Doc

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

I don't know what this persistant offender thing is that you keep talking about. It is absolutely impossible to get through my posted line without seeing at least 3 posted signs. That was the criteria I used when putting them up. along the line, you are never out of sight of at least 3 signs. So anyone trespassing on that land even for the first time is willfully doing so and they know it. It is no mistake. I don't have to catch them more than once. They have decided to disregard the signs and I have decided to prosecute just as it says on the signs. Persistant offender be damned! Doc

If someone contacts me and asks permission to retrieve a deer, I will give them permission, and I may even escort them while they do it. I want to see the blood trail. My name & address are on the posted signs and I live on the property so that isn't a real hard thing to do. However, I will tell you that in the 40 years that I have lived there, no one has ever done that, so I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to ever happen. Those that do not ask permission, if caught, will be prosecuted. Doc

Yes, let's all be kind to trespassers ....... kind of an appeasement policy ..... lol. Don't be counting on any appeasement policies on my land. I do not reward lawbreakers. Doc

I have made an observation this summer that explains why our rabbit population has been so crappy when hunting season rolls around in recent years. I have a large area that is a ways away from the house that I mow. In early spring, I would see jillions of young rabbits out there eating as the summer progressed, I was seeing fewer and fewer, until now when I have only seen one on the last trip out there. In the middle of this field is a huge cherry tree, and one of the times out there, I think I saw the culprit perched up in the top of that tree. It was a big ol' redtailed hawk. I could see where rabbits out in the grass would be easy targets for him. So all this coincides with another thing that I have observed. That is the number of hawks that you can see just riding down the road. They seem to be everywhere, perched on electric poles and lines and such. I seem to recall sightings of hawks when I was a youngster being somewhat rare. I have also noted that our squirrell populations seem to be dwindling a bit too from what they used to be back when I was a kid. I'm wondering if these guys are having an effect on squirrells too. Also, like everywhere, the grouse numbers are way down from what they were years ago. Some impacts from hawks there too? What kinds of impacts do you suppose this unchecked quantity of hawks is having on the small game populations around the state? Doc

I'm not sure just who you guys are trying to convince and why. You are starting to sound like someone who is frantically trying to persuade people not to take away your AR. I'm not sure what your so afraid of. It sounds like the whole thing was a politically contrived arrangement, and it's not likely that the DEC has the stomach for going up against that sort of legislative pressure again. So as long as you keep your QDM lobbyists happy and strong, there is not likely going to be any movement to rescind AR in areas where it is currently. You can relax ..... ok?

That's kind of what I thought I remembered, but it has been a while and like I said the whole thing didn't make much of an impression on me at the time. So I was a bit fuzzy on my recollection. Thanks for the info guys. Sorry to interrupt the discussion. Doc

I understand what you are saying, and basically you are disputing the law that makes it illegal to feed/bait deer. There is a strong connection between the baiting law and the feeding law and both are illegal. I have a hard time arguing the validity of either law in that I don't personally have the resources or knowledge of the consequences of these acts like the DEC does. The fact is that none of us do. So I guess I am forced to side with the DEC on those issues regardless of whether the practices are used for hunting or for photography. Doc

ALL offenders are potential persistant offenders. I have zero tolerance when it comes to trespassers. They all seem to have one basic feature to their attitudes, and that is that the odds are in their favor that they will not be caught. And they are probably correct. There is also another growing reality among trespassers. That is that it is cheaper to trespass and run the risk of getting caught than it is to lease property of their own. In other words the fines (if in the unlikely event they actually get caught) are less than lease prices these days. So hunters have realized that they can have exclusive use of private land at much less cost than paying for a lease. I have no sympathy with those kinds of mentality whether they are persistant offenders or whether I just have never had the opportunity to catch them before. This idea of helping them drag their ill-gotten deer is absolutely ridiculous......sorry. Doc

I need a bit of a refresher on how the AR test areas came about in the first place. Was it a DEC decision, or was it some kind of legislative act? I'm afraid I wasn't paying a whole lot of attention back then and I just can't remember the particulars of how it all came about. Anyone remember? Doc

Isn't that amazing! I had to use scotch tape to keep mine from blowing out the window. Wait until that sucker has to be taken off. It'll be part of the window. Doc

I guess that's kind of a normal trait of hunters in general.

Yes, we go back and forth with competing articles, and conflicting stats, and all kinds of crazy interpretations of facts and figures, and my take is that probably none of us are equipped to understand any of it. In addition, it doesn't seem like anyone of any credibility really is interested in giving us something that is simple and definitive. There's probably reasons for that. However, what I can understand is that there is not unanimous opinion on AR among those that do have some level of credibility. So, the real question is why is there so much disagreement among those who really should understand all of it, those who make their living understanding such things, those who invested quite a few years of education so they could figure out what works and how and why? How come AR is not a universally accepted concept. In fact, why is it that most states do not have AR (even some of the noted Big Buck states)? What is the problem with this science that it encourages so much dissention among the experts? Is the science mature or not? It's certainly not a new concept. Personally, I think the DEC has a lot bigger, more important, things on their plate than worrying about antlers. I have always said that I believe that AR is a concept that sits way, way, way, down the list of priorities. I have seen nothing to change my mind about that. If the DEC has some extra money laying around, AR is probably one of the last things that I would like to see them spend it on. Doc

Of all the places where AR would pose the greatest amount of frustration, state land would be the ultimate. Look, state land is already pretty darned tough to hunt without throwing additional restrictions on the backs of those that hunt there. Not only that, but how would that stop all the whining. Most of those that are for AR are private landowners who want to force their neighbors to abide by their AR standards. Also, consider the enforcement implications of having these little spots in every county that has a different antler criteria. Do you suppose that the next governor is going to throw in some extra money to bolster the enforcement branch of the DEC that they have decimated?

No it's not "just a deer". It is a place that I often find campfires on. It is a place where I have had dirt-bikes and ATVs buzzing by my stand while I am trying to hunt. It is a place that I have found surveyer's tape strung through the woods so the trespassers wouldn't get lost. It is a place where I have watched trespassers wander through shagging all the deer out of the area while I tried to hunt. It is an area where a group of about 9 guys tried to set up a drive during gun season in a 1000' deep thicket that is between my house and the road (without permission of course). It is a place where my own trails have been pock-marked with deep horse tracks in the mud and covered with their horse-balls. It is a place where other people treat like their own as if they helped me out with the mortgage, or were somehow helping out with the taxes or the property maintenance. No, it's not about a deer, and I sure wouldn't be helping one of these free-loaders with dragging a deer off of land that they trespassed on. Those posted signs are there for what I consider mighty good reasons, and I have no sympathy for those that disrespect me or my wishes by ignoring those signs. And as far as I'm concerned, those people who set up stands on a property line without a real good reason are just trespassers waiting for an opportunity. Doc

I think a lot of those trees on property lines survive because there is generally a pretty good chance of old line-fences grown into them. Nobody wants to hit that with their chainsaw and nobody at the mill wants to encounter fencing or nails in the logs either. Ugly things can happen to chains and saw blades when that happens.

I don't know how they do it, (especially bucks with those antlers sticking out), but they do walk right through stuff that would tear a hunter to pieces. Down our way, we are currently being over-taken by huge thickets of multi-flora rose (the meanest, nastiest stuff on the planet). You absolutely cannot even begin to walk through that crap. But the deer can and do. I've seen the tracks. I firmly believe that that is the way some of these deer get so old and huge around here. Nobody is going to go in after them simply because they can't. And by the way, it doesn't take the pressure of gun season to put them in there. They just plain like it : . Doc