Doc

Care to explain that comment?

This is an excellent question. How do they estimate the population? Anybody know? Doc

I have seen signs that occasionally they have it right and sometimes they just seem to be completely off the mark. It's almost a random thing, kind of like accidental success. Here's what it appears to me: It all seems to run in cycles. Remember the 80's and 90's? There seemed to be no controlling the herd. numbers went through the roof. Then they relaxed the permit system and everybody was in the woods with gobs of permits just falling out of their pockets. Then we started to hear loud complaints from hunters about deer scarcity. I mean LOUD complaints from nearly every part of the state. Permits numbers started to contract and now in most areas of the state, the complaining has slowed and herds are once again coming back. Anybody see a pattern there? It doesn't seem so much like management as crisis reaction and over-reaction. These are the things that make me a bit suspicious. Personally I think the same cycle could be maintained without any statistics at all, but simply reacting to what is being seen and heard. So if I seem to be a bit untrusting of the current management schemes, that is the reason. I do believe there are certain aspects of the system that could be improved. I think there are ways of cleaning up the "reporting rate" fiasco as per another thread. I also think that statistical methods are good as long as there is periodic physical verification, re-adjustment and re-calibration. Physical verification is not impossible or impractical. PA has done it through strategic infra-red photo fly-overs. No, they do not do an entire state at one time, and that is not necessary for statistical verification. It is merely a "spot check" to verify that the statistical management is still tuned up, on track and working ....... or not. I'm sure that the DEC is probably using the best statistical model that they can use, and they may even be using it properly as far as the pure science of statistics is concerned. However, I think there has to be an admission of the limits of statistics. We can't treat statistics like a religion and merely accept that it is infallible and never needs readjustment. Well, I suppose we can and simply live with the results. Doc

That would be something for the DEC to evaluate. I'm not for undue harrassment of hunters, and certainly that aspect would have to be looked at. But on the other hand, if we really don't mean "mandatory" when the law states that reports are legally mandatory then let's drop the pretense and say that reports are suggested. Because the way hunters are ignoring the law right now, they are treating it as a law that they will abide by only if they feel like it. This ignoring of that law is costing the DEC money right now. Field personel have to be pulled from more useful duties to run around the state surveying meat processors and taxidermists and other sources. Then they, or somebody, has to be paid to input the data into a computer and then the program has to run and finally they have a calculated reporting rate, which then, correct or not, gets entered into the harvest numbers and creates the calculated harvest numbers from which all other management decisions are made. It really is a very important and basic part of the whole management scheme that really needs to be gotten right. Doc

An excellent idea! No they could never afford a total state flyover, but a scientific sampling of certain strategic areas could go a long ways toward verifying their statistical, calculated numbers, or uncovering a need to clean up or re-calibrate their system. This would be the on-the-ground verification (well not exactly on the ground....lol) of their statistics that I have always been hollering about. I have always believed that statistical deer management systems can work, but only with periodic physical verification, re-adjustment and re-calibration to eliminate "data creep" over time. Doc

I noticed the same thing too. My assumption was that these are non-compliant hunters that the DEC found when they were doing their meat processor surveys in preparation for coming up with their "reporting rate" factor. If I'm right, then what that low number of arrests for "failure to report harvests" really shows is just how small of a sampling they really use. That's a real scary thought. If you do check with the DEC, let us know what they say. I would be interested to know if my theory is correct. Doc

That's some pretty good shooting. I think you're ready .... Doc

Those are all funny, but it is interesting how many of them really do apply. Doc

Youre worried about who knows you enjoy shooting? Just because you have a permit doesnt necessarily mean you own a handgun anyway. The list does not contain what handguns are on your permit, or even what type of permit you have. Its nothing more than a list of people that have permits, nothing more. Oh, and the internet isnt the only place this info is available. All I need is your address out of the phone book and I can find out what your house is worth, how much you pay in taxes each year, how much you paid for your house, then from there if I really want to do some digging I can find out how much you owe on your house, who the lein holders are, etc etc. If I want to pay for info, I can get your police records and lots of other data. I think the pistol permit list is fairly unobtrusive and nothing to be alarmed about. I think there is no purpose served in publicly identifying handgun owners. Whether I own a handgun or not is simply nobody's business. Further, what exactly is the purpose of making such information public? What useful need does that perform? What is the government trying to say to the public about handgun ownership? And finally, just because there are other ways for people to invade our privacy doesn't in any way justify adding to that long list, does it? I hope we haven't become so desensitized to having our lives involuntarily made so transparent that we are now welcoming new intrusions. Personally I am against this government sponsored public listing. My personal habits and activities should not be a subject of the freedom of information act unless there is some need for the public to be aware of those habits and activities. They have over-stepped their bounds (once again). The implication and apparent government opinion is that because we have handguns, the public has a need to be warned of the hazards that our ownership of those handguns may pose. That's an editorial stance that I don't particularly appreciate coming from the government. Doc

