Doc

I have to admit, that I would like to know just what it was that he was trying to say. That little clip sure doesn't sound real great unless it was severly taken out of context. Is he promoting hunting without any concern or care about the ethics of how you do it? Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that I found that little clip a bit disturbing.

Not every location should have a mandated requirement of handing out even the one DMP. Note that some areas in NYS have no DMPs available 9and generally for good reason). And that's the kind of freedom the DEC should have. I really don't like trying to manage the entire state with cast iron rules that have little or no flexibility. That's one of the reasons that WMUs were established in the first place, so that specific herd/habitat conditions could be accomodated without subjecting the entire state to the same management activities. They did one good thing with the establishment of WMUs and the DMP system. There's no need to undo that one good thing. As far as the one-buck rule, I'm not sure that you would really see that much of a difference. It would be interesting to know how many people actually get more than one buck per season now. It could be that the perception that a significant percent of hunters actually do harvest more than one buck is wrong. There's no point in establishing a rule that would have no effect. So as far as I'm concerned, this would need a bit more research before I would get behind it. Doc

Well, I'm not sure I'm against using the resources for forest management expenses. I'm just afraid that that is not where the money will go. The idea of logging is a good forest management practice, but I would want the proceeds from that to pay for new habitat improvement and re-forestation projects, not buying HD-TV for some welfare recipient. Doc

Man, I hate to hear these stories. When I think about all the years that I spent climbing around in the trees like a monkey, with absolutely no protection, it really is a wonder that I never had an incident. I do know of a couple of guys that weren't so lucky, and one of them payed dearly with some pretty serious long-term crippling. But, you know, we honestly didn't know any better. There were no commercial harnesses or anything back then, and not a lot of guys were talking much about falling. And then when some level of consciousness about tree-stand safety started to emerge, the stuff that guys were using was probably more dangerous than using nothing. My first restraint was made from the lap-belt of an old VW Beetle. I suspect that had I fallen, I probably would have been found there hanging upside down, maybe alive, but probably not. Well hopefully this thread will remind everyone that hunts from the trees, that just when you are convinced that nothing bad can ever happen to you, it usually does. Doc

Ok, so lets really get into the details of it all. How do you suppose they use the preference points of the landowner stuff. Do they simply flat-out give them the permit or do they somehow factor in some better odds for those that have these preferred items? It all sounds so complicated, I'm not sure how I would design the system myself. It's pretty tricky stuff. It's not all that important, but it sure does get the curiosity going, and then too, maybe it is all that important for those people that habitually get turned down......lol. Doc

So is this fox hunting stuff really ethical? Doc

Go sick-'em. I hope you don't have to go the FOIL route. Thats such an unfriendly aggressive route. What I'm hoping is that you can find a nice friendly biologist who has just finished his lunch and is looking for some nice relaxing conversation, and who really doesn't mind helping out a fellow outdoorsmen in a research project. If that doesn't work, you can always resort to the "crowbar" approach later ;D Doc

There's no way I'm going to read all that. probably should though. Anybody who buries their plans in that much BS has to be hiding something or covering something up . I'll probably just scan through it hoping that some of the important stuff jumps out at me ...... :-\ . Doc

Ha-ha ...... everybody has a plan ;D . I remember those days before I retired from my job, when everybody around me (even people who didn't have any idea of what we did) had ideas on how we should do our job. Of course they didn't have a clue, but that didn't stop them from offering an opinion. What the heck, I do it too. Other than actual hunting, it's become the American hunter's favorite pastime ........ trying to second-guess the employees of the DEC. It's great fun, and who knows, maybe some day, one of us may actually accidentally come up with a real useful idea. probably not..... but maybe. In the meantime, I suppose there's no real harm in pretending we can actually do their job better than they can . Doc

Maybe it's a plan for selling off the state lands one board foot at a time.... . Like Bill says, what a great way to bolster the state's general fund. I think probably it is about time that some organized plan of action was designed and implemented for state forests. However it is one more thing that we are going to have to watch closely. The opportunities for improper use of state natural resources is huge. Do I trust these critters in govt? Nah ...... not really. Especially in NYS. Doc

