Doc

Is this something actually quoted from some official source or a response from someone official who really knows, or just a home-made definition of what constitutes "bait"? I'm thinking that I might make the same kinds of assumptions myself, but it would be interesting to know what the official baiting definitions look like or how this stuff is officially interpreted by DEC personel or judges. Anybody have the real authentic scoop on any of this stuff?

Years ago, I tried the old "drag-rag" trick with some 2-year old Tink's 69, and did actually have it work. A buck came in just like a beagle with its nose to the ground. I put the container in the center of the trail with the thought that it would stop him for a perfect broadside 20 yard shot. When he got to that container it was like somebody zapped him in the nose with a cattle prod. He swapped ends and left there are so fast with me just standing there wondering what happened. I tried the same trick several times in the next few years and nothing happened, so I eventually figured I would save myself the money and just forget about all that nonsense. So yes, there are certain conditions where it works and certain deer that it works on, but is it worth the money? For me it just isn't consistant enough to warrant all the cost and effort. Not only that but his reaction when he got a whiff of the stuff at full strength left me wondering how many deer that you never see actually spook from the stuff? Doc

Yeah, they really are a bunch of ill-tempered goats ..... especially toward each other. And of course I suppose we have all seen the video of the deer kicking the hell out of the hunter. I will say that I have come across a whole lot of fawns and never had a deer come busting out of the brush and trying to come after me. I think the difference is that the deer that I encounter are totally wild and have a healthy fear of humans. Any of these "wild" animals that hang around people a bit too much really seem to lose that absolute fear of humans and often they start acting what we would consider to be ... weird. It's not a real good condition. We see it in coyotes, coons, bears, etc. and deer are no exceptions. Doc

So I assume that if you want venison cooked in your house, you probably have to do it yourself? :-\ Doc

Oh damn!! That looks like an ash tree. Doc

Most of what you mentioned doesn't bother me a whole lot. I have used scents back in my early years, but for the most part I don't mess around with a lot of that crap anymore. For one thing it's all too expensive and has a very spotty success track. Those that want to spend their money that way, are welcome to try it but it's not really the same as baiting where you are trying to condition the deer to rely on your bait source as their food source. I guess that is where I personally draw the line. I'll admit it's a pretty fine line of distinction, and I probably would get too terribly excited about defending that position one way or the other. Probably the one thing that I find most disturbing about baiting is the element of selfishness or whatever you want to call it, involved in trying to lure deer off your neighbor's property and on to your own with the intent of "hoarding" deer. Deer hoarding is a misleading term because it is practically an impossible thing to do, but I do think that that is what is behind the mentality and motivation of baiting. Personally, my hunting philosophy is to hunt the deer the way I find them. I don't like trying to condition them or change their behavior just to make my hunting easier. That's just a personal limitation that I put on my own hunting. If I come across a food source that the deer are already using, that's simply wild animals feeding themselves as they traditionally do and finding that food source is a part of hunting. If I supply that food source, well then that's something else that looks more like behavior modification and also starts looking more like farming than it does hunting. Again, that's a personal distinction that I make for my own hunting. I like hunting wild, un-messed-around-with, animals. Doc

That's weird.....Unless the dog was doing something off-screen, it looks like he was simply an "innocent bystander". The deer had to go quite a ways to get to the dog. The owner of the dog may or may not have had any warning about what was going on or what was going to happen. It does look like an urban location and probably not a place where people expect to find fawns and such. This is just another unfortunate result of wild animals moving into cities and other plases of dense human population. I just keep thinking that that could have been somebody's kid instead of a dog. Doc

Yeah, there is a difference in attitudes that make my reactions to them different. I do know a lot of people that simply don't care to participate in hunting themselves, strictly because their interests don't run in those directions. They are simply "non hunters" and probably make up the majority of the public. And then there are those flaming, in-your-face, people that will do everything to be-rate and belittle the activity and anyone who participates in it. And of course they generally use their most obnoxious ways of expressing themselves. I've encountered them, but can honestly say that none of them are considered as friends. Doc

