Doc

OK ..... I have read and heard the term many times, but it always seemed to be a case of "Unexplained" initials....lol. Thanks all for the clarification. Doc

No, I don't think anyone is suggesting that new roads be built for handicapped access (at least I'm not). That certainly wasn't part of the original discussion. On the other hand, there may be those that would question taking away access to places where it already exists via declaration of "forever wild" designation. My whole argument with all this is using Pittman-Robertson money in this fashion. I don't believe it is appropriate since it is a purchase that almost all hunters will never be able to use (handicapped or not). If the state wants to get money for this kind of foolishness let them go thru the regular legislative processes and let's see how eagerly the state will part with the cash in these kinds of economic times. But use P-R resources for activities that will benefit those that fund them.

Well, if there was indeed a shortage of these kinds of "forever wild" lands, I might even be in favor of adding more for those that are able to take advantage of that rare kind of hunting experience. But the fact is that for those few individuals who are able to take advantage of these kinds of purchases, there already is far more of that kind of land than they could ever be able to hunt. When I think of Pittman Robertson funds and their proper use, purchasing land that is far more suited to hikers than those that actually supply those funds is not exactly what I would call acceptable. When I think of all the potential uses of that money and how it could really be used for wildlife and habitat management and other programs that are actually useful, I can't help but be quite disappointed in hearing about those funds being squandered in that fashion.

Yes, and you can go in there with just a loin-cloth and a Bowie knife if you want to also...... so what? Or you can quit your job and stay in there for a month if that's what you want to do. Or you can do any number of crazy things justr to say that you used some inaccessable land for hunting. However, pretty much all of hunters are not really going to do any of that and you know that. So the point still stands that P-R money is to be used for primarily non-hunting and fishing and trapping uses and pretty much all of those that finance the purchase (sportsmen via P-R mandatory excise taxes) are never going to be able to ever access it for hunting in any sort of practical sense.

Ok, ATV = All Terrain Vehicle. What the heck does UTV stand for?

There are people who take weeks to backpack the Adirondack trail too but that doesn't mean that doing the same thing when hunting is a very practical thing to do. There is an old saying that hunters must abide by that hikers never worry about. " never go any farther hunting than you are able to drag the deer out from". When you're talking 74000 acres of land and then eliminating all roads and other forms of access, you pretty much are saying that hunters are not welcome in most of it. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of all the Pittman-Robertson donators will be absolutely unable to use any of that land for hunting. That's kind of like justifying using P-R money for horse trail constuction or some such goofy thing. Frankly, I don't really care how many hikers use that land and I really don't care if any of them do, but when setting up state land that is for all practical purposes good only for backpacking, I would appreciate it if money coming exclusively for hunters be used on projects that benefit hunters. Either that or start making these non-hunting, non-fishing, and non-trapping people foot the bill for those things that we have been shouldering for them for decades. In terms of creating more "forever wild" land, I think we have enough. More and more people are being excluded from enjoying nature by such exclusions. The physically infirm, handicapped, and aged are automatically being told that "here is some more wild areas you will never be able to visit or use because we are taking access away from you. You don't like it ...... tough! Oh and by the way, thank you for your donations of excise tax money that we are going to use to screw you".

Whenever I hear about another one of these Urban/suburban areas with a deer problem, I always get the feeling that we ought to just let them suffer with it. What a superb in-your-face laboratory such a situation would provide to show non-hunters the exact necessity for hunting. What a great classroom to show what happens without hunting. What a wonderful thing it would be to hear suburbia demanding that someone come and hunt these deer that are destroying thousands of dollars worth of landscape (and cars). Ah, but I guess in the end we are better people than that. We will come to the rescue with our bowhunters and most likely see the anti-hunting editorials when a bloody wounded deer with an arrow sticking out of it stumbles into a sandbox in the middle of some day-care center and dies in the middle of a bunch of screaming children. A bit too much drama? .... lol. Well it may not be a scenario that extreme, but you get the idea.

