Doc

So, I will ask it here where it seems kind of relevant..... How does the DEC come up with hard numbers for deer population levels and densities? What is the procedure? What are the factors that they rely on to get those hard precise numbers? I think it will turn out that nobody knows. I wonder if the DEC does ..... lol. Frankly, I can't even imagine. Doc

There has been a few attempts at soliciting hunter input, such as the bowhunting log program and the grouse counting program, and there may be others. I am not sure how these programs are working out or what they are actually doing with the data, but they have been in place for a few years now. They are attempts at doing what you are suggesting, that is getting input from hunters. No it is not associated with licensing, and therefore does not capture 100% of the data, and perhaps that would be a useful thing to add...... Basically, a mini-survey when you purchase your license. It sounds like a pretty decent idea. Perhaps some of that would provide them with a bit of a "heads-up" when their statistical methods are beginning to creep away from reality a bit. Doc

Bill- I try not to come down too hard on the DEC because I do believe that for the most part they are trying to do the best they can with what they have. It's not an easy job, and for all the complaining that I do, I really don't know what the day-to-day difficulties are that they encounter as well as the frustrations. I do understand that we hunters are always expecting vibrant, forward thinking, evergreen activity and ideas, when the reality is that the department is getting gutted everytime we pick up the paper. Resources have been cut to the point where I really don't expect to see change probably within the rest of my lifetime. Another consideration is that we must understand the political nature of their position in government. The head of their department is a political appointment which makes the whole department beholding to the Governor. And none of these governors have ever been bashful about using that position. There are other politicians who also wield significant influence. So when it comes to pointing fingers of blame, it is really hard to figure out just who to point it at. So yes, I too will continue with the complaining and wishing things were a bit different, as will everybody else. But the reality is that it will really do no good and nothing will really ever change. In fact it likely will get a lot worse before it gets any better. And even if we could fire them all and replace them, I really doubt you would ever see much of a difference. Doc

It's true that as hunters, we are merely observers. I don't know anyone who actually attempts to apply any science to their observations and tries to make hard numbers out of what we see. Of course that doesn't mean that those people (the DEC)that officially do try to implement science and math and try to come up with hard numbers get it right either. One thing that I will say for hunter observations and conclusions is that they are the ones who are actually out there making on-the-ground field observation ...... in most cases they are the only ones. Not only that but many of us spend a lot of time out there in a year around fashion, and now a lot of us have cameras doing the leg-work for us even when we are not there. None of this is designed to arrive at pure numbers, but you certainly do get impressions of whether the deer numbers are up or down from previous years based on sign and actual observations. Also, hunters are intensely concerned with specific hunting areas, those areas that they hunt. That gives them a focused view that the DEC will never be able to achieve, even with their statistics. Another thing to remember is that the DEC statistical analysis is really only as good as the performance and observations of the hunters. After all, 100% of their input that feeds their statistical models comes from hunter successes. If hunters are getting a fouled up view of deer numbers then their results are likely to be equally fouled up. So no matter who is doing the counting, the hunters are the only key to accuracy. If they aren't right, then the DEC numbers aren't right. So, I wouldn't sell hunter opinion short. As long as I see deer populations taking the wild jumps up and down, it tells me that the management is a bit more "reactive" and less "predictive and proactive" than I would like to see it. There probably should never be an attitude of complacency ..... not by the DEC or us. There is always room for improvement. Doc

I clean each gun as soon after shooting as possible. Also, I generally will clean a gun if it has been taken out in wet weather, even if it only wiping it off and oiling it. Doc

Most likely. It's a bit like AR and some of the other hot-button issues .... lol. There is an unwritten requirement that periodically the crossbow issue has to be brought up, and the same old arguments have to be put forth over and over again. It's tradition. We have some trolls that are dedicated to always seeing that the new crossbow threads are created to keep the discussion alive. And of course when the B.S. gets a bit too deep, I am always available to jump in. Like I say, it has become a hunting forum tradition. Doc

When you say "primitive roots", are you speaking of a requirement for self-bows only with the stipulations of no modern glues or plastics or other modern bowmaking materials. Or perhaps you are talking about the longbow since it has an even more "primitive" design than the recurve. Would you like to eliminate take-down recurves? How about accessories such as arrows, releases (perhaps limited only to the Turkish thumb ring), modern string materials? Just where do you want to draw the line? You see none of that period-oriented limitation is a practical or reasonable way to define a bowseason implement is it? The fact is that we call it bowseason not primitive weapons season. And that weapon is defined clearest by the procedures to shoot it, not by any particular era that it was originated in or some arbitrary test of whether it is easier or harder to shoot. And as was decided quite a few years ago and made into law, the compound fits the needed definition and the crossbow does not. It's really quite simple when you are not trying to confuse the issue with irrelevance. Doc

That will be some very interesting info.

I am just curious as to what the procedure could possibly be for establishing a deer population. I can't even come up with a decent guess. In fact as many deer management seminars, presentations, and articles as I have come across, that is one subject that they don't seem to get into very much. I'll have to do some internet work and see if there is anything out there. Doc

Actually, since there seems to be very little activity on the Small Game forum, if a few varmint posts were to show up there, it probably wouldn't bother things too much. I don't know ...... is there such a thing as breaking a forum down too fine into too many sub-forums or doesn't it matter? I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other. Doc

Do any of you think that smoke, being a denser and thicker plume of gas particles (or whatever smoke is), maybe sends out a more stronger and concentrated kind of scent that may actually extend way beyond where ever normal human scent would extend? Do you think that since it appears to have more of a stronger smell to it that it may stay noticeable longer? Do you think that it may adhere to brush and weeds better and therefore form a more noticeable, longer lasting, and farther reaching warning to the deer than normal human scent? Doc

Simply because I do like the let-off. I hope there isn't anything wrong with that. I think that's why a lot of us moved from recurves to compounds. However, I do still mess around with my Damon Howatt and a few of my other recurves anytime I feel the urge. And I apply exactly the same shooting form and mechanics as when I am shooting my compound. The sight that I have mounted on that is very similar to the one on my compound and is used exactly the same way too. As far as hunting is concerned, over the many decades, I have concentrated my equipment and the bulk of my shooting activities to my compounds, and that is what my hunting gear is associated with. Seems reasonable. So what's your point? Doc

Actually, you aren't pointing out anything other than how rude you are. I have noticed that this is what you reduce yourself to everytime you get frustrated about not being able to conduct a discussion. Well, if that's what gets you through the day, do what you've got to do and be what you have to be. : 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.