and use in situations where there clearly was no intent to actually break the law.

I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that Wooly was using a bit of sarcastic humor poking fun at some of the other heated Photoshop allegations in other picture threads of the recent past. I could be wrong, but that's the way I took it.

I think the new law forbidding bear feeding is not really something that is designed to protect or increase bear populations, but rather is intended to eliminate the semi-domestication of wild bears and the resulting safety problems and property damage activities of the bears. However, my question was more aimed at just how tightly the new "feeding" law will be applied. In other words, is it possible that things that were formerly considered normal activities by farmers, hunters and photographers (as noted in the original post) might now all of a sudden put them on the wrong side of the law. There are so many things that can be considered bear food.

That's an interesting distinction you are making there. I don't think I have ever heard that way of defining a "hunting plot" vs. a food supply plot. I'm not much of an expert at growing food or attractants for deer or other critters, so I guess I probably don't have much to offer about what features promote a better "food" plot vs. a "hunting" plot, but I guess that now that you have pointed out the distinction, I can see where things might be done quite differently depending on what function the plot is supposed to serve. This will be an interesting thread.

Those pictures reminded me ...... keep your eyes open when riding your ATVs. I recently saw a picture of a tire on an ATV that had an antler sticking out of it. Kind of a real expensive coincidence.

With many of the same feeding/baiting laws that have applied to deer also now applying to bears, I have to wonder exactly how far the interpretation of these laws could reach. I have heard of some rather extreme cases where COs and judges have pushed the wording on laws to include some rather bizzarre interpretations. One has to wonder just how vulnerable trappers are now with the wide variety of baits that they have always used. For that matter, anyone who drags a road-killed deer off into the woods for predator hunting or photography purposes ...... Are they guilty of placing a bear bait, or feeding the bears? The farmer totes a dead calf carcass over into the hedgerow ...... same question. Is he guilty of feeding bears or placing a bear bait? Are there any details in the wording of the law or related laws that would preclude somebody from innocently and inadvertantly being charged with breaking this bear feeding law by some over-zealous CO?

No, I do pretty good on this chunk of land inspite of all the interferences. It's all a case of knowing the land a whole lot better than anyone else. Having hunted on the same parcel for all of my life, I know a lot of the back-door access points to areas that others never dare to enter.... . Those wild rose "man-traps" do have ways in for those that know the area.....lol. I was just commenting on how some studies and articles get written up like they gospel and apply everywhere when in fact there are a lot of areas that have completely different circumstances.

Honestly..... is there really any more beautiful North American bird than a male wood duck? These are some great pictures!

I am completely amazed at how many pages can be develop over nothing ..... lol. But I will say one thing, all this discussion of minutia regarding the legal ins and outs of baiting does bring up a question in my mind that may be of interest to trappers. With many of these same feeding and baiting laws also now applying to bears, I have to wonder about the poor trapper who constructs an old-fashioned dirt-hole set for foxes and stuffs the traditional small chunk of rotting muskrat meat back in the hole. Could this be interpreted as baiting or feeding bears simply because the bait is something that a wandering bear might stop and pick up? I really doubt it ever wouldbe that stringently interpreted but with the rigid thinking that has developed here about the definitions of baiting and feeding, one has to wonder just how vulneralble trappers are now with the wide variety of baits that they have always used. For that matter, anyone who drags a road-killed deer off for coyote hunting or photography purposes ...... Are they guilty of placing a bear bait, or feeding the bears? The farmer totes a dead calf carcass over into the hedgerow ...... same question. Is he guilty of feeding bears or placing a bear bait? Some of these laws are quite interesting when one considers all the gray fuzzy edges that could be used to turn rather innocent activity into a nasty legal violation if some ECO or Judge was to get overly anal about the interpretations.

I have heard this myth before and yet I have (and I'm sure everyone else has too) seen countless pictures in magazines, and footage on TV hunting programs that clearly show huge bucks taking advantage of bait in broad daylight that has been placed for exactly the purpose of drawing them in for easy shots. Actually, it stands to reason doesn't it? These guys don't buy expensive automatic feeders and keep them filled simply because they like the exercise and the drain on their wallets. We have a whole industry built on production of some rather exotic feeders, and the sale of bait products. Feeders/baiting works ..... that's been well demonstrated in a very public way that we all have seen. As a matter of fact, I read an article where the author was bragging about the fact that the sound of the feeder was actually an audible signal to the deer that not only brought the deer to a specific, exact, spot but also at a specific and exact time. The deer were actually conditioned to respond to the sound of the timed feeder going off like Pavlov's dogs. Are we really wanting to be in the business of treating the wild deer that we are hunting like some sort of training and conditioning activity to enhance our hunting opportunities? The question is, "is this really hunting"? I don't consider it any part of what hunting is to me. But I suppose we all have to decide that for ourselves.

