Doc

There is one thing that can be said, for sure. That is that the more laws you have, the more likely that people with good intentions will innocently be sucked into some pretty ugly legal situations. When we try to set rules and regulations on every aspect of an activity there will be many who quite innocently, inadvertently, run afoul of those rules and suffer some bad consequences because of it. Environmental Conservation Law is one of the most complex and argued about and misunderstood collection of laws, and a tiny amount of time on this forum will show just how completely confused it already is by hunters and how complex others would like to make it. AR is one of the more difficult laws to abide by unless you do as Stubby has suggested and never shoot anything under a 12 point just to be sure. A side view can have a hunter confusing points on opposite antlers and quickly coming up with a mis-count. And there are those that want to make the AR laws even easier to run afoul of. How about those that want to make antler spread the way of accomplishing AR requirements. Imagine how difficult that could become. That would require that the buck be looking straight at you. If he isn't, it would be a requirement that the hunter do something to make him look straight at you. So you can attempt to judge the distance between antlers in inches. I long for the days when hunting was so much simpler, and abiding by the law was not such an easy trap for the innocent to run afoul of. And yet there are so many who engage in fad-management proposals that never seem to worry about or consider the growing volumes of complex restrictions and requirements.

I'm afraid I don't really understand the guy's confusion. He failed to determine that the buck was a legal deer to shoot, but he shot it anyway. What did he expect? I guess he is saying that he expected a pass because it was an honest mistake. but I have never heard of people getting a pass because it is claimed to be an honest mistake. I think there have been some speeding tickets that I should have been able to get excused simply because it was an "honest mistake". I'm no fan of AR, but as long as it is the law, I'm thinking that you had better be pretty darn sure of the point count before shooting.

I try to get in on all the discussions that go on here, but I don't have time to catch all of the conversations and do miss quite a few of them. Anything that happened here over the past hunting season probably didn't get read because I was pretty intensely involved in my hunting. So if I missed this subject on another thread, I apologize. But I have not come at this subject with a mission to cause battle. Every year as I compare current hunting seasons to past ones, it gets to be more and more obvious that either hunter numbers are diminishing, or hunter participation and enthusiasm is only good for a few days at the beginning. So whenever I hear arguments about hunting season lengths, I keep wondering how changing the lengths of seasons one way or the other is going to have any impacts at all if most hunters call an end to the season after a few days. So I decided to start topic that addressed all of this. I do this in the spirit of curiosity and not for any combative reasons. See, I am not even sure what people are trying to achieve with shorter seasons. There may be some legitimate reasons for shortening the gun season that I don't even understand yet.

No bucks, 3 does, for two hunters. Buck would have been nice, but it was a very successful season anyway.

I'm not sure what makes you say that, but the observations that I have had over the past dozen years or so have been that the activity during gun season traditionally drops off to near nothing after opening weekend, and my theory is that deer herds are not significantly altered by the length of gun season. And so the big controversy about shortening gun seasons seems to really be a moot point. And sure enough, a DEC graph was posted that seemed to back up my contention. So I think the thread was a legitimate discussion. Now I would like to see some conversation about what people think would be trying to accomplish with their calls for shorter gun seasons just to see if there is another aspect to topic. Again it seems like a legitimate related discussion. That is not stirring the pot, but simply conducting discussion. I believe discussion is why we have forums......right?

I have one camera out. I am wondering how this prolonged stretch of super cold weather will be wearing on the batteries. I should check soon and see how things are holding up. Anybody have any preferences in battery choices for maximum life in these stressed conditions?

When the animals start coming to the feeding trough when they hear the grain bucket, or they come when they are called by name, that probably should not be called "hunting" ..... lol .

I have a related question for those that want gun seasons shortened. how is that supposed to help the deer herd? What would be the expected benefit? I think there is more than one answer to those questions, and I am just curious about some of the theories behind this quite frequent demand that gun season be shortened. I started this thread with the theory that shortening or lengthening the season probably would not have any significant impact on the herd since so few people take advantage of almost all of the season after opening week. But now the thread has morphed a bit, and now I am wondering what those that want to shrink the gun season are hoping to accomplish. Whatever it is, I'll bet that season length doesn't really accomplish it.

Where are you getting your demographics from? I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong, it's just that when someone makes these kinds of statements and is passing them off as fact, I kind of like to see a few credible sources for the so-called "facts".