So I was reading an article in the Canandaigua Daily Messenger about another land purchase by the DEC. Good news .....eh? Well as they say, the devil is in the details .... lol. The purchase is two parcels in the Adirondacks called the Finch-Pruyn and Follensby land parcels .... approximately 60,000 and 14,000 acres respectively, located in the heart of the Adirondacks for $70 million. This purchase is primarily funded by Pittman-Robertson funds ..... the extra tax money that hunters pay on every purchase of hunting, fishing and trapping equipment. So basically, we hunters are paying for the land. But wait ...... there's more. Currently the land is leased to hunting clubs and individuals, however if the DEC designates the land as "Wilderness" (as has been customary with any DEC purchases in that particular area of the Adirondacks) every cabin and improvement will have to be removed and Every road must be permitted to return to a natural condition with no motorized vehicle traffic permitted. In other words the land will become inaccessible for anything other than a few hikers and backpackers. Most likely, the land purchased by hunters taxes will not be used by hunters but hikers instead. That's kind of an interesting way to spend P-R money in case anybody was wondering where it winds up being spent. I'm sure the hikers will appreciate our donations.

Did anyone think that all our soldiers were doing over there was looking for Bin Laden? Was it ever said that this has all been about one man? Does anyone believe that over the past decade, terrorists have not been trying their best to pull off another strike on U.S. soil? In short, why would anyone actually believe that the war on terror has ended with the death of one man. That doesn't even make any sense. Sure he was a side-target simply as a matter of justice, and because justice needed to be served, he was a very important target at that, but he never has been what the war on terror is all about. So anyone who thinks that this accomplishment (killing Bin Laden) has some how eliminated the need to carry on the fight against those that would do us harm, never understood the initial mission in the first place. We were told repeatedly that this war was a long-term activity primarily a self-defense activity that was purposely being conducted on the home soil of the perpetrators in an effort to help keep it from being fought here on our home soil. Even though one goal of meting out justice for 911 has been acheived, nothing has changed the initial purpose of the war on terror. The choice is still being forced on us to fight terrorists over there or fight them here. We do not have any choice about whether these people will try to destroy us, our home and our way of life. They have simply become a fact of life that we either try to control or suffer the consequences.

I have yet to see any event in our recent history that most Americans consider to be a positive for our country where there weren't a few people eager to try to show the U.S. in a bad light because of it. Doesn't it always seem to be that way? Some people get all puffed up and full of self importance if they think they can manufacture some form of moral high ground and point at all the lesser masses as being less evolved than themselves. It is amazing how these people need to create some negative views of the U.S. government and citizens in order to feel better about themselves. That's something I'll never understand but seems to be a basis in human nature for some portion of our citizenry. It does become tiresome, but has raised its ugly head once again as the basis for the criticism of American reactions to long delayed justice being meted out for Bin Laden. My take ..... if this long overdue accomplishment gives rise to massive loud, vocal and at times patriotic demonstrations and celebrations, more power to you for having a bit of passion and awareness, and an understanding of when something constructive and important has taken place. Let the world see and hear that we support the action that took place and let them understand our resolve when we are attacked. There's nothing wrong with that. By the way, I also have a hard time finding anything to be all offended over when a daring mission performed by a few of our fearless warriors is named after Geronimo. I believe some people spend a lot of time simply looking for things to be offended by. :

There is no question that the auto and other comparisons are a legit as any argument and the only thing that enters irrelevancy into the argument is in trying to add "purpose of the item's invention" into the discussion. What that has to do with anything is beyond me. Actually we as a society have admitted that an auto used in an inappropriate method makes a very effective killing instrument. We have some penalties for drunken-driving deaths that have written that thought into our legal system. However, we have not yet come to the point where we regulate horsepower, size, or how "Dangerous or menacing their appearance", based on the fact that you might misuse your auto.

Some of the post-Bin Laden comments are starting to turn my stomach. First of all we have a bunch of the pinko liberal wackos complaining about the spontaneous celebrations that broke out across the nation over the killing of that filthy dog. Apparently people are forgetting exactly what it was that this pig orchestrated. How quickly people forget. Or perhaps it is just that it somehow makes them feel morally superior and aloof to be able to criticise those that find retribution and justice to be sweet. I think that reaction could have been predicted just knowing how people often try to feign superiority with such outrageous criticisms. Second, regarding whether Bin Laden had a gun or not, apparently it turns out that he did not ..... or so goes the latest story. Frankly I don't give a rat's behind if he did or not. As far as I am concerned, if they had knelt him down and shot him in the back of the head, it would have been fine with me. Lastly, I read a letter-to-the-editor from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle and this jerk was questioning the propriety of sending "trained asassins" into a foriegn country to take out our public enemy number 1. Well, I don't know what can be said about that level of stupidity. It's just another ridiculous and ignorant reaction to a very important victory for justice.

