Padre86

FWIW, if we are talking about public land that is otherwise inaccessible to people due to being surrounded by private land (which I believe Tom had referred to), then yes I agree there should be a solution for that. Generally speaking, the state will negotiate conservation easements with private landowners in order to allow people to access closed-off public land. These easements are actually seen a lot in the ADK's for this very purpose. I'm not sure if they exist in the Catskills to the same degree, but if you are worried about land access, Tom, you should be arguing for conservation easements instead of arguing for a prohibition of private-land hunting and food plot management.

The maps I've seen of the Catskill area show pretty extensive access points and parking areas: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/catmapguide.pdf There does seem to be large amounts of public land there, but it is also very close to some high population centers. I'd imagine that hunter numbers and pressure, more than any sort of "baiting" technique is what makes hunting difficult there. I deal with the same issue when I hunt on state land in the finger lakes region...I end up bumping into more hunters than I do deer. So now I either hunt on leased land in the Finger Lakes or I go to the ADK's, where the hunter numbers are much less. That's simply the nature of hunting in an agricultural state like NY. If you want more extensive public land hunting opportunities, move out west where there is much more in the way of state and federal land to hunt on. Prohibiting private land hunting or wildlife management techniques is not the answer.

You're a little late to the party. The clarification I was looking for has already been provided, so at this point you're reopening a conversation that has already been resolved. No, I was not asking if I could use my dog to track deer in order to shoot them (outside of legally tracking and dispatching a wounded animal). The grey area was highlighted earlier in this thread if you want to see what I was referring to. I'm fairly accurate with my rifle. But let's face it, not every shot is perfect and sometimes the animals do run off for a little bit after being hit. Considering how dense and difficult the terrain is in many parts of the ADK's, having a tracking dog available is not a bad idea. I'd prefer not to leave my dog in the car, but given how remote some sections of the Park are, I'm not sure what the alternative is. I plan on tracking wounded game for whoever needs the assistance, whether it be other hunters or myself, which as I understand the regs is legal. Obviously, putting the animal down in one quick shot is preferred method, but I hope for the best and plan for the worst...I really could care less if that doesn't sit well with your self-righteous mentality.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Wildlife does belong to the state and is managed by the state. That is why all hunters, even those hunting on their own land, have to abide by state regulations and seasons. Having food growths on private land is not illegal nor is it unethical. It's a method for keeping a healthy deer population in certain regions. Salt-licks and certain types of "bait" are illegal as per DEC rules. If you think having food sources on your land constitutes a violation, then we would need to shut down all agricultural activity in this state; there is a reason why deer densities are much higher in western NY versus the Northern Zone. So keeping hunters off of private land now counts has "hunter harassment?" How so?

I agree with that. Opening up land to public hunting should be purely voluntary. There should be a voluntary system in place whereby if a landowner decides to open up his/her land to public access, he should receive tax credits; it sounds like such a system is already in place according to the DEC website.

Tax incentives are "picking the pockets" of all tax-payers? I'm not following your logic there. It is giving rural landowners, most of whom are by no means rich or a well-off, an incentive to give public access for hunting. The public benefits in that they can now legally hunt on designated pieces of private land, so there is an universal benefit. This method has been used for a variety of purposes, like motivating private ownership of solar panels in some states. And in NY, this very method is used for landowners who open up their land to conservation easements (some of which allow hunting): http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/26428.html So, in a sense, tax incentives for opening up private land to hunting is already happening in NY state. I can't speak too much on the issue of liability and private landownership. I do know that hunting is allowed on private land in the ADK's where conservation easements have been placed and I haven't heard of any major civil law suits from accidents occurring there, so there might be some landowners protections already in place. But I can't speak for how that works state-wide.

Yes, there is a reason why many prefer to hunt on private lands. And IMHO, I think there always will be and should be private land access...if people want to pay a little extra to go hunt on exclusive land, what not? That puts a bit more money into rural economies (which are very depressed in most of NYS) and keeps the deer on private land properly managed. I think in an ideal world, there would be a mix of land options: fully public land where anyone could hunt; privately-owned land that is open to public hunting (via some sort of state tax incentive program); and private land where only the landowner and/or paying lease members hunt. That statement about forbidding hunting on private land would never happen and is a great way to let deer numbers get out of hand.

