War on bow hunting or war on deer numbers

[Five Seasons]

I didn't say hunting was going anywhere anytime soon. There are more deer and fewer hunters, so it will be a challenge to keep deer numbers down. They may have to beg people to hunt with the way things are going. Everyone can't hunt on state land and private landowners either won't allow hunting or will charge you thru the nose for the privilege to hunt their land, so how will these deer get taken out? Many hunters are already giving it up because of lack of finding private land to hunt. Things might probably get worse with deer population numbers if there is NO one who wants to cough up big money to hunt them, so the need for hunting definitely isn't going anywhere anytime soon! Whether there will be hunters willing to hunt them, that's a different story. Just look at all the bowhunter who now want to take their bows and go home because of this rule change? Don't take much to get people to give it up.

So you're basically agreeing to everything most of us are saying. It's not the hunter or the weapon not doing their job, it's the access. NY has no plan for that as far as I know.

[growalot]

Steve I'm not giving up I'm just switching gears and I hope with all my heart most bow hunters and ML guys do the same...go to areas you can still have a choice in what you shoot...show the DEC black mailing one or 2 particular groups of hunters IS NOT the ANSWER... it's nice and all that land owner damage permits were made  easier but I do not own 100 acres and the lands next to me are yep that's right no doe hunting allowed and the others have a 100acres so no need to team up with my land. 

[Jennifer]

 If hunters didn't kill the deer, the lack of food, predators, cars, etc would.  Nature would balance them out.  True statement.  Darwinism at its finest.

 

This is true; in the long term things would swing back and forth then balance out. But the long term- in terms of ecology- is not within a human lifespan. Sometimes it is not within many generations.  If we (admittedly, selfishly) want to conserve what we have and not let things get worse before they get better, management is important. Humanity has altered enough natural processes through habitat destruction and fragmentation, predator loss (I know we have yotes by the handful now, but trust me it's still a very different picture than predation 300 years ago), invasive species, logging of yesteryear, agriculture, etc. We're talking about a lot more than overpopulated deer eating ornamental flowers and gardens in the suburbs. Overbrowsing of native species is already a problem in some areas, and long-term will change the forest ecosystems for centuries (Not that we haven't already). Add in the invasive species that are quick to take over deer-disturbed areas (that deer seem to ignore) and our ecosystems change even more rapidly. In time... centuries, yes, it would balance. Animals would adapt or get wiped out. Same with plants (which are an important part of the conservation picture but are often overlooked). Earth has gone through countless cycles like this. Selfishly, I want it to slow down (for, we have artificially accelerated it!) so that more species have time to adapt, and that future generations of people can enjoy some of the things I do.

Anyhow I don't want to debate much, just wanted to toss in some cents. Hunters were the original conservationists, and I think to continue being conservationists is important to our future, both as hunters as well as nature-lovers.

[wooly]

This is true; in the long term things would swing back and forth then balance out. But the long term- in terms of ecology- is not within a human lifespan. Sometimes it is not within many generations.  If we (admittedly, selfishly) want to conserve what we have and not let things get worse before they get better, management is important. Humanity has altered enough natural processes through habitat destruction and fragmentation, predator loss (I know we have yotes by the handful now, but trust me it's still a very different picture than predation 300 years ago), invasive species, logging of yesteryear, agriculture, etc. We're talking about a lot more than overpopulated deer eating ornamental flowers and gardens in the suburbs. Overbrowsing of native species is already a problem in some areas, and long-term will change the forest ecosystems for centuries (Not that we haven't already). Add in the invasive species that are quick to take over deer-disturbed areas (that deer seem to ignore) and our ecosystems change even more rapidly. In time... centuries, yes, it would balance. Animals would adapt or get wiped out. Same with plants (which are an important part of the conservation picture but are often overlooked). Earth has gone through countless cycles like this. Selfishly, I want it to slow down (for, we have artificially accelerated it!) so that more species have time to adapt, and that future generations of people can enjoy some of the things I do.

Anyhow I don't want to debate much, just wanted to toss in some cents. Hunters were the original conservationists, and I think to continue being conservationists is important to our future, both as hunters as well as nature-lovers.

 

Really great post Jennifer... even if it was just a summary.

 

The only problem with what you've clearly pointed out is the blatant disregard for less preferred game species in the eyes of the typical special interest group of hunters with ONE goal in mind..... more deer killing opportunities.

 

I don't think it's possible you're going to convince anyone here other than a select few that less deer and increased predators is a good thing.

Deer hunters have tunnel vision....PERIOD, and I'm not claiming to be immune to it myself at times, but it's the truth.