In a moderate to heavy rainstorm, I do not hunt in the rain at all with my bow. It doesn't really have anything to do with scent conditions, but rather it has to do with the realities of having difficulties bloodtrailing under such conditions. However, as far as scenting conditions, rain is a mixed factor. Moisture enhances a deer's reception of scent, but a heavy rain will knock scent down in a short distance. So they can detect scent better in moist conditions, but are not as likely to encounter it during a rain. This is based on some info that I gathered on studies done with tracking dogs. By the way, serious dog runners seem to be the only people that really worry about understanding the workings of scent. I find it strange that scent marketers and scent-proof clothing and chemicals manufacturers don't seem to have published anything on the properties of scent but there are hound organizations that have done some significant studies that are directly transferrable to the way deer recieve and process scent, and how various conditions impact their use of scent. But anyway, getting back to your question, I tend not to hunt in the rain, but I will say that I have seen a lot of deer movement during drizzly wet days when I did get caught out there, and it always seems to me that the deer are walking around in some sort of funk, or really don't seem to be at the top of their game. Also, scent broadcasting range is shortened considerably during a rain. A hunter can take advantage of that and with a gun where you have a better chance of a short bloodtrail that probably makes a good reason to be out there, rain or shine during gun season. Of course being a creature concerned with my own comfort, I try to avoid rainstorms from that standpoint too..... lol. There is a lot to be learned about the physics of scent and how it moves through the woods. I'll never understand why there is not more info published throughout the hunting community on a subject so central to what we do. However, I have noticed that when you ask detailed questions about the characteristics of scent and the effects of external factors on scent molecules, nobody seems to know anything at all about it. But if you are interested in the subject, check out what experts on tracking dogs (bloodhounds, search dogs, cadaver dogs, etc.) have to say. They seem to have taken the subject a whole lot more seriously that we hunters. Doc

And as I understand it Paladino is a pro-gun candidate. I always have a hard time with these choices because in the past, I have had the candidates that seemed to say all the right things all turn out to be liars. Even some that ran with Conservative endorsements turned out to have a huge wide liberal streak. Here comes another one speaking all the right words. What do you all think of this guy? ....... any thoughts? Doc

I an amazed that after all these years I still have not developed a check list. I should put that on my "must do" list. Doc

I can only tell you what I think I have seen over the years. Back when I first started hunting, we only concerned ourselves with hunting deer as we found them. It never occurred to us to try to change the species to accomodate our success. Today we want to feed them. We want to grow them. We want to farm them. We want to genetically alter them. We want to do everything to create opportunities for our current definition of must-have trophies. We don't want to seek the one or two large deer that are out there, we want to try to make enough them to go around. It all boils down to the fact that we don't like the species as it is being presented to us, so we want to make our own and a whole lot more of them so they are easier to get. Another change is that we have come to believe that we can buy our trophy. If not directly by engaging in pay-to-hunt ranches, then by buying some gadget or gimmick or buying some piece of clothing or scent killing chemical. We have come to believe that we can buy a new super weapon that will eliminate some of that challenge, or buy some call or lure or scent that will deprive the deer of some of their defenses. We can buy fences, bait and bait broadcasters, minerals and food supplements, hidden cameras, etc., etc. And by the way, I'm not sure when all this started. I think it is not all new. But the emphasis and obsession on these things has accelerated in the last decade or two and still seems to be accelerating wildly just as fast as technology will allow. Thats what hunters have evolved into as I see it. Is all that good or bad. I suppose we all have to figure that out for ourselves. There will be no universal agreement on that. Doc

I generally monitor the weather forcast for predicted wind direction and choose my stand accordingly. However, I couldn't tell you all the times that I have gotten up the hill to my stand and found out the weatherman was wrong. Not only that but the weatherman is sitting up there 35 miles away in Rochester talking about what the wind is expected to be doing up there in that flatland country. That is not always the same thing that it is doing down here in the hils and valleys. But even worse than finding out the wind is totally in an unfavorable direction, is the wind that is see-sawing back and forth or circling. There's been quite a few times when I have been watching those thermals working through the ravines and other features of the hill-country, sending the breezes in several different directions including those where I expect the deer to be coming from. When that happens, you really have no choice but to just pack up and head for another stand that has more stable wind direction. I would rather give up a morning or evening's stand than to sit there in a bad wind direction or condition, alerting every deer that comes to the stand that I am there. That tries to happen a lot, and without my string, I would never know that some of these more gentle breezes are sending my scent out across or up the trail that I am watching. I have another little trick hidden in my pack. When ever I run across some milk-weed pods, I generally stuff them into a zip-lock bag and throw that in my pack. The individual seeds in a moderate breeze will almost act lighter than air. Letting a few of them go will send them on a pretty long voyage that you can watch and learn from. You would be amazed at what happens to wind direction as you get away from your stand. I have watched some of those seeds head out and then all of a sudden take a 90 degree turn and head off down the trail. A word about scent out of a treestand. I know that we assume that when we are elevated, our scent generally stays above the deer. Back in the days when I used to smoke and I was still using treestands, I always watched the cigarette smoke because I knew that the same breezes that carried the smoke also carried my scent. The smoke really didn't stay up high. It never did anything predictable actually. But quite often it went out a ways and began to sink just like any molecules that are subject to gravity. And it didn't take a real long time for the smoke (and my scent molecules) to get down to ground level. Another thing I noticed was that damp days sent the smoke (and presumably my scent) downward quicker. So elevated stands do not mean that you can ignore wind direction or the subtleties of thermals and stray breezes. I suppose if you are up 20 or 30 feet, it may take long enough for the scent to reach the level of a deer's nose, perhaps to the extent that it is substantially diluted and dispersed. I'm not sure of that. But my stands averaged 10' - 15', and it didn't take a great amount of time for the cigarette smoke to get down there, and the plume of smoke was still pretty well in tact. There are still alot of things that I have to learn about the science of scent. A while back (maybe it was even on the old forum) I asked a whole bunch of questions about the physics of scent and the way it adhered and transferred and diffused and other things like that and the topic went nowhere. I may repeat some of those inquiries again because I think that scent-stuff should be of great interest to hunters. Of course none of this has anything to do with the topic, but it just came up so I figured I would put my 2 cents in . Whew!!! there I go again writing a novel ...... sorry. Doc