Like I said, tax incentives (which is a huge hindrance to many rural land owners) and some form of liability protection would go a long way in persuading some landowners to open up their lands. This is something that would have to go well beyond the scope of the DEC and get bipartisan support in the state legislature and judicial review to ensure that some landowner doesn't get screwed over when a hunter shoots himself in the foot and then tries to the sue. I think such a program is totally feasible on small, regional scale and applicable to certain areas (the ADK landowners and hunters probably wouldn't be interested in this because of all the public land that is available there). But hunters and landowners in the Finger Lakes region for example, might see some value in this. Couple this with some sort of mobile app (which isn't hard to do nowadays) and it should be fairly easy to inform hunters on which landowners have opened their land to public hunting.

Just to clarify, are we talking about legislation that will force landowners to open their land up to public hunting? Or are we talking about legislation that will allow landowners to open their land up to public hunting? Because one is an obvious violation of rights and the other one isn't. If we are discussing the latter, then I agree with what others have already said. Some form of protection for the landowners against being sued by hunters who get hurt and some form of tax incentives to motivate landowners to volunteer their land.

I might consider that. I'm really not too keen on the membership dues or the initiation process, but I'll see how things shake out this coming season.

Again going off the regs in the NYS leashed tracking guide, only DEC needs to be notified, but seeing as how DEC might not have a presence in all areas of the state, I can see how NY State Police might be the next best alternative.

Thanks! This is the sort of feedback I was looking for. This makes sense and hopefully the DEC will have a similarly clear cut answer when I call them up.

Well you two have been of tremendous help. And by the way Doewhacker, I did state up front that I would contact the DEC beforehand to clarify this issue. And given the way things have progressed, or devolved (depending on how you look at it), it seems the DEC is going to be the only credible place to get a direct answer on this. Have fun at your keyboard doewhacker. I'll be sure to send you a PM alerting you to any other "trolling" posts I might write.

Yes, and the issue that question was predicated upon was whether or not I could legally track a wounded deer with a dog in the Northern Zone while carrying a rifle larger than .22. That's the main issue/question I am trying to get an answer to.

I think you need to take a chill pill. You're getting too worked up over this. And you obviously disagree with everything I am saying. So why are you still even posting? If I am such a stubborn idiot, why not spend your time elsewhere?

I get what you are saying here and appreciate the response. I still think the language between the two regs are directly conflicting with one another. The DEC says very specifically that it is illegal to carry a rifle larger than .22 rimfire or shotgun with ball, slug or shot, in the Northern Zone while hunting or accompanied by a dog except when hunting coyotes. Technically, I read this to mean I can't have any rifle or shotgun (relevant to dispatching a deer) while tracking a wounded animal.

I just illustrated the grey area I am referring to and referenced the exact text that demonstrates why it in fact exists. Doewhacker, you keep repeating that it is "illegal" without directly acknowledging the specific regulations and questions I am bringing up. So I'm really not inclined to engage you further. Grampy, you might have 15 years of experience with DS, but again you too refuse to give me a direct reply on the specific regulations and language that I am referring to. You also questioned my understanding of Leashed tracking guide despite the fact that I am relying on the language of the guide to make my argument, as well as to clarify some statements made by you. If you have feedback which might clear up this matter, please provide it. But so far, I haven't seen anyone give a direct answer to the main question I am asking.

And I hate to be busting your stones, but I'm not sure why you're questioning my understanding of the Leashed Tracking Dog guidelines when I just pointed out several inaccuracies with your earlier post regarding its requirements. The grey area is this: The DEC states explicity that you cannot hunt or be afield with a dog in the Northern Zone while carrying certain rifles and shotguns, except during coyote hunting: The way I read that, it means simply hiking or yes, even tracking, with your dog while carrying anything above a .22 rim-fire is expressly forbidden in the Northern Zone. This contradicts the Leashed Tracking Dog Guidelines which state: and both found in the section on "Dispatching an Animal." This is the grey area I am referring to. You don't know what you're talking about. I am asking a very nuanced and specific question which seems to have gone right over your head. I agree there is a difference between hunting and tracking, but again, please note the language I have captured in quotes. Simply being accompanied by a dog in the Northern Zone is forbidden when carrying certain types of rifles and shotguns, according to the DEC.

You obviously have strong feelings on this issue, which is fine. But there is in fact a legal grey area, even if I were to legally bring my dog into the field to track after I had already taken a shot. I have explained this grey area several times over now, showing the relevant references. Your repeated posts about how it is "illegal" do not specifically address this grey area. You don't sound like you've read through the leashed tracking dog guide book (which can be found here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/ltdguide.pdf). Nor do you sound like you have experience conducting leashed tracking. So it would probably be best if you let someone else, more familiar with this subject, add their feedback.