 

Invasives on all levels from insects, to critters, to vegetation, are constantly introducing themselves to our landscape due to the changing environment we've created, and most are going unnoticed until they become a problematic. We have to result to drastic measures to rid them from some areas entirely before the next invasive shows up to take care of the problem for us, creating a whole new set of problem we have no idea how to solve once again.

 

As much as I hate to say it, I don't believe the modern day hunter is much of a "conservationist" anymore just because they dump loads of cash into their outdoor pursuits.

Most will talk a good story, but ultimately, they're clueless to nature and real conservation.

No one is really paying much attention to anything out there anymore beyond their favorite critter to kill.

 

Sorry to break it to you all this way, but that's one of the biggest turn offs to hunting that turns a lot of folks away, myself included, or makes them give up a past time that was once a very enjoyable way to pass the fall and winter months to seek out other ways being more involved with the entire experience..., not just the hunt and kill.

[steve863]

Wow, two great posts back to back! Quite refreshing in comparison to the usual dynamic duo VJP and Papist.

[wooly]

Wow, two great posts back to back! Quite refreshing in comparison to the usual dynamic duo VJP and Papist.

 

You be quiet unless you got something constructive to add to this,lol

I'm sure you got somethin'....

[steve863]

You be quiet unless you got something constructive to add to this,lol

I'm sure you got somethin'....

I WILL be quiet for a change because I couldn't say anything better than what you two already have.

There are hunters out there. They are a dime a dozen. Then there's Wooly who is in a class by himself!

[NFA-ADK]

Bold statement Wooly but I have to agree for the most part.  We can be very self centered and selfish.  But I see the flip side where many hunters are not and it shows in many of the new hunters that are brought into our world by thier mentors.  The conservation these deer hunters do or try with food plots and trees and clearing the land tends to help all the animals.  I understand we do tend to target deer, bucks especially but its in our blood. 

 

Do we all practice real conservation, probably not like you are expecting but those billions of dollars you want to dismiss goes to many of the parks and conservation in general.  That will preserve much of what exists now for future generations. 

 

"Most will talk a good story, but ultimately, they're clueless to nature and real conservation."  Not much I can argue about that quote.

[G-Man]

G-Man, let me ask a really obvious question. Not just to you, but to ALL the people talking about these changes....

They say that the changes were for population control, correct? They want to kill off a certain percentage of Does in some areas, correct?

Why early bow season then?? They could make opening day of gun season Doe only and kill more Doe in 1 day then bow hunters could kill in an entire season. Bow hunters are such a tiny, tiny portion of deer kills, it makes no sense. I just won't hunt the first 2 weeks. The 15 or so people in my bow hunting circle said the same thing. This regulation will not change the amount of deer that are killed, it will just alter when they are killed.

Next year the DEC will come up with another set of reactive hairbrain ideas that won't work. We are all just cogs in their revenue machine.

the point I was making is that bow hunters are quite capable of controling numbers it's their mindset that limits that, wait for a buck, I do it as well, but I also know to control my doe at camp and take 10 a year just to keep numbers the same. Most hunters are not going out of their way to kill a doe,

for example, at property in lancaster ny , there is limited access to hunt it's all private lots, I had 2 friend bow hunt it with the stipulation they shoot does, the one senior gentleman has take at least one and sometimes more during archer and has take on beautiful buck a few minutes after shooting a doe. The other younger man tries for a buck first even when told to shoot doe,and wonders why he can't hunt there anymore... it's the mentality of oh a buck may be behind the doe,

if seasons were reversed would you still archery hunt??

[G-Man]

G-Man, let me ask a really obvious question. Not just to you, but to ALL the people talking about these changes....

They say that the changes were for population control, correct? They want to kill off a certain percentage of Does in some areas, correct?

Why early bow season then?? They could make opening day of gun season Doe only and kill more Doe in 1 day then bow hunters could kill in an entire season. Bow hunters are such a tiny, tiny portion of deer kills, it makes no sense. I just won't hunt the first 2 weeks. The 15 or so people in my bow hunting circle said the same thing. This regulation will not change the amount of deer that are killed, it will just alter when they are killed.

Next year the DEC will come up with another set of reactive hairbrain ideas that won't work. We are all just cogs in their revenue machine.

early.bow because it's new 15th was start date for many years, it's a chance for bowhunters to prove they can do it! But look at the resistancd! Crossbow was brought in to increase take in bow, and eventually it will be in all archery if the archers fail to prove their worth by harvesting doe. Personally I am in favor of split seasons, give 2 weeks bow crossbow for doe, close for a week and the either sex for 2 weeks , close during the rut to protect bucks, then open for gun 2 weeks , close for a week and then re open for late season for 2 weeks... multiple opening days will result in high participation as will shorter season..