The scenario that you are describing actually exists in a lot of areas. And to make matters even worse, a lot of those exact areas also have a shortage of antlerless permits, so the doe harvest alternative is not likely to be an option. In other words, in those kinds of WMUs, you are given a likely result of paying your money and being almost guaranteed of getting absolutely nothing. And that may go on for an indeterminant number of years. Also, I believe that after a buck has been around for an extra year, he does start getting to be an animal that takes a significant amount of extra time and effort. Generally that's a good thing in terms of putting extra challenge in your hunt for those that can. But I am also mindful of novice hunters that we are trying to coax into becoming permanent, life-long hunters who may actually get frustrated right out of the sport under the scenario you described. I also think about the aging hunter who simply may not be physically able to hunt as hard and as long and as intently as he once did. Are we kicking him out of the sport prematurely by forcing him to live under our own challenge choices. And then there is the guy who is stuck with mandatory overtime and is forced to choose between unlimited hunting time and his livelihood. Maybe the best he can work out is a couple of days of hunting for the whole season. I think there's a lot more people in that situation today than ever before with all the downsizing and the demands that those left behind take on the responsibilities of those that were downsized over the past decades. How enthused is he going to be about buying a license and recognizing that realisticly he probably won't really have an opportunity at a legal buck. There are places where AR simply doesn't belong and in fact runs us the risk of accelerating our hunter losses. What that tells me is that an AR program has to be intensely managed and evergreen to be able to change with herd population changes. When I look at today's resource starved DEC, I fail to see any opportunities for taking on any new extensive management responsibilities. In fact I think I am seeing where they are struggling with the basic management duties that are already on their plate. Doc

Naw! I was just trying to be funny. I know our lady members aren't bothered by these kinds of remarks, and I'm sure the day you are, there's not a one of you who can't give as good as you get. ;D Doc

There really is some amazing info in that one article. Especially the graphic that shows the population density changes over the years. I'll have to spend a bit more time there reading. It's a huge article. Doc

You might be right. When I look at the actual stats of 73% of all hunting injuries involve hunters not wearing blaze orange, It's very difficult to believe that a very high percentage of people actually do wear blaze orange. However I will say that in all my years of hunting (which are considerable), I have only seen three people that did not have at least some blaze orange. Maybe there were a bunch that I never saw .... lol. So, in our area at least the common sense approach to hunting safety is being adhered to by an overwhelming majority of hunters. And yet that 73% figure still exists. As to why I come down so hard on those that scoff at the value of B/O, I will admit that the three people that I ran across that didn't wear blaze orange were actually people who were wearing full camo including face paint. These guys actually startled me a bit when I realized that I was well within shotgun range before they actually got my attention by waving or in one case I finally saw him. I saw guys doing their best to be shot. I look at that kind of behavior, and simply cannot help but call it exactly the way I saw it those three times and still view it today. It is just plain stupid. I don't know any other way of describing it. The only reason these guys have survived (as far as I know) is simply that a deer hasn't happened to pass between them and another hunter. How smart is that to put your life on the line like that, for a deer? Especially when it isn't even necessary. I will admit that I am a pretty straight talker, and don't always curb my language when I see someone doing something that isn't exactly what I would call smart. Maybe that's something I should work on, but I really don't want to be dishonest about my feelings when it comes to matters of safety. To me, it is not an issue of freedom. We're not exactly pulling off a tea party here. We're talking arms and legs being blown off, and lives being destroyed as well as the family collateral damage that I have spoken of. I take that stuff seriously and sometimes I may be a bit blunt at times. I am on the verge of letting this subject go because I think I have said just about all I have to say, and I think I have supplied enough data to back up my position for anyone who had enough interest to read it. But I thought is was necessary to address why I come on so strong on this issue because I am aware that some of my comments are a bit strong and blunt. But every message like the ones you and Bubba have posted just make me see even more clearly why a B/O law is so important and why it is a law that definitely should be enacted. Doc

