Padre86

The cellphones of today are better than those of yesterday, but still they are somewhat fragile compared to dedicated GPS units. Protective cases can help, but if they fail, the phone is screwed. My Garmin Inreach is without a doubt far more robust than my iphone; I've dropped that thing in water, dropped it on the ground, let it get dirty and muddy, throw it in the bottom of my pack without thinking twice...I wouldn't even consider subjecting my phone to the same abuse. And again, I really don't think the GPS units on these phones, as good as they are, are as accurate or reliable as the something in a Garmin unit. Have you tried using your phone to navigate through ADK wilderness, in areas without cell coverage? I have; the phone doesn't work in that type of terrain, my Garmin Inreach does.

You really use your bino's when hunting in the ADK's? They don't seem all that useful to that type of terrain.

Until they build a smart phone that is waterproof, dustproof and shock-resistant to the same standards as something like Garmin units, I don't see them replacing dedicated GPS units. Also, I do think that the GPS signal capabilities is a bit more developed on a something like a Garmin or Delorme versus your average smart phone. I bring my cell phone into the field as a backup; I certainly don't rely on it as my only means of electronic navigation.

^Agree. The long firearm season makes sense at least for the Northern Zone. Snow is pretty important, considered essential by many, to be effective up in the big woods. Sometimes the snow doesn't come until very late in the regular season. This past year the foliage was up fairly late into the season. If you head into the woods with no snow and lots of leaves still up, you're just beating around the bush, pun intended. I say keep the season length the same up in the Northern Zone. Southern Zone gun season seems pretty short as it is, but that's just my 2 cents.

I'm not sure what you mean by smokepole? Shotgun? Rifle? And I'm still confused on how you know what weapon he used. Edit: Nevermind, I just saw the 2nd article discussing him hunting during muzzle loader. Like I said earlier, call up the Letchworth SP towards the spring and ask to speak to the hunting guy; I'm sure he can shed some light on the gray area in the regs.

How do you know that he didn't use a bow or muzzle loader? Maybe that is the loophole; you can take them with archery or muzzle loading, but not shotgun. And yes, the hunting regs aren't well laid out. Not everyone on staff there really knows about the hunting aspect. There is one particular gentleman on staff there, whose name eludes me, who seems to be more in the loop on the hunting regs. Maybe someone should get in contact with him.

I haven't read mine for a few weeks but assuming that it says that same as yours, maybe someone needs to call Letchworth SP staff and ask some questions. The article referenced earlier stated that the hunt was legal according to one of the park managers. With the story already out, if everything wasn't on the up and up then I'd expect the DEC and NYS Park agency to be taking action by this point.

This is the 2017 regular season permit application for Letchworth: Letchworth Permit It does not specifically say deer only. Nor does it say anywhere on the permit or their website that bear hunting is specifically prohibited. I agree that the park's hunting regs are not as clear as they could be. In fact, I still see old 'no hunting' signs posted along the edge of the park in areas that do allow hunting according to the park map.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, (depending on how you look at it) I don't think the coyote will have much opportunity to expand in some suburban areas. Too much human traffic and too little habitat for them to be comfortable in. Moreover, once they start snatching family pets, I don't think there will be much social acceptance for them. I see fox, and stray cats, as the main predators of the rising rodent and rabbit population in the suburbs. The reason I brought up the human shielding issue is because it does illustrate how coyote have changed the natural landscape. I'm much more likely to see a fox or rabbit in my own backyard than I am while out on a hike through a state park or remote wilderness of the ADK's. That is likely due in part to the rising coyote #'s.

Unlike Allegheny SP, Letchworth doesn't specifically prohibit bear hunting. The permits and literature I've seen on their website either say "deer" or "big game." Also, according to this article, the bear harvest was legal: Bear Hunt As to what he implement he used, I'd assume it was either shotgun or bow, unless there are credible sources that state otherwise.

Some of the twitter comments were quite ridiculous. That comment by the former Canadian PM's wife was a real gem; I'm glad to see that Canada's political elite are so "open-minded" about the diversity of outdoor recreation that exists in their country.

