Padre86
-
Posts
387 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Hunting New York - NY Hunting, Deer, Bow Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, Predator News and Forums
Media Demo
Links
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by Padre86
-
-
On 12/28/2017 at 10:45 PM, sailinghudson25 said:
Glassing is an important part of being a successful ADK hunter. Deer blend in so well and are very quiet. We do not blend in well, or are very quiet. So, being able to see them easier helps a ton. Glass all the time. I take about 10 steps and glass all around me.
Open areas I glass so I can travel a bit faster to denser areas. Dense areas need to be closely checked out. I'd easily say my binos are on my eyes almost 2 hours a day in the ADK's.
Not the best, but certainly not the worst...... I use steiner marine 8x30 binos. Pretty decent optics, a generous ability to focus well on closer distances like 30 yards or so, but can see farther out clearly too. The binos are very light, and they come in olive green to boot.
Without binos, your gun is just about useless in my opinion.
You really use your bino's when hunting in the ADK's? They don't seem all that useful to that type of terrain.
-
On 12/28/2017 at 8:47 PM, Storm914 said:
Gps devices are really obsolete in my opinion
Every good smartphone has gps technology built in and there are like 100 or more apps that work with it you don't need cell service either for them to work if you know which app to get .
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.
-
1
-
-
On 12/8/2017 at 4:21 PM, NFA-ADK said:
It does if you are one of the hunters who likes to go in late when other hunters have given up, or if you are one of the hunters like the many trackers upstate that only hunt when snow is on the ground. A short season may give you no snow and no chance at tracking which is how many get there deer who use tracking to hunt.
^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.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, Four Season Whitetails said:
You just quoted me saying the guy did shoot it with the smoke pole?
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Four Season Whitetails said:
Thats just it..I did call and was told--Not that i know of and i see nothing on the permit that says bears can be taking, I see where it says-Deer only(no other game- Which this answer came from the girl doing the permits. The only wording different was on the bow/muzzy permit and it did not say deer only. The guy shot it with the smoke pole.
My whole point is that they sure made it a point not to make hunters aware that bears could be takin. And again there is not many there so i see their idea.
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.
-
12 minutes ago, Four Season Whitetails said:
So maybe you would like to take a look at mine? You can see the words ( No Other Game Correct?)
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.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Four Season Whitetails said:
First you have to get 2 different permits to hunt the park, The shotgun permit always said...Deer only no other game. Which it did again this year. 2nd is the self serve archery/Muzzy that always said the same..Deer only....Which this year did say..Hunt big game, Which yes would include bear( If you read that into it after not being able to ever shoot bears in 20 years) Now they sure did not spell it out for hunters to know this, When i called and asked i was told that they did not believe it was legal to kill bears on the park and she saw nothing on the permits saying it was( Which meant it was not spelled out even to girls making the permits) Add that on top of a person going to the park website that says- No harvests of Black Bears allowed...
So if you total all that up you would get that yes they did write the words-Big Game-on the bow/muzzy permit which was the only thing that Might show that bears are allowed but everything else points to the fact that bears are still not allowed to be killed.
They kept it shady at the least to keep as many hunters as possible in the dark so not many would be killed. There are really not that many there to begin with so i do understand the thinking but they sure could have did something a little better for park hunters.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:
This is a good point. Coyotes and fishers are adapting to human settlements and thus the suburban prey base is now available to them.
We have subdivided and built in so much natural habitat, we have a huge impact. Any species that can adapt to successfully living near people will be successful. We are seeing a bunch of formerly shy bird species moving into towns and villages - ravens, merlins and pileated woodpeckers come immediately to mind. This bodes well for their success as a species.
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.
-
13 hours ago, Four Season Whitetails said:
No this was not on the up and up like most permits. This guy had his hands in someones pockets. There was no notice to any public about bear hunting in the park. Anywhere. Word has it that he shot it with a high powered rifle in a shotgun only park.
Something real fishy here.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 12/15/2017 at 9:55 AM, Curmudgeon said:
As far as the subjective arguments that there are fewer turkeys, let us return to the mesopredator issue - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopredator_release_hypothesis . I accept that foxes, skunks, raccoons and possums destroy more turkey nests than coyotes kill turkeys. Coyotes limit the populations of several of those species. When we discuss fewer turkeys - and this is both real and subjective - correlation does not imply causation. Turkey declines - after a exponential rise following reintroduction - were predictable. This is a stabilization of the population. The same thing happens with most invasive species. You can blame whatever you want. That does not make it true.
As far as fewer rabbits. Fooey! Rabbits, rabbits, rabbits. Rabbits up to here. I have the habitat, and more rabbits than I want. If you want more small game, do habitat improvement. Don't go looking for scapegoats.
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.
