Doc

It's beginning to sound like there is a small group of hunters that pretty much serve as the "survey committee" and these same people get surveyed and re-surveyed. That's pretty handy for those running the surveys, but I have to wonder just how wide a representation of all hunters views these few people provide. Interesting.

One thing that's good about spring being over is that the flood season is over (so far) and most of the damage has been cleaned up. The bad news ........ the fair-weather part of our year is whistling by and we'll be plowing snow before you know it ..... >

First of all, there is no legal way that any government agency is going to "force" landowners to open up their land to hunters. So I wouldn't be too concerned about that. Secondly, I am getting pretty tired of that word "selfish" being thrown around in every argument that comes up on this forum. That is a lazy man's allegation that has no basis in fact most of the time it is used. If for whatever reason, a landowner does not want to allow his land to be over-run by hunters, I think he has a perfect right to limit the use of his land without being called selfish. It seems to be the general opinion of those that don't own land that all landowners have some sort of obligation to allow anyone onto their land that asks. Otherwise he is guilty of some negative character feature such as selfishness. Well, that is utter nonsense. If a landowner wants to close off his land from the general public, that's his business. He paid the exhorbitant price for the land. He pays the outrageous taxes. He provides whatever improvements that take place on his property. He may very well be the one that pays the high cost of a lease. And he shouldn't be required to justify the fact that he doesn't want intrusions. That's like suburbanites and urbanites being called selfish if they don't allow trespassers to establish a short-cut across their yard. Also, I'm sure that 90% or better of those people who practice QDM on their property, or property that they lease, keep a pretty tight lid on who and how many hunters enter their property. Are they selfish? I think they may have legitimate reasons other than selfishness for requiring something more than just a request and a promise to abide by some rules. Finally, as to liability, that little phrase, "This protection does not apply in cases of willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against dangers" is pretty easy to twist around by any semi-skilled lawyer. We had a dug well about half way up the hill that we never discovered until about 20 years after moving on the property. Had someone fallen in there, it would have likely resulted in a lawsuit claiming that we had engaged in willful failure to guard or warn against that particular danger. I know of two other such wells on other people's property that they may or may not know even exist. Secondly, I'm not too sure just how one goes about judging what features on his land require a warning. We have many natural dangers on our hill, and I'll be damned if I'm going to lay up a forest of signs all over the place to legally warn or guard people traveling the land. So, the point is that even with the general obligations law, there are still enough legal loopholes for any lawyer worth his salt to steer his lawsuit through. So if landowners are still concerned over that issue, it may very well be with good cause. So before we get so eager to use that ever-so-handy word, "selfish", maybe we should learn a bit more about the reasons that they decide to shut their land off from the public. And maybe we shouldn't be so quick to consider that his land should become our land with just a simple request. Sorry if this lengthy response seems to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to something that was probably written quite innocently, but this "selfish" thing has become a bit of a hot button along with a few other negative personal comments that get thrown around here without a whole lot of thought. This idea that "if you don't let me use what is yours, you are selfish" did kind of rub me the wrong way I guess. :-\

The Animal Planet channel has become a very popular part of public viewing, and many of the non-hunting citizens (voters) will be exposed to that kind of bogus view of hunting and convinced that this is what all hunting is like. Years ago there was a similar type of program on one of the major networks that was entitled "The Guns of Autumn", and I would not be surprised if there are still a lot of people who were and are influenced by that depiction of hunting. There also is no way of knowing just how much of our diminishing hunter population is a direct result of these kinds of shows. For those that think that simply ignoring this kind of slander toward hunting is an effective way of dealing with it, I assure you that this kind of thing is indeed a very big deal and something that we want to be well versed in. The problem is that they get to put out this trash on a national basis, and we have absolutely no ability to respond in the same effective fashion. I don't intend to ignore their show and in fact would appreciate details as to the time and date it will be airing. I likely will even record it. I want to know what kinds of crap that they are feeding the public so I will be informed as to what points need rebuttal whenever I am involved in hunting discussions with non-hunters.

I still think that a lot of these special youth seasons appear more to be simple flailing around trying this and trying that rather than devoting time effort and research to attacking the real issues of low hunter recruitment and replacement. The reasons are clearly social as I said before and until the DEC and other government entities and the hunting community itself begin to recognize that and aim their efforts at the root of the problem, all the special youth seasons in the world are simply serving as worthless window-dressing. It's frustrating watching so many people investing in absolute nonsense and totally ignoring the real root causes for the future demise of hunting. Eventually we will be sitting here with DEC revenues almost extinct from faltering hunter numbers, wondering what happened while having squandered time and resources on failed attempts and a total misunderstanding of the problems. It really shouldn't be that way, and selling worthless attempts at solutions simply deflect attention from the real solutions which involve real activity in the schools and other public campaigns to create a real sales campaign for hunting among the young people as well as adults.

