Doc

It's not the situation in the Northern Zone that bothers me about the proposal set up an iron clad rule to max out the doe take to one per hunter. I'm guessing that the weather in most of the Northern Zone is probably a self-regulating factor when it comes to deer over population. However, I have seen herd populations where such a change would simply hamstring the DEC to the point where they couldn't control the population adequately in many areas of the southern zone. What makes me say that is that I remember the size of the herd back in the late 80's when I personally witnessed the huge deer yards at the southern end of Honeoye Lake. I saw the stripped woods all up and down the east lake road where habitat was destroyed for several years, and in fact has not fully recovered even today. I remember having to almost push deer out of the road because they hardly had enough energy to move by themselves. I remember seeing hundreds of snow covered mounds out in the fields that each represented a starved deer. Also there was images of dead deer hanging on the fences that simply didn't have the strength to clear them with their back legs because of starvation. That was about the time that the DEC started to issue multiple tags. A little late, but at least they had the necessary tool of the DMP system. Multiple DMPs are a necessary tool if we are going to insist that the DEC do it's job. It would be a real shame to take away that one and only measure that they need to use to control the population. I think the DMP system is one of the best things that the DEC ever came up with (and it's probably not something that originated in NYS). We may want to push for the better use of the system but certainly not ditch it entirely. The phrase "throwing out the baby with the bath water" comes to mind . As far as the one buck system, I wouldn't be all that upset about implementing that. I don't think it would have any significant impact, but without knowing how many people really do harvest more than one buck, I can't really say one way of the other. Doc

Lol ....... who can really tell what's going through the minds of those silly goats? I don't think they really know what the heck they are doing themselves ;D . Human urine ...... deer urine ...... I don't suppose it really matters to them. Doc

Or the interpretation of the judge.

I think it is the Super Sportsman that you are thinking of. The Sportsman licence does not get you archery and muzzleloading priviledges. I believe that is how it works. Doc the nit-picker

There is only one problem that I have with the system of game laws and other laws as well. I had to buy a 2 volume copy of environmental conservation law in order to find all the laws that govern our outdoor hunting, fishing, and trapping as well as the other outdoor activities regulated by the DEC. Each of those volumes is 1-5/8" thick. That is the 1984 - 1985 edition, and I'll guarantee that each volume is a lot thicker today, and perhaps they have even added another volume by now. It might be a bit rude, but I'm afraid I would have to call BS on anyone who claimed to know all that info (and that includes those who are responsible for administering and enforcing conservation law). Piled on top of all that is the vagueness of interpretation of most of what is in there. So vague in fact that a lot of the stuff contained in those law books will get you a whole variety of different interpretations depending on what judge or ECO you are speaking with. So the problems I have with violations is when they get so numerous and so undefined that you are guaranteed to be unknowingly breaking some law almost everytime you go afield. Yes, legally speaking, ignorance of the law is no excuse, which is another way of saying, "what you don't know can hurt you". Doc

This thread has the potential for spinning off a whole bunch of side topics such as the bait controversy above. All these things that members may consider examples of ethical decisions and quandries. However, I don't believe that the DEC opposes baiting or feeding based on ethical considerations, or at least I have never heard them explain the feeding and baiting laws based on ethics. Whether you agree with those particular laws or not, the only DEC problems with the practice that I have ever heard relates to herd health. When it comes to the differences between food plots and bait, I would guess that they would argue that there is a world of difference between the two as regards the concentration of feeding and depositing body wastes and fluids by the deer. Even a small food plot does not concentrate deer feeding activity any more than any normal agricultural activity, where baiting and feeding force deer to stand at exactly the same isolated spot (within a few feet or even much less), constantly feeding in exactly the same spot where other deer have deposited urine, feces, and saliva. Now, when I think of baiting or feeding, I am picturing a pile of food or a small tight broadcast area either of which practically or actually force deer into the same footprints. That is nothing like food plot feeding or ag crop feeding. It may sound like a fine distinction, but in terms of actual disease transmission, it is a big difference. I realize that someone is going to pipe up and note the time that they watched a couple of deer grazing nose to nose. I've seen that happen too, and I know it does happen. However that occasional nose to nose accidental contact is still a whole lot different from the bait or feed pile that guarantees that that will happen every time and with an entire local herd involved. No, you cannot change the occasional social behavior of deer to eliminate all such contact, but there is nothing good that can come from purposely making that happen by design. So, I really don't think that this issue falls under the "I hate ethics" rant that Nugent was having, because it's not a regulation based on ethics at all. Doc

I don't think anybody believes that insurance companies are in jeopardy of going out of business, but if they do not take part in lobbying for things that will cut their costs, they would be the first industry that I have ever heard of that didn't. My guess is that they are always interested in having outgoing funds staying in their own pockets. As a matter of fact, the DEC on their own web-site talk about "motorists interests" as being one of the stakeholders that's eligible for inclusion in the CTF on establishing deer density goals for the DEC. I don't know, but I don't think they are talking about the AAA or Slick Charlie's used car lot. Doc

Well, like I suggested, maybe something has been badly taken out of context, or maybe he just has a different definition of "ethics" than I do, but I view ethics as a personal code of right and wrong. I would hope that no one is trying to convince others that you should not have that in your make-up whether it relates to hunting or anything else they might get involved with. I don't get it. I'm hoping that that particular rant was merely an introduction to a larger point that he was about to make. Doc

I quit 2/18/08. I used Chantix. What I'll never know was whether it was the Chantix or just a sudden resolve to quit. The fact that my wheezing at night almost kept me awake might have help a bit too....lol. The ugly crud that I was coughing up was another great incentive. I do believe that I quit just in time to save some serious health problems. However aside from the ridiculous cost of cigarettes today, I think the one thing for someone to think about before starting smoking is the fact that even today, that drug had such a hold on me that I still get some fairly strong urges to have a cigarette. Although it is a whole lot easier to get by those cravings, it is still amazing that after all these years it is something that I still have to continue to fight with. It is unbelieveable, but it can be one of the most ugly addictions to try to lose. The solution ........... don't start in the first place! That's not preaching because I remember how much I hated people constantly nagging me about my smoking. I'm simply relating my experiences with nicotine, and anyone can take it as just another story of an ex-smoker to be evaluated whatever way you want to. 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.