Doc

So anyway, is there some way we can salvage this thread?

My gosh are you still going it. Relax buddy. You're going to have a stroke or something. I thought you were all set. I already said you could have the last word, and that's always made you a happy Bubba before. My goodness if you say you don't teach your whacked out ideas about blaze orange in your classes, I believe you. You wouldn't lie to us. I don't need to see any copy of your certificates. I'm sure your a good instructor. Here's what you can do. Post one more reply and then you can say that you had the last word again and we'll have a happy Bubba and all will be well in the world again. Doc

You guys really don't think that the occupants of rentals pay the same kinds of taxes (directly or indirectly) that landowners do. I have been on both sides of that situation, and the assessments for rentals do not go according to the actual numbers of occupants or anywhere near it and those properties per occupant are assessed a whole lot lower than single family residents. The landlord is assessed on the value of his building, not on the number of renters he houses. So when you look at who's using and demanding educational and municipal services vs. who is paying for them and how much, it's pretty easy to see who is getting the nearly free ride. Remember, we are talking taxes, so don't confuse the situation by adding in such things as equity and never mind what it costs those people to provide a roof and heat and walls and such. That's all irrelevant to the discussion of taxation. That is a problem or benefit of one's financial planning, not taxation which is what we are talking about here. If you want to see who is paying what in property taxes, you have to look strictly at assessments and how many families are splitting up the tax burden. Here's a simple example of one situation that I looked up. We have a house down the road which is about the same size, design, age, and value as mine. the assessments are within a couple hundred dollars and therefore the tax burden per property is nearly identical. That house has been subdivided and rented and houses two families that have school age kids crawling all over the place. So even if the house owner passes on 100% of his taxes, each of those two families is contributing only half as much to supporting the school and the local government as I am. That is how they are skating on the taxation. And there is nothing unique about this situation. The same principle applies whether it is a two family subdivision, or an official multi-story apartment complex. Nobody is assessed according to the number of occupants. They are assessed on building value. Also I might point outthat the more run down the tenement house is, the sweeter the deal from a taxation standpoint. Doc

How did they ever convince landowners that just because they hold a deed, that is supposed to indicate that you are rolling in dough and can take on the costs of running schools and local governments while those who rent skate out from under that little burden. That must have been some con job. It's just like I've always said, you never really own your land. You simply rent it from the government. And if you don't believe that just try witholding your property taxes some time, or building something without permission from the town zoning board. They have established your ever-increasing rent and still maintain control on what you are allowed to do with your property. That sounds like a government landlord to me. Doc

Actually, Jim Shockey put on a couple of episodes of The Professionals that actually turned the cameras around to chronicle some of the behind-the-scenes effort and activity, and it was quite impressive. And I have no doubt that every episode is a logistical nightmare, and a ton of editing and hours of just plain work. Those thoughts are kind of what Shockey implied when he said that producing hunting shows is not about recreation but is just plain work. More work than anyone not in the business can imagine. He really didn't paint a very enviable picture of the hunting show industry. He convinced me that I wouldn't want anything to do with it. If your videos are truly unique, creative, inventive and contain an episode here and there that gets outside the actual hunt and deals with some of the peripheral activities that are behind the scenes of the hunt, I'll be looking forward to seeing some of them. If they turn out to be simply a rehash of a decade's worth of old deer hunting shows, I'll pass. It's very easy on my end as the consumer. It's been getting very easy to hit the channel selector when I start seeing one of the boring shows begin to fire up....lol. Doc

I can't answer that question. I think it was the dumbest move that they have made in years. and I believe there is already some data that shows that it cost us hunters and fishermen. I don't think they even realize what damage they created because of the rush to buy lifetime licenses just before they began gouging the hunters. But we don't resolve one dumb move by the DEC by piling on with hacking on the harvest opportunities of those who have just endured the license fee larceny. That's kind of the upper-cut and right cross finisher.

Tiresome isn't it? I've learned that Bubba always has to get the last word in, so I simply let him. We do want a happy Bubba ..... right?