Doc, do you believe the deer kill totals they put out at the end of the season. Maybe they use the same logic about feeding deer.Dave No, what I am saying is that I am in no position to dispute what they are saying. I have not been educated in the science of deer management and biology, and I have had zero years of experience performing that job. I can guess and theorize right along with the best of them, but the bottom line is that they are the supposed experts and I am not.

This is what I am waiting for. How the heck they are going to explain his having a rather large and elaborate compound 60 miles from the Pakistan capital while they were telling us that they had no info that he was even in their country ..... that is going to be quite an interesting tale. What will be even more interesting is whether the U.S. government will press the issue (publicly). This is most likely just another example of us giving away millions in foriegn aid, building up a country that harbors and supports our enemies. You want some cash to help balance our budget? ..... This might be a good place to look for some. Ah but then, these decisions are never so easy and obvious are they?

I really do like some of the suggestions you have for his body .... lol. In terms of following the Muslim traditions, I have to admit that I am not a public relations expert for that area of the world , but I would think in terms of future diplomacy with any of the Muslim countries over there, it probably is not a real good idea to prove their gut-feel about the western infidels by acting like muslim haters when handling and disposing of his body. I don't know, but I am just guessing that those kinds of decisions are not based on any concern or respect for Bin Laden but rather to keep things Kool with religious concerns of the entire area. Just a guess .... Like I say I am not any kind of expert in diplomacy.

I say the hell with the doubters. If they want to prove he is alive, then they should have at it. I personally see no reason to even question it or prove it for the reasons I explained above.

Yup .... there are those who would totally eliminate the right to bear arms, and there are those who would extend the right to bear arms up to and including weapons of mass destruction. Both extreme positions are crazy and the right balance lies somewhere in between those extreme positions. A little bit of common sense goes a long ways toward finding that "right balance".

When it comes to the subject of baiting and feeding of deer, I have many times heard the reasons given by the DEC for not doing that, and I do not feel qualified or adequately better trained than them in deer biology to contradict those reasons.

As far as I am concerned, I will not fault anyone who feels like celebrating the death of this piece of trash. And if our people feel like dancing in the streets, or breaking out singing the national anthem on the subway or any other patriotic displays that they feel moved to engage in, I am just glad that they still care enough to let their feelings show. Personally I celebrate the fact that justice has finally been served. I celebrate the message that was sent that this planet is not big enough to hide in when we are attacked. I think a celebration is called for and deserved and I refuse to cast a wet blanket on anyone who openly celebrates the removal of this piece of filth. As far as the method of disposing of the body, I have heard the reasons, and they sound quite logical to me. Frankly, to the conspiracy theorists, I would say that nobody is stupid enough to falsely claim that kind of victory knowing tha if alive, Bin Laden could publicly show up whenever he wanted to. I can well imagine the propaganda disaster that would result and find it impossible to imagine that anyone would take that kind of risk for absolutely no benefit. So while it would appear that doubting the honesty of our country and leaders is becoming the nation's latest most popular pastime, a little common sense might be useful in putting these wild conspiracy theories to rest. I can assure you that there is plenty of forensic evidence that was taken to prove exactly who it was.

No, this is a time to celebrate as well as heighten our awareness that the danger still exists. Yes we should feel free to celebrate the fact that an assault on our citizenry has at last been avenged and that a message has been sent that we do indeed have a long reach around the globe. And it is also true that we can look for heightened attempts at reprisals. Hopefully we can be just as vigilant and perhaps even more so to continue out-maneuvering these wackos as we have done since 911.

It's quite a tough balancing act isn't it? We want the right to bear arms supported without question, and yet there are weapons these days that should not be freely owned by just anyone. We do recognize mental disease exists (some blatent and some subtle and camoflaged) and there does have to be some pretty hefty and thorough safeguards levied to ensure that a mentally defective cannot get and use weapons that would make his deranged state deadly on masses of people. By the way ..... is there anyone here that disagrees with that thought? So where do we draw the line? I'm not prepared to say. I think it is just one of those things that "you know it when you see it". I don't want to see tanks, bazookas, stinger missles, grenade launchers, flame-throwers, land-mines, and many other kinds of military pieces of hardware legalized for Average Joe Homeowner or for Joe Militia either. However, I do want to be able to adequately protect my home and family against home invaders and roving gangs that would do me or my family and friends harm. How do you write all that into law? Well, that's a challenge. But there does have to be lines drawn. I think any sane-thinking person has to admit that. How all that squares with the 2nd Amendment, I'm not sure. But I'm sure that there are some legitimate scholars who will continue to argue that point for a long time to come. Personally, I think the legal arguments are a bit over my head, but I do see a very fuzzy but definite line somewhere that is based in common sense that protects my rights to self-protection as well as the rights to the protection that society needs.