I guess if I had one, I'd probably use it. But then, it's not everyday that I am replacing scopes or setting up new guns. Plus, it's ok if I shoot up a bunch of ammo sighting in. That's just that much more brass I'll have fire-formed for reloading ..... lol. Doc

Well, we can't expect miricles can we? perhaps some day you will actually learn how to expand your ability to converse on multiple topics. But in the meantime, this was a good move for you. Baby steps ...... sometimes you just have to take baby steps.

What part of "The compound is easier than traditional only because of the let-off" wasn't clear enough in my previous post? I stated the obvious before pointing out all the reasons why a compound really is nearly identical to any other form of bow. That of course was the basis for including compounds into bowseasons originally. Of course nobody has even acknowledged all those points of similarity that I mentioned because none of those points of operation of any of the bows are anything like the operation of a crossbow. Of course everyone knows that but in a pro-crossbow position these features are rather inconvenient. That is the real criteria for the inclusion of compounds where the crossbow fails to measure up. I'm sure I am simply pointing out the obvious and none of this isn't something that crossbow advocates don't already know, but are afraid to admit. By the way, where are you coming up with all these percentages? 99% of all recurves don't have sights? That one sure sounds bogus and most likely the other percentages are concocted as well. Certainly anyone who does not have a sight on their recurve, it is simply because of a conscious decision to want to shoot barebow. I have shot with sights on recurves and without, and for those that don't already know, I can assure you that they are a huge assist in shooting accuracy, and always have been. Doc

If you don't have credible harvest reporting, how can you have a credible deer management system. We all know that harvest reporting is something that most hunters do only if it is convenient or only if they feel like it and most just plain don't do it. Even the DEC seems to admit that when they conjure up their "reporting rate" out of bits and pieces of field sampling. I'm going to repeat from long ago, the plan that I have proposed to anyone who will listen (including the DEC) that would get nearly 100% compliance with the mandatory harvest reporting laws. We got new people and a new forum, and a bunch of time has passed so I figured it was about time to see what everybody thinks of it today. First of all, you change the law so that every tag requires a report whether a deer was taken on it or not. Then we start using all the computerized data to make sure that everyone complies. First of all, the DEC computers know every license and permit that has been issued ..... right? It's in the computer already. That system exists already. Today harvest reports are done with computers whether it is the telephone computerized system or your own P.C. That system exists already. Now all Albany has to do is to do a data sort on tags issued, and harvest reports received and out pops all those that did not comply. That's a very simple software manipulation. So far not a single DEC hand has had to touch any data. No high-paid biologists running around from one meat processor to another or checking in on taxidermists, or running anywhere soliciting info to come up with this questionable "reporting rate". No expensive hand feeding all the data that they come up with manually into computers. No assumptions, estimates or guesstimates or factors or constants or potential errors due to data manipulation and analysis. Already money from the cash-strapped DEC has been saved. Put those guys back to work doing something more productive. OK, so now we have a list of non-compliant hunters. So what do we do with it. Automatic mailings go out explaining the fines or punishments for continuing not to comply along with a hard deadline. Punishments and fines are up to the DEC to figure out (hey, I can't do it all ..... lol). The letters give a phone number for contact if a hunter feels there's been some error. That phone number would be to a "real person", who can straighten out any problem or simply take the data then. If the hunter ignores the warning, then the fine and/or punishment go into effect. Make the fine or punishment adequate, and believe me there will be no more non-compliance. That's it. It's that simple. It may not be 100% perfect but it sure is better than the total non-cooperation of hunters is supplying today and takes no magic hocus-pokus statistical gymnastics to try to figure out how many reports are not coming in. OK, where is the problem with all that? So far I haven't heard one criticism that would indicate that this system would be worse than what we have right now. Doc

Phone books do not indicate possessions, hobbies, or pastimes. Doc

Actually, the jury is out as far as how effective they really are. You really don't see a whole lot of guys using them do you? If they were all that effective, you would see them on every bow, kind of like nearly every rifle and shotgun and crossbow have. I had one for tournament shooting years ago and it was pretty good in well lit shooting ranges and indoor ranges. Nothing like a rifle scope by any stretch of the imagination, but it did help somewhat. Needless to say it never went on my hunting bow. They are not the multi-optic, gas-filled, light gathering scopes that are commonly used on rifles, shotguns and crossbows or even close. Another thing if you can imagine it, just think of the difficulty of trying to keep a bow steady enough to use 8X magnification. It's not like you can drop down your bi-pod or get down into a prone position, or bench rest your bow on a downed log or something .... lol.