Yeah, it does sound like fun. Of course I am your basic cheap-skate, so I always worry about things like that. ;D

I'm curious as to how much scent one goes through with one or two or three of those dripbags. I know that stuff isn't cheap. Is the whole thing really worth doing? Doc

So now you all have a system where you must "hunt hard" to score a harvest. That's good because it satisfies what you need to get out of hunting. At the same time you have forced others to "hunt hard". Even those who don't have the where-with-all to do so. The old guy that simply doesn't have the stamina to "hunt hard" anymore ..... the novice who at a time when he needs the most encouragement may hunt hard but not effectively enough ....... The working man who has to struggle to get a vacation day or two and may be just as willing to "hunt hard" as you do but has to put the priority on earning a living instead. Do you not understand how AR can put undo hardship on people who simply don't have control over how hard they are able to hunt? I submit that in this time of an aging hunter population, and an ecomomy that has downsized its workforce and is favoring mandatory overtime for those that are left, and the absolute requirement that novice hunters be allowed some kind of reinforcement in order to stay in our ranks, AR may be just exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time. In the face of a shrinking hunter force, this is not the time to be throwing serious roadblocks in front of those who have decided to stay. Doc

Crap???? .......... Spew????? ...... baloney????? ;D I thought you were going to work.

Hell hath no fury like a woman dissed. ;D I repeat, "I have no opinion". Tim the Toolman had it exactly right! Doc

In my case, I do value a good set of antlers, but do not obsess over it. As I get older, I have learned that I do not have to eat venison to survive. My livelihood or standard of living is not impacted by whether I get the heaviest rack in the woods. I don't value friends that judge me by my hunting accomplishments. I prefer to hunt as a competition with my prey and not a competition with my fellow hunters. I am never going to be one of those hunter-heroes on TV or even want to be. I prefer not to measure hunting satisfaction in inches. I would rather my hunting become something much more complex than just demanding that my harvest be recognized by some record book organization. I have looked back at what hunting has meant to me, and peer recognition has never been any part of it. I not only hunt deer, but I hunt squirrels, and predators, and that is all hunting too. And you know what, there is no record book agency to satisfy with squirrells or foxes or coyotes. There's no measurement. There's no competition to get the biggest. Why should deer be any different? It is all hunting and all means the same to me, and always turns out to be a much bigger experience than laying a tape measure on some deer's antlers. I think that over all these years that relaxed aspect to my hunting has served me well and kept the whole thing in perspective and made the whole activity fit the true meaning of recreation. Doc

It's a real shame that this topic got off to such a bad start because I do believe that the subject as suggested by the thread title is a very interesting one. I believe that hunting has and is undergoing massive changes in terms of what it all means to those that participate in it and how we view hunter satisfaction and how we accept or wish to remove some of the challenges of hunting. Some changes are good and a lot of them are not so good. Some of that is being reflected in our slipping hunter population. I think it is a subject that maybe should be started over with a little calmer, less incendiary view of the subject. Have any of you noticed attitudes, methods, goals, etc. changing over say the last 20 or 30 years? If so are those changes good bad or indifferent? Doc

I agree but when does science go out the window and opinions take over. Im not saying that they should take the poll data and directly use it to make law, but what the people want should be taken into consideration. I just said that they could stop the bickering by asking the same exact question of everyone that hunts, not just 500 or less people. Just a comment on this little wrinkle on the topic: I agree that on something of this nature, the opinions do reflect the potential hunter satisfaction, and in light of our declining hunter numbers, it is probably a good idea that the DEC at leasts surveys hunter opinion on AR as regards it's current acceptance where it is being experimented with and those that may be facing hunting under such restrictions in the future. Also, I agree that the subject is important enough to warrant as close to 100% surveying as possible ....... and we all know there are ways of doing that. Doc

Thank you! I was getting dizzy from all these contradictory numbers flying back and forth without any sources being given. I guess I will take the DEC's word for it as being the least biased. After all, as far as I know they have no axe to grind on the issue. Doc

The following disclaimer to the ladies that are forum members: Please note that "Doc" is not entering into the latest turn of this topic. I have nothing to do with it, and (as Tim the Toolman used to say) "I have no opinion" on the subject of lady hunter hosts.

I always assumed it had to do with the climate differences. It seems that the northern zone has its own special weather conditions with intense winters. Some may involve traditional lake effect areas where snow levels are normally way different than the rest of the state. But I will have to admit that I have never heard an official explanation. Doc

What we see is a lot of, "I saw this" and "I saw that" and "I remember how it was and now it is so much better". These are the same things we have all said at one time or another about places that have never had AR. I'm not saying that they are wrong, I just do not see this as very convincing scientifically gathered data. That is something that I have been complaining about all through this thread and others before it. Personal observations and anecdotal evidence that one gathers just among their own aquaintances is not really proof that anything is really working or isn't. The system has been in effect long enough so that at least the beginnings of trends should be showing up in actual official harvest data, wouldn't you think. I wouldn't think that the judgement of success or failure should still be relying on personal, extremely local, single-point, observations. Some of the info is hard to get simply because it hasn't been publicly documented, but certainly harvest data for each WMU is available. Why isn't anyone quoting harvest changes from before AR and now with AR. I have caught little pieces of such data in some articles that I have read and I must say that I am not impressed. For those that are really trying to convince someone that AR works, I would have thought that a long time ago they would have been shoving their statistics of success at everyone. But no ...... that has not happened. Instead we hear what this individual saw or what that individual saw, or here's a picture of some big deer or, I know a buddy that saw this and such. How many pages to this thread now and unless I missed it, no real pieces of data. .......... How come??? Doc