Bin Laden dead!!! Justice may not have come as swiftly as we would like, but it did come. A message has been sent.

I often wondered just what a person's attitude toward hunting would be like when they are raised in a big city without ever having any exposure to hunting or other outdoor activities, or even any interaction with nature at all. I wonder just how easy it might be for such a person to develop an anti-hunting mentality. With all the meat products coming in nice sanitized little styrofoam packages, and the only media (news, radio, movies, etc.) treatment of wildlife being fuzzy little cute animals that can actually carry on conversations and deal with each other with emotions and always coming from a euphoric place of peace and tranquility where they all live idyllic lives, concluding by dieing peacefully in their sleep of "old-age"...... except for those terrifying encounters with the EVIL HUNTER. Suppose all these images were stuffed into your head since birth by everyone of influence in your life including parents, teachers, politicians, and even peers and classmates. Can you imagine the kinds of grisly images that would develop in your head whenever the word hunter or trapper was mentioned. It's an interesting thought because I believe that there have been several generations that have been raised in exactly that way. So when we think of these anti-hunting wackos, it is useful to also think of what forces in their lives made them that way. I believe that the key to combating anti-hunters and at the same time improving the hunter population decline lies somewhere in understanding the forces and psychology that turns a non-hunter into an anti-hunter and working through well supported groups towards discrediting those influences. This is not something that we can do standing alone on a one-on-one basis, but really does take the power of pro-hunting organizations and our individual support of those organizations. There is a whole cultural force of society that is moving against us and has been for decades and it's not just the organized anti hunter organizations alone. As long as we all believe that we can afford to nit-pick our own hunting advocacy organizations and finding all kinds of reasons to not join or even worse yet, spending great time and energy bad-mouthing them, that societal movement against outdoor sports will continue to accelerate. I guess it's our choice.

I saw the movie, Red Dawn and I have to say that as entertaining as it was, I didn't for minute confuse any of it with any form of potential reality. It was very entertaining to believe for an hour and a half in a fantasy scenario of a bunch of highschool kids all of a sudden becoming expert marksmen and award-winning military strategists. But lets not let fantasy get confused with even a hint of reality. I really don't think that I would fare very well with my old Ithaca Deerslayer against an out-of-control United States military or any other well organized and equipped military force. How many hunters actually possess any kind of fully automatic rifle and an adequate ammo supply capable of lasting longer than 15 minutes against a full assault? I suspect that a band of hunters would have a real problem holding out even against the old Iraqi Republican Guard ..... ;D . Sure I would try, but anyone who has taken any note of the modern weaponry possessed by almost any military power foriegn or domestic, has to admit that the average hunter is at a complete and hopeless disadvantage and only slightly better equipped than a group of irate citizens brandishing pitchforks and hoe-handles. I wonder if I could shoot down a cruise missle with my shotgun . So as a good reason for supporting the 2nd amendment, national security probably is not a very realistic one. You want a good reason for the 2nd amendment today, you might better be looking at personal home defense. There is something that is not only a current and very real issue, but also a reason that truly does make practical, realistic, and very necessary sense. Especially when you consider how totally inadequate police response times are. Your personal and family protection are indeed completely in your own hands. Armed you likely will be able to defend yourself. Disarmed you and your family are probably dead. That seems like a much more urgent reason for the right to bear arms than national security.

For those loyal DEC supporters, I think they believe that that is exactly what they are supposed to do. The standard party line is that permits are allocated by our game management agency because they believe they should be filled in order to manage the deer population. Of course we don't all believe that, but those that do probably should not be bad-mouthed too bad. They are simply doing what the DEC tells them is needed for good deer management. Frankly, I don't have a bit of confidence in their statistical methods of management, but whether by actual proper knowledge and procedures or just plain good luck, I have to admit that recent results seem to be acceptable in my hunting area at least. I also have to admit that I couldn't do their job any better or even as well. So if other hunters are following the recommendations of the DEC and filling whatever tags that are issued to them, I guess I will not fault them for it. In fact, I will say that if they are able to actually fill all their tags then it's likely that the herd is not in terrible shape wherever they are hunting.