Yeah, I think if people are going to get all worked up for or against AR, a little face-time with DEC personel to ensure that the numbers, articles and graphs are all getting the proper interpretation might be in order. Frankly, I have little real interest in AR one way or the other, and the whole subject is way way way down on my priorities as far as deer management needs are concerned. But for those that fanatically push the concept, or for those that are firmly against it, I would think it might be a good idea to go straight to the horses mouth with a prepared list of good questions. I congratulate you for arranging to get that info. Doc

Nope. It'll never happen. The DEC prizes their tools of mass destruction too much to ever give them up.....lol. No seriously, I have seen times and places where freedom to issue large amounts of permits was required, and the only way that deer herds could be brought back under control. The problem is that they never seem to know when to stop. ;D I guess I have to admit that the antlerless permit system is necessary and probably the best way to tailor the harvest to local-ish herd and habitat conditions. I'm not sure they have really mastered the use of the system, but I would not like to see it replaced by any one-size-fits-all ways of managing the state herd. Doc

I've seen a whole lot of arguing of who has the best stats and why. And how to interpret all these random studies and charts, etc. Has anybody here considered a trip into your local regional headquarters, explaining exactly what kind of data you're looking for and why. You might even be able to do it via e-mail, but I think you'll get better results in person. I think there is a lot of data that the DEC gathers that doesn't necessarily make it to public dissemination. You never know what those people may have tucked away in the file cabinets and computer databases. Just a thought and suggestion that might help you all get at exactly the info you are looking for. Doc

I have two shops. One in the barn and one in the basement. The one in the basement is for sort of "clean-room" projects such as bow work and ammo reloading, and a lot of projects that involve equipment with delicate finishes and such as in work on the bows or rifles or small appliances. So I have one bench that has a carpeted top. I can lay whatever I want on there without any concern of picking up scratches or having anything digging at the finish of whatever work-piece I place there. As a side benefit, any loose screws or small parts do not roll off the bench, but stay right where I put them. Doc

8N ....... I only got one of two requested. First time in many years that I haven't had the two permits. Doc

And I might add that that usually is the reason that a lot of the posted signs have been put up in the first place. I don't know a single landowner who puts up posted signs because he needs something to do and because he has a bunch of money burning a hole in his pocket. Most of those signs have gone up as a response to trespasser abuse.

I bought a JoJan about 35 or 40 years ago, and still use it today. It does 6 arrows at a time and has saved me a ton of money over the years. Not only do I not have to head off to a pro-shop to get damaged vanes repaired, but I saved a pile of money by just buying arrow components and building my own. The JoJan is not cheap, but it lasts a lifetime so the price amortized over those many years is just about nothing. Doc

There is no doubt about it ..... the search for big antlers is an "ego thing". And by the way, that's what antler scoring is all about. That is the yardstick which determines the level of bragging rights for many. That is also what is behind a lot of AR demands. Many hunters use antler size to determine their level of success and they see it as the only reason for hunting. Other hunters have other reasons and rewards for their hunting. Let's face it, we all have different demands that have to be met by our hunting activities. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong. It just makes us all different in terms of what deer hunting needs to supply us. That's probably something that should be kept in mind whenever we get the urge to push our standards onto others. We are not all going to agree on goals, so the system needs to be kept as open as possible to maximize hunter satisfaction as best as possible. Doc

AR aside, I will always have a problem with taking tiny samples and extrapolating the results out to supposedly represent 100%. Sampling size is just one of the criteria to successful statistics, but an important one. When you start dealing with nearly insignificant sampling sizes, you always run the risk of unique situations or conditions of those surveyed that can skew results and make them meaningless. In fact, I have done that here locally in just striking up conversations with different hunters and landowners from different parts of our valley. There seldom is any real consensus on the state of the herd here. It's all a function of location and habitat and hunter patterns. So if you wanted real accuracy you would have to take opinion samplings from strategic spots throughout the valley to ensure you have the proper representation of the area and situation. There is another potential wrinkle to surveys. Some of the respondants are likely to answer favorably because they don't want people to think they are lacking in their hunting abilities and not able to see what they should be seeing. That comment is not aimed at anybody here, but simply meant to show that surveys that rely heavily on statistical enhancement can be skewed by a number of different factors and always have to be looked at with a fair dose of healthy skepticism. These are all just random thoughts and suspicions that run through my head anytime I review statistical data whether it relates to AR or whatever subject. There are so many things that can effect the accuracy, and the smaller the sampling the greater the ability to skew the results. Also, the more subjective or opinionated the topic, the more attention to details of the survey and to survey techniques and sample selections that have to be applied if the results are to be believed.