Yes, unfortunately a huge emphasis has been placed on the "as quickly as possible" part of all that and additionally "in the easiest way possible". In fact almost all other aspects of hunting are being subordinated to those two goals. Carried to it's furthest, canned hunts would satisfy both those goals and many would call that "smart hunting" also. I read an article once that was about a hunt involving timed feeders where the deer had actually been conditioned to respond to the sound of the feeder going off. These guys not only knew the exact square foot where the deer was going to pose for the shot, but also the exact time. I suppose that's "smart hunting" too. Except, in my world that isn't actual hunting at all. That is simply training a once-wild animal to respond to a dinner bell (wasn't there some guy named Pavlof that did the same thing with dogs? .... lol). So for me at least there is kind of a loose limit as to just what I will do in the name of hunting. I personally draw the line at training deer, or conditioning them to respond to something that I put there. I prefer to go up against them in their own un-modified turf and leave their feeding habits up to them for me to discover and try to capitalize on. To me that is part of the hunt. I have set up a distinct difference between hunting and participating in forms of deer farming and I really don't want to mix the two even a little bit, whether that mix is baiting or food plotting. It's not a distinction that everyone must make, but in my hunting, I choose to hunt the deer as I find them and not try to alter their habits or nature. I just get a real funny feeling about stretching the meaning of hunting activities that much.

By the way, one more thing that might be an interesting twist on this discussion relates to something I saw on TV. Modifying the land to suit hunting convenience is a long way from a new idea. Long before the first Europeans came to this continent, the Indians were regularly burning off large sections of forested land because they noticed that burnt over areas always became lush green vegetated areas suitable for grazing and browse which attracted animals for their hunting. So, they were in affect creating food plots for the specific reason of attracting animals to hunt. So you guys who are involved in food plotting are in pretty good company when it comes to modifying the land for hunting convenience. Lol.... That doesn't mean that I am going to run right out and start creating a food plot. In my mind, I still separate out that activity as something far removed from the actual act of hunting, and I still prefer to hunt the deer as I find them without trying to mold their habits to accomodate my hunting. But I thought it was interesting to note that today's hunters are not the first "food-plotters".

Just out of curiosity, are there any forum members here who have ever participated in a DEC/Cornell survey? ...... Anyone?? I'm awful curious just what is their criteria for picking survey participants. I've been around hunting, fishing, trapping for an whole lot of decades and have never been approached by anyone from the DEC or their survey team in Cornell University.

That's a pretty good example of a government body using fees in a confiscatory way...... and I'm sure that if that doesn't do the job, they will have no problem with raising it some more in the future. And it all starts with registration. So anyone who is confused about all the opposition to gun registration, there (among other good reasons) is why.

Lol ..... yeah, I am hoping to celebrate the day by mowing the lawn. No, we'll be heading out to a local steakhouse for a great dinner that I'm really looking forward to, but we will likely offset it by 1 day just to duck the Father's Day hordes at the restaurants.

So now we are hot to register ALL guns. That is exactly the escalation that I have come to expect from the anti-gun crowd. Anyway, aside from the many more important reasons against gun registration that have already been mentioned, let me also point out that with every registration system comes another huge government bureaucracy which of course requires a fee. And fees have a way of starting out rather small until they are fully accepted and then steadily growing until they become simply another route to practical confiscation. Not quite the same thing as auto registrations where the administrators have no desires to restrict car ownership. Yes, I can see where the anti-gun gang would love to have registration powers over all guns. At that point they could apply the lessons learned from cigarette taxation. That would provide yet another weapon to beat over the heads of law abiding gun owners ...... and by the way would provide yet another worthless system that would have no effect on crime or criminals. There really is no end to the inventiveness of the enemies of the 2nd amendment.

I'm sure everyone has a different view of what hunting should be, and the beauty of the activity iis that we can each approach it with whatever philosophy we want (within the confines of the law). If some want to incorporate farming practices as part of their hunting activities, that's legal and is a legitimate activity. For me it simply is not part of the way I approach hunting and as I have said before that doesn't make me right and anyone else wrong. It's just the hunting philosophy that I have stated before. I choose to hunt the deer as I find them without trying to condition them or influence whatever patterns their habitat puts on them. The simplest way that I can explain it all is: I'm a hunter and not a deer farmer. I don't want to be engaged in things that begin to blur the lines between the two. It's a philosophy that I maintain for myself, and I have no intentions of forcing it on anybody or trying to change anyone's mind.

On the site of the proposal http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/draftdeerplan0611.pdf on page 35 they have a graphic that states: Youth hunt - Columbus Day; concurrent with bow. Am I mis-reading or misinterpreting that? I read it as both activities happening at the same time.

As I recall, there was nobody opposing the original worthless money-grab registration law, and I'll bet that no one will oppose this one either. They're pretty much free to screw us anyway they want to ........ right? They (NYS legislators) have one mindset in this state..... If you can buy it, there is some form of tax or fee money to be ripped off the purchasers. So now they want to go after UTVs. There's no reason to be surprised or to expect anything else.