Well it is likely that our little chunk of state land is a bit unique in that the mountain bikers have been given permission from the DEC to construct trails, and they have pretty much taken over the whole place with a maze of trails. Hard as it is to believe, these trails also go up the side of the hill and there pretty much is no way of getting even 1/4 mile away from any of these trails. It's amazing, but the law prohibits hunters from cutting even a branch or sapling on state land and yet these people have been given permission to hack these trails throughout this parcel in some cases to the point of digging flatted-out areas along these trails for their convenience. The only place that has escaped this intrusive land modification is the area at the bottom next to the road which is so thick with wild rose that no one has the fortitude to enter these areas to clear anything. The only trail in the bottom-land is a single one that leads straight to the hill where the hardwoods keep things pretty open on the side hill and beyond. That's where other trails begin to branch off and complete the total blanketing of the area with a network of interlocking trails. So now, the area has become a major hiking trail area as well as biking and where the area used to get several months of peace and quiet between hunting seasons, which allowed the deer to establish normal daylight patterns, it is constantly full of people on a year around basis now. So the point of my reply was that while the study that this article was about may be valid for a majority of public land pressures, it is not valid for ALL public land people-patterns or deer reactions to that pressure.

Remember that we are talking about state land. It is illegal to make the modifications that you mentioned. However, there is no doubt that the deer use these impenetrable places that are built out of the man-traps called multi-flora rose when the pressure comes on. And that movement into these places does not always begin with the gun season. Other human activity throughout the year also conditions the older deer to use these areas. And contrary to this article, these spots are directly next to the roads and parking areas not some place deep in the woods.

All of this stuff is just a further display of how we have placed the emphasis of our hunting on hunters competing against hunters instead of simply against the deer. What the heck, we even have devised scoring systems and record books to keep track of who is ahead .... . It's all an ego-thing as hunters attempt to gather the needed admiration of their fellow competitors. It has gotten to the point where many will devise ways of cheating and sidestepping laws and other inconveniences just to prove to the world their worth as a great hunter. It's amazing just how far people will go to try to cement their version of self worth and enhance their view of their importance in the hunting world. Consider the thousands of dollars that some invest in hunting land and habitat improvement. And I do mean thousands. Some have bought huge acreage and have invested the same kind of money that a small-time farmer would put out in ground-working, tilling tractors and implements. Some go a step further and invest in costly fencing. The sky is the limit .... lol. Is it really all that hard to believe that many would dummy up antlers and get involved in illegal and unethical means to reach that goal of needed admiration in the hunting community? It's all a little pathetic, but obvious and undeniable. What a shame that they have not learned the value of treating hunting as a liesurely recreation. But I guess everyone is into hunting for their own reasons and has to do what they think they have to do. By the way, hunting is not the only place where people get carried away in their pursuit of peer approval. Many fishermen have also become involved in all kinds of cheating schemes and law stretching for exactly the same reasons as some hunters. it's all sad, but apparently it is a part of human nature for some.

The article was quite interesting, but as usual, I have my suspicions about trying to draw any useful conclusions using such limited studies. For example, the valley that I hunt in has a very limited amount of flat land near the road. It is all very dense, thorny, wet and almost impossible to hunt. Pretty much, if you are going to hunt that state land, you are going to have to climb a rather long, steep hill. There simply isn't enough huntable flat land to support even a small number of hunters. Also, 51 years of hunting in that same area has revealed that hunters seem to have no problem climbing a very steep and long hill and then continuing for quite a distance beyond the crest of the hill. Not only that but I have seen hunters climb that cardiac killer hill with heavy packs and bulky ladder-stands on their back to points that are well in excess of 1 mile from any road. The word has gotten out about how traveling deep into the woods of a state land parcels is practically guaranteed to put you in the area of big bucks. Everyone has read that and many hunters are reacting to that theory. Well actual on-the-ground observation does not bear that out in my valley. In fact in bow season, hunting areas on top of this hill are congested with other bowhunters, hikers, mountain bikers, and all kinds of people. These guys are not down in the valley next to the roads because that whole area is infested with multi-flora rose, grape vines, areas of standing water and other impenetratable features. They all find it much easier to follow the trail to the base of the hill and follow the mountain bike trails through the open woods to the top. By the way, guess where most of the big-buck sign and rutting activity is ..... lol. Everything is a complete mirror image of what this article concludes. So the point is that a study such as this one may have some relevance somewhere, but to generalize the findings beyond the limited area that they studied, probably is not a useful thing to do.

I am convinced that there are those that join forums just because they provide an opportunity to be rude to other people without any consequences. All forums have them. We are just now going through the stage where they are in the process of taking over the site. It really is quite a common occurrance, and I have to wonder how much this sort of thing may have caused the demise of this forum's predecessor.