-
17 hours ago, Salmon_Run said:
Nice to hear you have a "back up"plan in the woods. How do you like the Delorme ?
I often at camp alone for several days at a time and have no cell contact within miles from my cabin.
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.
-
2
-
-
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).
-
23 hours ago, the blur said:
I did a bear hunt up in Canada. Not canned, but baited. I know the odds of seeing a wild bear (without bait) are none to slim. So I figured I'd do a baited bear hunt for my 1st bear. 2 of us drove way north into Canada. Very remote area. The guide has to bait for 2 months prior to opening day. Every day, same time, and I think the guide rings a bell at the bait site when they fill the bait station. It's a lot of work for the guide. Serious commitment.
Guide puts me into my stand, baits the site, rings the dinner bell, 22 minutes later bear comes in & I'm thinking, .... this is NOT hunting. But I got my bear, and I'm done.
My hunting partner, he sat for 7 hours before the bear came in. Just at dusk. We both got bears on day 1. He sure is thinking this is hunting after 7 hours.
Is it hunting?? yeah, why not. You can call in deer, Elk, Moose, and you can bait animals too depending on where you hunt.
Would I do it again... Probably in 5-10 years if I want another bear.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 10/18/2017 at 11:16 AM, airedale said:
This kind of crap is completely predictable, you will have media, animal rights activists and anti hunters coming out of the woodwork on a deal like this, they relish and use the opportunity to punish all hunters because of the actions of one. How about by just making Tonka's Law a law against shooting dogs while hunting and "EMPHASIZE" that law in both hunter's education classes and in all state regulation books as so there is "NO DOUBT" about it. Make the penalty for someone that defies that law so severe that it will never be worth any hunter's while to ever shoot a dog because of the consequences! Those hunters that are dumb enough to shoot someone's pet or hunting dog should face the full music of that law!
Al
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.
-
On 12/17/2017 at 7:35 AM, nyantler said:
I have to agree with most of what you have said except for this... as one understands the structure of coyote families it becomes easy to see the logic. What happens when ranchers wage war on the coyote families is not keeping populations at bay, but rather recreating a new family structure that has not yet established the ranchers livestock as part of it's diet. It won't take long before the rancher will have the same problem and will have to wage the same war against a different coyote family. Having said that, if this gives ranchers some piece of mind then I suppose it is an effective response to their problem.. at least in the short term. But as most farmers will find out, they may win the short term battle, but will forever be fighting the war... and hunters will be doing the same.
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.
-
On 12/14/2017 at 2:47 PM, Curmudgeon said:
And, 5 times a year we have the opportunity to educate the new young hunters on the forum who get bad information from the He-Man Coyote Haters Club. Visceral hatred of a predator, just because it is a competitor is a demonstration of ecological illiteracy.
I like coyotes but have no problem dealing with problem animals. These coyote debates are never about them. However, every once in a while a problem coyote makes the news and the fear-mongers start up again. The rabid animal a few months ago wasn't even a data point. It was an aberration. Yet it started another coyote hate thread. Read the web page I posted early in the thread on coyotes in Chicago. The re are a lot of them and they have not hurt anyone. The reports of coyotes hurting people turned out to be dogs. That is a problem. For every coyote incident in North America, how many tens of thousands of dog bites occur? Where are the dog haters in these discussions?
As has been repeated over and over, killing wild coyotes because you think you are benefiting wildlife is foolish. It doesn't result in more deer, more turkeys, or fewer coyotes. It only satisfies a primal wolf hatred - something we should have left behind with our pastoral existence in Europe.
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.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Curmudgeon said:
This is a problem of perception more than reality. See https://urbancoyoteresearch.com/
The big amygdala crowd always brings up these scary predator scenarios.
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.
-
On 12/2/2017 at 7:57 PM, Buckmaster7600 said:
How are they biased? Like I said earlier I sleep at a camp "for now" and travel to where the best conditions and sign are. 95% of my hunting is done by parking at a trailhead usually of a main road.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.
-
17 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:
Lol, exclusive rights that I leave at 2am And drive 2 hrs away from to find deer.
Good luck on your mission to make big woods hunting easier I'll continue busting my nuts and killing mature bucks.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkADK 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.
-
6 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:
With all the land in the Adk's I have no problem with someone having the ability to pay for better more convenient access if they so desire.
In my case my camp that I have on paper company property gives me access to the backside of a huge chunk of state land that is 27 miles from the closest main road. I still have a 2 mile walk to get to the state land and there are very very few that would travel that far to get to the state land anyways.
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkI 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'.
-
25 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:
Do you think it's fair to the people who have built camps and pay leases for "private" use of those roads to loose it? I know if I built a camp on property with rights to a spot that became public I would be pissed!
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkWell 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.
Deep Woods Preparedness
in Big Woods Hunting
Posted
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.