You and others are missing part of my point here. Even if I keep my dog at home or in my car and go back to retrieve him to track a wounded animal that I shot, I am still technically breaking the rule I had previously brought up (regarding the Northern Zone and being afield with dogs and rifles/shotguns). This is the legal grey area I am referring to.

Okay, you might be a DS member, but I think we need to clarify a few things here: 1) I'm not asking to bring my dog into the woods so that he can hunt deer. I'm asking to bring him with me as I hunt deer, so that he can be readily available should i need his nose work. 2) Has my dog been certified? What does that mean? The only requirements for the tracking dog is that it be properly licensed as per Article 7 of the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Law (basically a current rabies vaccination and any applicable municipal registration paperwork). 3) There is no report to fill out. You have to call into the DEC with the following info: licensee name; name, address, phone #, big game license of the hunter using the tracking dog's services; general location; name of landowners (if applicable). 4) Calling the police might be recommended by DS, but the only authority that is required to be notified is the DEC, since they are the organization that handles environmental law. 5) You must have your dog leashed for the tracking of wounded animal. If I am walking to/from a kill site to begin tracking, there is no requirement to have the dog leashed, just as if I were hiking in the woods with my dog. I did pass the leashed tracking dog exam and am very familiar with its requirements. That is why I am bringing up this issue. If am legally tracking a wounded deer that I myself shot, technically-speaking, I shouldn't be carrying any sort of rifle or shotgun with me even though I'll need something should the deer still be alive. There is a legal grey area that neither the DEC website nor the leashed tracking dog reg book provide a good answer to.

I have considered that option of leaving the dog in the car. My only concern with that is that I'll be parked in a remote spot, and should something happen to me, there likely won't be anyone to get my dog. But still that is an option I am weighing. I get that hunting deer with dogs is considered taboo in this state. But in the Northern zone of all places, a tracking dog would be very useful to have ready, and moreover I seriously doubt I'll be running into any other hunters in the places I plan on going into. I've noticed that in other states where hunting deer with dog is prohibited, Alaska for example, hunters still routinely bring their dogs into the field with them, they just don't let their dogs actually harass, chase or hunt the game. There is obviously a lot of individual responsibility assumed with such practices, but the state wildlife officials there seem fine with it so long as the owners aren't explicitly breaking any hunting laws. There is an clause in NY's hunting regs which explicitly states you can't hunt or be afield in the Northern Zone with certain rifles or shotguns unless hunting coyotes (likely to prevent illegal deer hunting methods). But there does seem to be a legal grey area simply by nature of tracking (w/ a valid license) a wounded deer in the Northern Zone while carrying a rifle or shotgun.

I think my point is being lost on some here. I'm not going to be hunting a few miles away from my cabin. I'm going to be hunting in Wilderness areas, where the access points just to get to the trailhead will be an hour or so away (in some cases more), in addition to however many more miles I'll have to hike by foot to actually get to the area where I intend to hunt. This is not pull-up hunting, where I get out of my car and walk several hundred meters to my tree stand, nor is this backyard hunting, where I walk a short distance from my cabin to a stand or blind. This is remote wilderness hunting, and having to get out of this wilderness, drive and retrieve my dog would be much more than an inconvenience. All that aside, I'm not asking for people's opinions on whether or not they think I am justified in bringing my dog along. I am simply looking for feedback on whether or not I have a legal argument to make with the DEC. I've already demonstrated that there is in fact a conflict between what the leashed tracking license allows and what other DEC rules state. So obviously there is some grey area regarding this issue.

You have to contact the DEC, not the State Police, prior tracking, at least according to the license requirements that I have read. Like I said, I do plan on reaching out to the DEC to clarify this. My dog has not been specifically trained for blood tracking, but he does have introductory training to scent detection and will be getting further training on tracking during the summer. I'm not saying that anyone who plans on hunting remotely in the ADK's should have a tracking dog, I'm saying that I would like to have my tracking dog available should the need arise. I by no means am trying to impose my ideas and views onto others, but personally I think I should be able to bring my dog along so long as I am not breaking any laws.

It's great to hear that new hunters are getting educated on how dog/handler teams can assist in recovering wounded deer. It's also interesting that you brought up that note on the supposed bad blood between this one woman and Deer Search. I tried reaching out to them about learning about their group and potentially joining, but so far I haven't heard so much as a peep from them. I'm not sure if they're closed to new members or what the issue is, but either way joining Deer Search is not required to legally track in NY, though I'm sure it makes networking and getting in touch with deer hunters looking for help a whole lot easier.