No, you're right. This has gone too far, and is now bordering on silly. I guess I have said everything I can on the subject. I have even re-typed data and provided links to information, and it is obvious that at least one here is simply entrenched in his opinion and totally uneffected by any of that. When a guy refuses to scroll up and read actual facts, discussion of any sort with him is crazy. So I guess this has gone far enough for me. I can only say that I am completely behind any kind of mandatory B/O law and will try to convince anyone who will actually listen. It's more than just an opinion with me. It's something I firmly believe would save lives and limbs and the data cited backs that up. That is the one reason I have stuck with the subject for this long. But the time has come to recognize that nothing is being accomplished here and it's time to move on. Doc

And yet, there is Cornell heavily investing into contraceptive style deer population control studies. I'm not saying that they will be successful or that they are going to come up with a practical means of non-lethal game management. But then I'm not so foolish as to swear that they won't either. And if the day should ever come that hunters are unable to keep up with the task of trimming the herd, there will be even more pressure to develop alternatives (from all of the anti-deer financial forces). That's why I said that I would just as soon they didn't even try. doc

The backpack contains different things depending on whether I am bowhunting or gun hunting. My gun ground stands usually have some built in seat (a few rocks stacked up or chunks of log so a stool isn't required normally. However, a lot of my gun-standing is designed around spending all or most of the day, so a large thermos of coffee, and a sandwich or two is in that pack. Also, most of the heavier clothing is in there too as I tend to dress fairly lightly on my way into the stand and I get dressed with the heavy stuff when I get there. Also, we have binoculars, a compass, toilet paper (for blood-trailing purposes of course) Latex gloves for the gutting task that is sure to occur. A plastic bag for the heart and liver. A drag rope, flashlight, a pen, my half of the walkie-talkies if I am hunting with someone. I think there are a lot of other things that I am not remembering. My back-pack gets sort of like a woman's purse. You can find just about anything in there you need to live. The pack typically on a bow hunt is pretty much the same stuff except the food and coffee isn't required because I head back to the house around 11:00 or so for breakfast. A stool generally is packed for a bowhunt because I like to have a good seat to shoot from if I should get caught sitting down and have to shoot from that position. My bow stuff also includes a grunt tube or the can, and of course my rangefinder. I also carry some thread to hang from a nearby limb so I can monitor the wind direction as it swirls around covering every direction around my stand. Sometimes if I can remember it, I pack my camera for taking pictures of that huge trophy buck that I am sure that I will be getting. And again, whatever clothing I can pack instead of wearing is jammed into that pack to keep from getting sweated up on my way in. Here again, there are probably a lot of things that I am not remembering, but these are the things that immediately come to mind. Doc

Your over here raving too???? Look, over at the right of your screen there is a thing called a scroll bar. Use your left mouse button and move it up just about two replies and you will find a chart that should make you understand the importance of blaze orange during gun seasons. I can't make it any easier for you ..... I really can't. Now assuming you can read english and understand what percent signs mean, the message should be pretty clear, even to you. As far as the clothing manufacturer's comment, that is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve a comment. Doc

Don't we wish ...... but reasonable thinking people understand that that is not the case. We can come up with a lot of reasons for not using common sense safety equipment, and I suppose if your life or various parts of your body means little or nothing to you or your family then maybe these reasons start to take on the highest priorities for you. We have already discussed endlessly the fact that no private land is "trespasser-proof", but some really don't want to think about those kinds of things . So I'm sure that until or if blaze orange becomes a legal requirement we will still continue to hear lame excuses for trying to become a target during gun season. It's too bad that it takes a law to make people do what 90% of all hunters already recognize as an act of sanity, but this post and a few others are pretty good advertisements for the need for a B/O law. Doc

I always get nervous when they start screwing around with contraceptive approaches to deer population controls. It has always been comforting to hear that such activities are not practical, but I long ago learned that nothing is impossible. We are constantly surprised with technological advances that finally achieve the "impossible". The implications of this kind of research is important in light of hunter populations shrinking. I often think that the only reason we are put up with is the fact that there is no other way of controlling deer herds. It would be in the interest of hunting that things stay that way. Doc

Yeah, I should hang sandbags all over my 12 guage. Maybe that would tame it down a bit. ;D Makes it a bit tough to carry through the woods though. That's why I wanted the rifle bill to go through in southern Ontario County (with mixed feelings of course). I had it all planned how I was going to get a nice little .243 or some such light recoil thing and practice until my trigger finger got tired. Well maybe next year. I love to shoot, but it just isn't as much fun when the gun is shooting back. For this year I will still be dragging old Betsey back out and hoping I can get away with the traditional three test rounds. Doc