Coyote will go after Turkey and their nests all the same as the other traditional predators (raccoon, possum, skunk). I don't know if coyote pressure is necessarily causing a decline in Turkey #'s or not. A DEC report did note that Turkeys were experiencing a decline in recent years, but that may be due to a number of issues rather than any singular cause. As for rabbits, and various other small game, I can attest to what others noting: small game is far less common out in the wild. I see a dozen or so rabbits every month walking down my suburban street; I've maybe seen one or two in all my times out in the ADK's or various WMA's in western NY. Again, I'm not sure anyone can prove that is 100% due to the increased coyote presence, but I don't think it's stretch of logic to think that the coyote are having an effect of some sort. The term I've heard used before for that phenomenon is 'human shielding;' certain animals become habituated to living in and around human development because they realize that many of their natural predators are less inclined to follow them into such areas. In general, I don't think coyote are bad for our local ecosystem. They do fulfill a predator role that would otherwise be mostly vacant here in the northeast. I do think they affect other animals populations, some more than others. This is no different from predators in other parts of North America; upon reintroduction, wolves had a pretty dramatic effect on the various ungulates in the Yellowstone area. Predator pressure has been an issue for vulnerable populations of big-horned sheep in certain western states, and wolves have been an issue for the small remnant of caribou in the Pacific Northwest US (last I heard, they were on the verge of extirpation). In those circumstances, predator management is an essential part of ongoing conservation efforts for other animal species. Are we at that point with coyote here in the northeast? I don't think so, but it certainly is an issue to be aware of.

I like it a lot. Garmin now owns Delorme, but the maps on the device are still Delorme maps, not Garmin. Lots of map options (sat imagery, US Quad, Nautical, Digital Topo, basic road maps). You got all the features of a normal GPS unit (location, waypoints, tracking, route setup, bearing, elevation, speed) in addition to having the ability to send pre-set messages or typed out custom text messages. As well, there is an emergency distress function which automatically alerts a 3rd party rescue coordination center, and your information is passed on to the nearest rescue agencies. Garmin actually has made a second version of this device, which now also allows the device to display maps on its screen (for the original version, you have to pair your device with a mobile phone in order to view digital maps). Main issue: it's pricey ($400-$450 for the device, plus a monthly subscription fee ranging from $13-$20 per month). But depending on how often you venture into the woods by yourself, it is well worth the cost for the safety features it provides.

I've got a Delorme Inreach GPS/Communicator, but I always carry a map and compass as a backup. If the electronics fail, I at least have a map and a pre-planned escape azimuth to get back to the nearest road or trail. It's just too easy to get disoriented out in some of those remote areas. You could be less than a mile from a road or trail and not even know it.

I never saw much benefit to glassing (with spot-and-stalk methods) in the ADK's. The forest is normally too dense and the deer normally don't have much of a reason to hang out in the open areas, unlike out west. I suppose if you could find an open beaver meadow that has signs of deer traffic, you could give it a shot, but you would need to find a suitable tree to put up a stand (and you'd have to hike the damn thing out there depending on the land classification).

It is hunting. You may not have put all the time and effort into finding and setting up suitable bait sites, but someone else did. The way the forests are up there, baiting and hound hunting are about the only ways to even get close to a bear.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. But you forget this is New Jersey we're talking about here. This is the same state that has cat-ladies and retired hippies (no offense if any frequent this forum) coming out of the woodwork to protest when the black bear season was reinstated a little while back. You had even more controversy when a bipedal bear (known as Pedals) was legally shot and killed during one of those seasons. There are self-proclaimed conservationists and "wildlife experts" out there saying that hunting bear is unnecessary because they could all be artificially sterilized at the state's expense; there is a great amount of disconnect between many of NJ's residents and the on-the-ground reality of conservation. I'm sure there is a strong hunting culture in NJ, but I get the sense that there is no room for compromise or middle ground with the anti-hunting contingent, who are all-too eager to restrict hunting privileges in that state.

I think the technicality is that you can still hunt grizzlies in BC, but the new regulations demand that hunters harvest the meat and leave the so-called "trophy" items behind (hide, skull). If they had just rewritten the existing game laws to require that the meat be salvaged, i think there might have been a little bit of grumbling but otherwise everyone (hunters/conservationists and even most non-hunters) would've been on board. Unfortunately, it sounds like this law was motivated purely by activist groups wanting to curtain the grizzly hunt in BC. You can take the trophy items from a cougar or elk, but not for a grizzly; makes about zero sense in my view since the grizzly numbers are doing very well in that region. Meanwhile, grizzlies are getting de-listed in Montana and Wyoming and state agencies are setting up hunting seasons. We make progress in one area, and lose a few in another.