You might try reading that reply a bit slower so that you don't miss-quote me again. "I have nothing against using common sense and good judgment in further voluntarily restricting those hours, but I am not real happy with a bunch of yahoos out there making up their own rules when it comes to my safety." So now you have a problem with using "common sense" when conditions make you feel like you should be quitting? I know that I have quit early when combinations of fog and dim light and heavy over-story made conditions seem inadequate for safe shooting. But since safety is a joke to you, I suppose you likely have never seen a situation where you would refuse to shoot. And I guess now you are telling me that you are against the current law and apparently also using "common sense" as even a guideline for quitting. You don't want any limits regarding lighting at all, do you? The only fears I have of being shot is when I start hearing the opinions of those who consider safety a joke and those that have nothing but contempt for any safety laws.

No, the real point is that someone thought exactly like many on this forum do ..... That they are good judges of when they feel they should be able to shoot (law be damned). Those missing fingers are the result of somebody else that wanted hunting to become a free-for-all where everyone makes up their own minds about what laws to abide by and which ones to ignore. Look, when it comes to these things, it is my neck that I am looking out for, and with all the different hunters that are out there I don't like the idea of them arbitrarily deciding when to quit or start. I don't want to hear, "Gosh I thought it was light enough". I'm all for a defined start and stop time and I am happy that the NYS times agree with my notions of safe shooting hours. I have nothing against using common sense and good judgment in further voluntarily restricting those hours, but I am not real happy with a bunch of yahoos out there making up their own rules when it comes to my safety. As far as other states are concerned, I have noted that we have been posting some pretty impressive safety stats and I am not sure that all the other states with extended hours have done as well. For a state with our situation of extreme hunter density, I think erring on the side of safety probably is the right thing to do.

License sales numbers may still be up, but that doesn't say that they are being used at the same rate and the same enthusiasm as they used to be. Let's face it, in spite of how much we complain, the cost of a hunting license is still pretty darn cheap. I'm sure there are a lot of people who buy a license just in case they get the urge to go out. And then there are the people who want to go out just for opening day so they can say they still go deer hunting. And then there are those that go out on opening day but seem to never make it back after they head out for breakfast or lunch......for the remainder of the season. Then there are people who get counted for each different kind of hunting license that they buy. There's a whole lot more to judging hunting popularity, activity and enthusiasm than simply counting licenses.

I remember the annual winter carnival on Honeoye lake. Tons of people and events covering the ice at the north end. I'm not sure why it was discontinued, but there were never any claim that it was dangerous.

Are there any good books around on the mechanics of proper offhand shooting techniques? How about internet sources from credible experts?

I wouldn't make too much out of that. I have read posts of people desperately searching for hunter safety training classes because they are getting few and far between. Perhaps they are always full because it is getting harder and harder to find instructors.

I think you have to admit that there isn't always a whole lot of common sense out there and you never know when it's your noggin that one of these guys that lacks common sense decides that your indistinct movement in the twilight is enough to warrant pulling the trigger. Common sense is a great thing, but we all know that hunting laws cannot rely solely on common sense. And yes, that 1/2 hour does make a difference. That is the time of day when vision becomes a bit fuzzy, and detail begins to fade, and images behind targets begin to become simply indistinct shadows and shapeless background. I have seen that that half hour is the time when cloud cover and over-story density and fog begin to have their most profound effect on what you are shooting at and the things beyond. Regarding supposedly unenforceable laws, there are times when skillful interrogation can result in arrests that you wouldn't expect to be normally made. At any rate, having the law on the books is a statement of intent. At some point you do have to state what time deer hunting must cease. You can argue all day what time of day that should be, but some limit has to be stated in law (enforceable or not). Frankly, when you consider the quantity of ECOs and how far apart they are spread, you have to admit that almost all EnCon laws are unenforceable or nearly so on a practical basis. Does that mean that we should suspend all laws and throw in the towel and only pass laws where enforcement is easy and likely? We make the laws as we see them needed, and we enforce them as best we can. That's the way legality is established.

That is exactly the problem you run into. That is why the only way to fight this kind of attitude against safety concerns is to catch the bad attitudes early and try to change them before an offense occurs. And the best place to do that is in the hunter safety training courses.