I'm thinking that just like any government agency, they are subject to political pressures that may or may not really be part of their beliefs. One thing we have come to understand is exactly how driven the DEC is by politics and many AR proponents have turned to the legislative approach which always seems to trump DEC's policy. In fact if I understand it correctly, that is how the initial AR areas became law. it was not the DEC's biological view, but rather legislative coerced mandates.

I don't think anyone is forcing anything on anybody. So far all I have seen is people stating their opinion and a few reasons why they hold that opinion ....... sounds like typical internet forum activity to me. As far as what is a food plot and what isn't, I think we all know the definition as it applies here. I doubt that anyone seriously considers an old abandoned farmstead that has reverted back to the wild with an apple tree on it to be a food plot or a bait pile .... : .

Ah, once again good ol' Sits sticks his head in here to deliver another random gob of pointless venom. What a wonderful personality this charmer is. Just what this forum needs ..... lol.

I own the Remington Mod 700 SPS Varmint in .223 and can personally vouch for the accuracy, and handling of that gun. I have no personal experience with the others. I might add that if budget is a major concern, you probably should not rule out used weapons. Unless a gun has been severely mis-used, is just plain old, there most likely are a lot of great bargains out there in the used gun market. Usually abuse is obvious, and insisting on a few test shots before purchase would let you know if the gun is a "shooter" or not.

This whole thread is already being discussed on the "NYS DEC NEWS and ANNOUNCMENTS forum above. My thoughts on the subject are posted there.

Somehow I don't think we are seing the whole story here. I am a staunch advocate of home defense, but I'm wondering if there might be a bit more personal involvement between this woman and the two guys. I don't know, but as the story is being portrayed it looks like a clear-cut case of self defense. So the arrest may be very well be based on some other features of the event that we are not privy to.

I hate to say it, but I think all these special "youth seasons" are very much grasping at straws. I think that everyone is hoping the future of hunting relies on holding special introductory seasons. I hope they do some good, but realistically, I believe that they are pretty much window dressing, and really don't address the real causes behind the low replacement rates in hunter populations. I don't for a minute believe that kids have no interest in hunting because they don't have a special time set aside for them. The real reasons are social, and until ways can be found to re-ignite youth interests in all outdoor activities and a genuine interest and enthusiasm in nature, all the rest of these experiments are most likely going to be wasted effort. Sure I suppose there is no harm in experimenting, but the hunting community should not start thinking that some special season is just the ticket for turning things around. I'm hoping that the powers that be are using their brain power on more than just this feeble activity. It would be nice if there were a few school programs that attempt to make outdoor activities "cool" again and other things that encourage kids to appreciate all things natural. It also would be nice to try to indoctrinate parents into appreciating the mental and physical values of outdoor activities for their kids and themselves. Hiking, camping, fishing, trapping, or just plain random exploration of nature all are a whole lot more influential in boosting the hunter numbers than any of the special seasons that anybody might concoct. Furthermore, I do believe that more kids were sold on hunting on their first visit to hunting camps where hunting became a social event than some other kind of special season where the majority of hunters are not allowed to gather and create the hunt camp atmosphere. I guess what I'm saying is that I am getting a bit tired and worried about how everybody is pinning all their hopes for the survival of hunting on special youth seasons. It all leaves me thinking that after such a plecebo is implemented, everyone will walk away thinking they have successfully saved hunting and continue to ignore or fail to invent and pursue real solutions.

I guess it is a hard concept to explain to those who have never experienced trying to bowhunt over-pressured deer. When you have control over your hunting lands, or have someone else keeping the pressure limited for you, it's hard to imagine why others would be concerned about excessive gun activity that is happening elsewhere during or before you begin trying to use the conventional methods of scouting and patterning the deer you are trying to bowhunt. Frankly, I don't know any way of making it clearer. For me it has always been pretty obvious that you don't hold a gun season and then try to bowhunt. It has always been obvious to me that bowhunting is an activity of stealth because of it being a close-range style of hunting. Others apparently are in a position to take all that for granted. I don't think there really is any way to explain it to those that don't have to worry about hunting pressure.

Sounds like a reasonable comment to me. Anybody got some new gadget or activity you want to use, stuff it in bow season. What the heck they are in the minority and one heck of an easy target. Fill it up! You're absolutely correct ..... enough is enough!

Are we now judging the fitness for private ownership of firearms based on their appearance? Assault rifles .... Black guns ...... what nonsense! It's just another semi-auto rifle that has simply become the target for the anti-gun nuts based solely on how it looks.

Because what you are trying to regulate involves behavior. Criminal acts are behaviors. Regulation of inanimate objects can only have extremely limited effects on behavior. At some point redundancy in law making begins to miss the point and simply becomes a burden on law abiding citizens. That is the state of gun regulation today. And that is why continuing with the lunacy of filling law books with worthless gun-restricting laws is a futile exercise doomed to be as ineffective as the previous laws. We all have heard the definition of insanity as doing the same things over and over and expecting different results...... Well here we have a classic example of exactly that.