I've heard that same idea discussed in other wildlife articles, but I have to believe that there is some short term benefit to coyote hunting and trapping for farmers and ranchers. If you hunt/trap them over the winter, which is when the coyote season goes into full swing for many states, yes you may disrupt the family structure and cause dispersal in the longterm, but in the short term you are removing a few more hungry mouths which I'm sure takes pressure off any local livestock, as well as wild ungulates, in the dead of winter and takes some pressure off their young come spring time. I understand casual hunting and trapping has only a short term effect on coyote populations, but then again so do most other conservation strategies and hunting efforts for other animals. In my view, the temporary consequences of coyote hunting doesn't mean its pointless or futile, it just means there is constant effort required on the hunter/trapper's part. And I'm not sure how many people really view this effort as a "war" that needs to be won (I think that's more a stereotype than anything else); I'm sure for a lot of farmers and ranchers, it's just viewed as one of the many costs associated with their line of work.

I don't think there is any need for fear mongering. Most of the coyote hunters I've met don't hunt out of fear but out of enjoyment and respect for the animal's prowess. They are predators and should be viewed as such. I don't want them eradicated, but I also don't think hunters should be shy about hunting coyote. They are plentiful in number, robust, and very adaptable. If someone wants to hunt or trap for them (as per local regulations), have at it. Short of a state-wide extermination campaign, they aren't going anywhere.

Actually there is some truth to that "perception." Coyotes, and any predator, that lives in close proximity to human populations tend to lose their fear of humans and there tends to be a potential for conflicts. There were articles in some recent years where some suburban coyotes out west were nipping at kids at a playground; I don't recall hearing about any significant injuries, but the description did seem to indicate the coyote were treating the kids in a prey-like manner. Similarly, a young woman (Taylor Mitchell) was killed in a national park in Nova Scotia some years back by a pack of coyote. The animals were later euthanized and came back negative for rabies; the prevailing theory was that they had grown accustomed to and increasingly bold with the humans who frequently visited the park. Those are worst case scenarios, and I certainly wouldn't consider them to be normal occurrences. I understand the coyote have a predator role to play in the local ecosystem, even in some rural neighborhoods. But they are predators and their activities should be supervised and, when required, managed appropriately.

Even so, you freely admitted that the main reason you want road access restricted is so that you have less hunters strolling around on the public land that adjoins your private lease. You emphasized earlier how driving around being mobile is important to hunting success in the ADK's. I've spent a good bit of time exploring the ADK's: the few public dirt roads; the trails; and the areas off the trails. The driving mobility of the public land hunter is not all that extensive compared to someone who has access to the timber lands. That aside, the best way to find wildlife, at least the big game variety, is to get away from the areas with heavy foot traffic. Unless you're looking for fresh tracks in the snow, driving the roads has never really yielded much hunting success in the ADK's. However, certain dirt roads do provide access to low-traffic areas, which is why hunting clubs are so keen to lease the land and lock off the roads and why I'm keen to get into a lease in the near future. It's just a bit unfair to criticize a hunter for being too lazy to hike/canoe a dozen miles into a remote spot of public land when a lease hunter is hiking a fraction of that due to the road access. Conservation easements that facilitate more public access in those types of areas would be a good thing; I'm not preaching anything ground-breaking here as it's already been done in certain areas.

ADK hunting is tough, no matter what. As Doewhacker pointed out, it's not as if opening up a few more logging roads is going to result in hunters flooding the area. People hunt in the ADK's for the challenge and the experience, not because they expect a sure thing. I just think your views of ADK land access and hunting from the main trailheads are a bit biased. If a road enables access to public land, it should be open to the public.

I think this conversation is less about you wanting to maintain the rustic nature of the ADK's, and more about you wanting less competition while afield. A 2 mile hike in and out is a whole lot easier than someone trying to get to the same spot over a dozen, or more, miles on each leg of the trip. Your lease gives you exclusive rights to the private land; it does not give you exclusive rights to any adjacent public land. If a road is going near or through public land, it should be open to the public. You can't really chastise other ADK deer hunters for not going far enough off the main trailheads when your commute to the hunt is drastically shorter than theirs'.

Well earlier you were making the point that public land hunters have no reason to complain about land access in the ADK's. Now you seem to be indicating that you acknowledge, and in fact prefer, the disparity in access that currently exists between public land hunters and the lease hunters. You want to be able to hunt a remote area of the ADK's without bumping into other people; I get that. If you have a lease to hunt and fish on private land, the public shouldn't intrude on that privacy. However, if the roads run by or through state land, then yes, I think the DEC should encourage the landowners to open up road access to everyone. Conservation easements usually entail some financial incentive to help offset any road upkeep. Public land is meant to be used by the public. The fact is, some people have a much easier time getting to the remote parts of the ADK's than do others.