No, I don't think you understood what I was getting at. If it is decided that we need an AR law and that it shouldn't apply everywhere in the state, it does require some resources and planning and administration to determine what WMUs are appropriate and which are not. It is another system to be managed. The DEC can't even handle what's on their plate now because of slashed budgets and resource starvation. How are they supposed to take on more? Just curious. Doc

It actually bothers me that your response was not really an actual denial. Does that mean that you do spew that "B/O is a gimmick" nonsense in your classes and I just haven't been there to hear it? Perhaps we have evidence of a need for better screening in instructor selection. Well, as usual, you have decided against intelligent discussion and have simply been reduced to flopping on the floor, frothing at the mouth, blindly and mindlessly lashing out with the attempted pointless lame insults. Conversation with you is actually quite a waste of time. Why bother? In fact I guess I won't. .......By the way, some day when you don't feel quite as close-minded, do yourself a favor and read the material in those links that I provided. It won't hurt you I promise and you might find out that a little education in what you are trying to talk about is not always a bad thing. Doc

What criteria would you use for imposing AR or not? Who would cough up the resources for administering yet another management responsibility and making the ever changing decisions as to whether AR is appropriate each year? Some interesting questions when we are talking about an agency that can't even afford to keep its law enforcement staff intact. Doc

What I specifically want to see in hunting videos is not near as important as what I don't want to see anymore. Hunting TV programming has gotten so predictable and stale that I could write the story-line for everyone of the shows. They never change. First we spend some time in the car or airport and the hunter-heroes arrive. Then we take care of the introductions where the outfitter or camp gets their plug. Then a brief over-view of the ranch that will be hunted (more of the plug). Then there we are looking at the back of the head of the hunter-hero in the treestand. We watch a few heavy racked bucks wander by that they claim are just not ready for harvest yet. Then it happens. The obligatory statement. "Oh-oh ....... here comes a shooter. Then starts the funky 70's music as the buck gets closer and closer. Then the shot and the deer runs off with 7/8 of the arrow sticking out of the near side of some non-vital part of the deer. Then comes the blood trailing which is done at a brisk walk with only an occasional glance at the ground. Finally all the back-slapping and high-fives as they come on the deer mysteriously now in the pitch dark or the next day. The gun hunting shows are even worse in terms of boredom and unchanging story-line. Do I ever want to see another one of those brainless portrayals of hunting again? ........ Not on your life. Something happened back when the TV shows began. Every ounce of creativity and imagination some how got sucked out of the directing and production, and has never moved forward again. It really is like watching re-runs. Different deer, different hunter-heroes, but the same old tired story and action. They really have become just about as boring as some of those lame professional bass fishing shows. : So, the first thing I want to see change in hunting TV programming and video production is some recognition that hunting actually has some depth and variety to it. 90% of hunting and hunting related subjects have not yet been shown in any detail. Acknowledge that there are other aspects to hunting a few of which I outlined above. Use some creativity in the production and planning of these shows. Other areas of audio-visual products apply some out-of-the-box thinking, why doesn't the hunting video industry? Sure, I could go on and on, but I'm sure you get the idea. Doc

First of all, that nice big new word that you're so proud of finally learning has been around longer than you, and I am familiar with the meaning. : I am glad that you are working on your vocabulary and take such joy in learning a new word but you are quite a ways behind me on that one. As far as taking part in the hunter education program, I have assisted in a whole bunch of sessions, and I understand that there is nothing in there that says that blaze orange is mandatory. That would be incorrect ....... obviously : Did I ever say that the law is currently any different? I thought that's what we were talking about. As far as calling stupid behavior what it is, I can only tell you that when it comes to hunter safety, I do take the subject very seriously and generally do speak my mind about it (not always in politically correct terms). Especially when I have data such as I provided and that apparently you will not or can not read. Further, I do get a bit testy when I find out that someone who is spewing such nonsense is out there teaching youngsters that blaze orange is a "gimmick". Perhaps it is wrong to point out stupidity, but I have never really been able to just ignore it, particularly when it involves hunter safety. Sorry, but I generally try to be clear and never leave you wondering what's really on my mind. Doc

So now lets add a whole other dimension to the same problem.