I believe I did speak about that when I said, "As far as instinctive shooting, either traditional bows or compounds can be shot that way as well as both can be outfitted with sights, so there is no difference there either." We used to have a category in NFAA competition called "Bare Bow" which was basically instinctive and most guys were using compounds when I was involved. By the way, I watched an exhibition shooter over at Creekside Gun Shop who did include an instinctive exhibition with a compound. Also I might add that sights on recurves are not exactly odd or rare. Doc

There probably is a particular time of day when it is more dangerous to be walking into your stand. That time of first light when all you can make out is shadows and movement is probably the best time to be sporting the brightest light you can get .... Ha-ha. That has to be the time when these guys that like to jump the gun are most likely to try to blow your head off thinking (hoping) that you are a deer. You're right, the best thing to do is get on stand early in the dark, or wait until there is plenty of light. That in-between time is pretty darn hazardous. Doc

For quite a few years, traditional archery was the only way I hunted. I've done both and for a lot of years. What I found out was that both traditional and compounds require the same dedication to shooting form and execution. The compound is easier than traditional only because of the let-off. Every other shooting feature is identical. Consistancy in anchor, draw length, back tension, bow arm position, stance, sight picture, muscle alignment in both arms, Hand position and bow grip, follow-through, hand torque control, and a whole pile of mental control features are all required in order to shoot any bow. Longbows, recurves, and compounds all require the same disciplines. There are a few features about traditional equipment that are actually superior such as the light weight of the bow, and overall reliability. As far as instinctive shooting, either traditional bows or compounds can be shot that way as well as both can be outfitted with sights, so there is no difference there either. Releases for both can be mechanical or fingers. Let-off is the absolute only positive difference. And if you're a finger shooter, let-off is a negative in terms of achieving a consistant crisp release. It also can be a negative in terms of follow-through and torque. So yes each type of bow requires exactly the same disciplines as far as successful accurate shooting. Those of us who have spent years shooting both understand that. Doc

The whole whitetail management system relies on numbers. The harvest numbers, determine the antlerless permit numbers. As best as you can determine through observation and logic, and considering the data aquisition methods, what's your opinion as to how accurate those numbers are? In your area do they have it about right? Doc

Relative to whether I trust the DEC numbers or not ....... I do not. I will start another thread that involves that topic. I think it's an interesting question. Doc

I used walnut shells and it seemed to work good. They came out as shiny as new brass. I've never tried the corncob stuff but I'll bet it works just as good. The only problem I had was that I had to do an extra careful inspection because sometimes the media would get stuck in the case. Doc

Well sits.... I see that you finally took my advice and tried a post or two that isn't your same old tired "We need crossbows!! .....We need crossbows!!". This is a fairly lame topic, but I will at least give you credit for trying to show you have something of interest besides crossbows. Hoo-ray for you! Keep trying, you'll get the hang of it. Doc

By the way, everyone keeps talking about crossbows for the infirm like there is no physical effort in using them. That 150 # or so still has to be cocked doesn't it? And also I keep hearing about how heavy they are and how awkward. It seems like those that are pushing crossbows have the longest list of why they are a foolish choice of weapons and how difficult they are to shoot. But anyway, it would seem to me that anyone having physical difficulties with their bow might better go get one of those 99% let-off bows that Steve is always talking about. Of course for some reason I have never seen one for sale locally and there is some reason why that particular let-off feature has not been adopted by almost all bow manufacturers. I don't think it is a hot seller .... lol. Also since he and others are always talking about how easy it is to shoot compounds, I'm still trying to see why anyone who is physically challenged would even want one. Frankly, when I get in that condition, assuming I can still even get around, I will most likely opt for the smarter choice .... a gun. Doc

Actually, to a lesser extent, I have also heard the same kind of changes on private lands in our valley and hilltops. There seems to be the traditional craziness of opening day or at least opening half-day and then it gets real quiet for the rest of the season. It's kind of like hunting only holds the interest of these guys for a few hours and then if nothing happens they all go home. That is a massive change from the 60's and 70's and some of the 80's. I remember you could actually track the progress of a buck across the woods by the shots. The woods was thick with hunters and when they got cold, they didn't go home, they simply got up and started still-hunting. That kept the deer moving throughout the day. And yes, the weekdays were quite quiet, but every weekend was another big day. Thanksgiving morning is not the big day that it used to be either. Something is really changing. Doc