That is what is so amazing. An awful lot of people fail to look at trespassing in this way. They seem to have two sets of standards when it comes to property ownership, and just because the property is rural they feel that the property owner should have no rights. Well, as you pointed out, if they were the recipients of some of this indifference toward property owner's rights, the tune would be a whole lot different. It's funny that people in the city and suburbs don't even have to post their property to have the expectation of privacy and no trespassing and yet the situation is completely different once you enter rural lands.

It's been so long, I can't remember the bill number. Plus this is the third time it's been submitted so the number that I had probably isn't the same as back when I was following it. I really don't expect anything from it for this year anyway. I'll check down at the town hall with the supervisor. He has been staying on top of that one.

I always figured eating a bear is like eating somebody's dog, just a lot bigger ..... lol. It's just a mental thing with me based on absolutely no logic, but I have a hard time eating a carnivore. : Somebody else can have my share. Doc

I'm not sure just what you are referring to. I think I already said that anyone who comes to the house requesting permission to retrieve a wounded deer, will get permission and probably the pleasure of my company as he looks for it. However, don't think that that excuse hasn't been tried by someone caught trespassing. The only problem is that when asked to show me the blood, they don't seem to be able to ..... lol. I think over all these years, I have seen it all. The reason that I now try to accompany them in their search is a little trick that was tried on me where a guy asked permission to track a wounded deer, and a few hours later when I finally had time to go up the hill I found him all hunkered down in the middle of my property on stand (no blood trail anywhere around). So yes, on occasion a landowner will seem a bit unreasonable. However, most of the time and perhaps even all of the time, there are some pretty good reasons and some ugly bad experiences behind that attitude. Doc

I don't think it ever got to him. The way I read it in the paper was that it was killed in a senate committee because they never got to it due to the prolonged budget activities. I'm not sure just where it leaves the bill now, or what the next step is. It would have been nice if the newpaper article has gone that one extra step to explain just what happens now, but as often is the case, they just left the story hanging. I believe there may have been some complications when it got to the Governor for signing anyway. See the previous post (about 12 replies ago) that outlines the action by the Town Supervisor from Canadice. I don't know whether her efforts would have made any difference or not, but she was trying to get it killed with some arguments that might have been pretty convincing to the governor. Doc

I live next door to a big old farmhouse that has been refurbished into 5 apartments. The turnover of tenants in that place is constant. I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to picture what kinds of problems exist there. On the other side we have state land. I can tell you a whole lot of stories about some of the people that show up there and want to hunt my front or back yard ..... lol. I have a small hunting cabin on top the hill that has been completely trashed so many times that I have finally given up repairing it, and a whole list of offences from neighbors involving ATVs, snowmobiles, dirt bikes, horses, etc., and all kinds of trespassing problems that I noted in an earlier post on this thread. So when someone asks why I post my property and am such a hard head about enforcement, I have what I consider to be pretty good reasons. That's my situation, but I can appreciate what it must be like to be someone who tries to manage their property for QDM or invests a fortune and a pile of hours into food plots, or simply wants to try out some AR techniques or controlled hunting or other herd management techniques. Is somebody going to argue with their right and need to post their property? How about people who have their houses or camps in the woods and have a safety stake in not having their place over-run with people. And then there are simply people who bought the land for a bit of privacy. How many city-dwellers welcome their neighbors and others to use their yards as if it were their own? There are many reasons why people post their property and most of them are completely valid. But the plain fact is that in all cases, the people paid their money to purchase the property, and they pay money for taxes, and they are the ones who put in land improvements, and that really is all the justification they need for keeping others out. It's as simple as that. Doc