As has been pointed out, it is very hard to catch these birds to turn them in. You can hear it any opening day of any gun season. Shots going off somewhere in the valley, often they happen even when it is still dark. Finding someone under those circumstances is darn near impossible even when the shots are in close. These characters believe that they are above the law and have nothing but total disdain for anyone who shows some concern over safety in hunting situations. You see it here on this forum. Anybody raises issues of safety, and they are deemed to be "wussy cry baby pansies". That is the mentality that you are dealing with. I don't know how, but the only way to stop this sort of thing is to find these attitudes during the hunter safety training courses and either straightening out their thinking right there or denying their certification. That is where you have a chance at straightening out these weird attitudes about hunter safety.

The last time I brought up the subject to a kid of going out hunting, I was laughed at. It's a different world out there with a brand new culture. I am sure that somewhere there is a kid just begging their parents to go hunting, but I have not seen it. I always seem to get that, "Are you nuts? ......You're interrupting my game" look when I ask if there is any interest. But of course that is a whole other subject that doesn't really have anything to do with the effects of gun season lengths.

Ha-ha....It is funny to have somebody thumping their chest over how manly it is to be an idiot regarding safety. I already related the experience that I had with some goofball that incorrectly felt he had the right to determine safe shooting light for himself. So it is going to take a whole lot more than mere name-calling to ever change my mind on the subject. Regarding your concerns about parenting, I really don't get the relevancy, but that sounds like a whole different subject regarding some maternal issues that I would just as soon mot get into.

That is one reason why I don't pay a lot of attention to license sales to figure out the diminishing level of hunting these days. It looks like there may be a lot of people buying licenses without any intentions of using them beyond opening weekend. I think the level of enthusiasm is also diminishing, which does not bode well for the future.

Hunting safety laws are not written for specific locations, forest foliage content, or certain levels of intelligence or eyesight. If you have not encountered plenty of times when visibility was inadequate 1/2 hour outside of current NYS legal shooting hours then that tells me that you are not really very particular as to whether you can see your target and all that is going on behind the target. And by the way, seeing pretty well is not the standard that I want anyone using that is hunting around me. You people seem to think the standard of safe shooting light should be whether you can make out your crosshairs and the outline of the deer or not. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there is a lot more than that that you have to be aware of before you touch off that trigger. Apparently there are some aspects of your hunter training course that didn't really take. And for those that rely on the fact that other states have extended shooting hours, understand that because we do not go in lockstep with the most reckless of states does not mean that we are wrong and they are right.

It bothers me to hear people with those kinds of attitudes toward Conservation Law. It sounds like your entire hunting ethic is based on the odds of getting caught. It tells a lot about you.

I have never seen a document so full of double-talk and contradictions as this one. But there was one passage that caught my eye: "This shall not be interpreted, or construed, as a limit on liability for acts of gross negligence in addition to those other acts referred to in subdivision two of this section. 2. This section does not limit the liability which would otherwise exist a. for willful or malicious failure to guard, or to warn against, a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or b. for injury suffered in any case where permission to pursue any of the activities enumerated in this section was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state or federal government, or permission to train dogs was granted for a consideration other than that provided for in section 11-0925 of the environmental conservation law" One thing that lawyers are trained to do is to take ambiguous legal opinions such as this to make a case for a law suit. But not being a lawyer myself, I do not know about the ins and outs of all of this double-speak. I think that if a salesman were to step on your porch and a board gave way resulting in injury to that salesman, I believe there would be a successful lawsuit coming your way. In the same vein, if some hunter were to fall into some uncovered abandoned well or have a building fall in on him, or some other man-made hazard that exists without warning, I think the same principles might very well apply. But I must admit that I am out of my element when it comes the legal world of verbal deception and mis-direction....lol.

This graph of the southern zone illustrates exactly my point of how the significance of extended seasons quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns. So that all tells us that those who would shorten seasons, or those that would extend them really are not impacting the take significantly as many think. I am just trying to put into perspective this whole idea of regulating herd populations and content by messing with season lengths. The numbers seem to indicate that when people start to think that they have these brainstorms about how they can solve the state's hunting problems by some adjustment of season length, season length does not really seem to be that significant a factor. I have to point out that I am zeroing in on the southern zone with my observations as I have never hunted the Northern Zone. And, as the graph bears out, I have noticed that after a couple of days of gun season have passed, harvests and activity drop off significantly. So my conclusion is that season lengths are not as big an impact as many think (either positively or negatively).