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.

Another logical and predictable outcome. Of course it's not like the penalties are too lenient .....lol. $200 -$2000 fine, possible year in jail, possible loss of hunting priviledges. Just another way for honest people to be turned into criminals for making a simple point-counting mistake.

I keep forgetting to go out town and pick up a copy. I might go out for supper tonite and stop in to get one. Thanks for reminding me.

Hunting pants???? ........ $100 ????? ........ how about a good pair of denim britches? Sorry, I know what you are talking about. I just don't wear them. I have some insulated long underwear and a pair of dungarees and I put the real money in what goes up on the top-side. I think I would be looking in Cabelas, BassPro, or Gander mountain for what you're after.

I believe that is true. You and others have decided that hunting should be measured in inches and that the sport of hunting and the people in it should be changed to accomodate that revision in measurement of satisfaction. Others of us try to make hunting a bit more than that. I do get the feeling that the activity of hunting gets a bit cheapened when it is reduced down to numbers and a demand that only an animal of certain stature is to be appreciated and pursued. It seems to me that there has to be something more to it all than that. For one thing, the numbers game signifies a competition with other hunters instead of with the animal itself. That may be ok to some extent. I have gotten involved with some light hearted rivalries of that sort with hunting partners, but that's all it was was light hearted rivalry. It never led me to trying to force them to hunt using my goals or to try to dictate what criteria they should apply to their hunting satisfaction. I find that strange behavior and really wish it was not part of today's hunting scene. Today this antler-mania has taken on a bit of a pushy look to it. It's not really a very attractive change in hunter persona. I see all kinds of no-holds-barred approaches to getting antlers at any cost, and AR is just a part of it all. Perhaps that is what the modern age of hunting is destined to become, and if so, perhaps that explains why some hunters have just decided that hunting is no longer worth doing. Doc

Sounds logical to me.

Well that never seemed to happen in the past (pre AR) when hunter population was higher than it is today (at it's peak) . However, I will agree that the TV set and the hunting video industry and now the AR proponents have been focusing on fixating hunters on expectations and downright demands they are complete failures if they don't collect some kind of "book-buck". Today it's quite easy to flim-flam the hunting public into thinking that what they see on TV is what AR would provide. And the pro-AR crowd is doing its darndest to promote such thinking and expectations. Probably in the long run these kinds of sales pitches may very well bring on the result you are talking about, with or without the adoption of AR.

Above are a few of the topics that I mentioned before that I would like to see covered. That's only a starter list. Primarily what I would like is anything that doesn't continually repeat the same old, word-for-word, exact, tired, story line, and chain of events decades, of decades past. Doc

So I guess the object is to make the harvesting of bucks as difficult as possible. Cut down on harvesting yearlings, while harvesting the older deer remains a rarity too. In short, the system is designed to cut the buck harvest. Eventually, you can frustrate a bunch more hunters right out of the season and eliminate even more deer being taken. I suppose that's a plan ....... of sorts ;D . I wonder if anyone worries about the younger hunters with little or no experience, or the older ones who can't hunt quite as vigorously as they once could, or disabled hunters, or the guy who only can get out there a couple days a year because of trying to earn a living. I listen to all these AR proponents talk of 'putting in their time', and being forced to hunt deer of someone else's choosing, and wonder if these people ever think about anyone but themselves and their own personal circumstances. And then there is the penalty for making a point-counting mistake which ranges from $200 - $2000 with up to one year in jail and possible revocation of your hunting license. Pretty darn steep for simply miscounting points. Let's all rush out and push through another law that makes a criminal out of a simple hunting mistake.

;D I could do that!!!!

Is that right? There's no legal minimum hunting age for hunting in PA????? So do they have any supervisory requirements, or do they just shove a gun in their hands and tell them to go outside and play? That seems a bit weird to me. Doc

One of the things that makes me a bit of a skeptic is the verification inaccuracies or it's probably better to say the potential inaccuracies. I have seen a lot of rut activity over the years, but I am also aware of how easy it is to miss being in the right place at the right time to witness or record changes in that activity. For example, I have seen the most obvious sign of rut activity where bucks are chasing does all over the woods. Usually none of that occurs on any trail, but rather is just a doe's panicked attempt to get away from the buck. On some of the same days that I have seen this craziness going on, My brother-in-law a few ravines over saw nothing. I have also had the opposite happen where he saw the action and I saw nothing. All the signs of rut are extremely local and sporadic, so for me to actually detect the exact day that some phase of rut commenced or spiked, gets to be somewhat coincidental. The other thing that I would have problems defining is whether whatever I saw was 1 unique happening or whether deer all through the woods are doing the same things. Another example is determining when the first scrape activity has commenced. I find a scrape ..... can I state with any certainty that that is the first scrape of the season? Can I assume that all the rest of the bucks in the woods have begun their scrape activity on that day or even close to that day? How many years or decades of observations does it take to be able to state exact dates and conditions when certain phases of rut have commenced and are indeed following some theory. Sounds like a pretty tough thing to document in stone to the point where the theory becomes fact. Can it even be done? What exactly is the proper scientific system for the verification process? I can concoct theories, but what army am I going to use to verify my theories? :-\ Doc

I took your advice, and here's what I found: Re: Do you wear Orange? If so why? If not Why not? « Reply #48 on: July 14, 2010, 09:12:22 pm » When huntng sate land, I wear orange. On private property no. ---------------------------------------------------------- « Reply #101 on: August 15, 2010, 05:53:44 pm » If you feel more secure in orange, so be it. If I feel secure in camo, so be it. ----------------------------------------------------------- « Reply #113 on: August 16, 2010, 06:03:11 am » I feel that bo is as big a gimmick as having the have the newest camo patterns to hunt. ---------------------------------------------------------- So, I think it's pretty clear that you do not wear blaze orange on private land. Further, you feel that blaze orange is a "gimmick". And apparently you feel perfectly secure in camo during gun seasons. What makes all this even worse is that you are a hunting safety instructor who is passing all this ridiculous garbage on to future hunters. That's frightening!! Doc