[wooly]

  The conservation these deer hunters do or try with food plots and trees and clearing the land tends to help all the animals. 

Don't kid yourself NFA...., clearing a forest or native forage field to convert it into a corn, clover, or soybean plot for the sole purpose of deer hunting has an impact on everything surrounding that plot.

Seriously, right down to the birds that carry seeds from those naturally occurring fields and deposit them in other areas to create new native growth that supports ALL wildlife even the critters you're not focused on trying to kill ,

 

Most hunters these days don't have the time to dedicate to really see what's happening out there year round, and that's understandable,, but you can't dismiss it when it's happening right before your very eyes.

It's easy to miss when you got the deer blinders on all the time.

 

I'm not trying to sound like a smart azz or know it all, but I try to take note of even the most insignificant changes around me now that I'd rather hunt with a camera these days.

[G-Man]

Don't kid yourself NFA...., clearing a forest or native forage field to convert it into a corn, clover, or soybean plot for the sole purpose of deer hunting has an impact on everything surrounding that plot.

Seriously, right down to the birds that carry seeds from those naturally occurring fields and deposit them in other areas to create new native growth that supports ALL wildlife even the critters you're not focused on trying to kill ,

Most hunters these days don't have the time to dedicate to really see what's happening out there year round, and that's understandable,, but you can't dismiss it when it's happening right before your very eyes.

It's easy to miss when you got the deer blinders on all the time.

I'm not trying to sound like a smart azz or know it all, but I try to take note of even the most insignificant changes around me now that I'd rather hunt with a camera these days.

yes I was a clear.and food.plot but noticed as the crp fields were put back into production the drop on turkey numbers as the fallow field were prime nesting abd brooding habitat, I have developed a system.that looks at what will be lost vs gained now and some of my pots are now converted into bedding and fallow field or young aspen stands for grouse...

[Doc]

Really great post Jennifer... even if it was just a summary.

 

The only problem with what you've clearly pointed out is the blatant disregard for less preferred game species in the eyes of the typical special interest group of hunters with ONE goal in mind..... more deer killing opportunities.

 

I don't think it's possible you're going to convince anyone here other than a select few that less deer and increased predators is a good thing.

Deer hunters have tunnel vision....PERIOD, and I'm not claiming to be immune to it myself at times, but it's the truth.

 

Invasives on all levels from insects, to critters, to vegetation, are constantly introducing themselves to our landscape due to the changing environment we've created, and most are going unnoticed until they become a problematic. We have to result to drastic measures to rid them from some areas entirely before the next invasive shows up to take care of the problem for us, creating a whole new set of problem we have no idea how to solve once again.

 

As much as I hate to say it, I don't believe the modern day hunter is much of a "conservationist" anymore just because they dump loads of cash into their outdoor pursuits.

Most will talk a good story, but ultimately, they're clueless to nature and real conservation.

No one is really paying much attention to anything out there anymore beyond their favorite critter to kill.

 

Sorry to break it to you all this way, but that's one of the biggest turn offs to hunting that turns a lot of folks away, myself included, or makes them give up a past time that was once a very enjoyable way to pass the fall and winter months to seek out other ways being more involved with the entire experience..., not just the hunt and kill.

OK, if we are all done bashing hunters and engaging in all the self-flagellation, let me be the first to tell you that attitudes have not gotten worse. In fact not that many decades ago, you would never have heard any hunters even having these kinds of conversations. For some reason, we seem to think that the attitudes of hunters have suddenly shifted from the great selfless benefactors of wildlife who hunted only to make the world of nature a lovely balanced place of harmony, to some kind of menace of the planet bent on the wanton eradication of all of wildlife. Well, that's a nice rose-colored vision of the hunters of the past, but no, there has not been some strain of evil that has infected all of the modern hunters. Regardless of the perverse pleasures we seem to get out of running down the hunting mentality of today, we need to occasionally stop beating ourselves to recognize that the widespread concern for ethics and fair chase, and the concepts of individual herd enhancement and management are relatively recent mind-sets that the hunters of the past never really bothered to engage in. So, let's stop explaining to the antis or any non-hunter how we understand and appreciate their efforts to impugn hunting and its participants and now want to help that effort along. Lets take a little credit where credit is due and appreciate our contributions to conservation and even the fact that we are discussing what is good for ecology and wildlife management. The very fact that we are discussing an over-abundance of deer kind of shows that we are not the scourge of wildlife that we seem to now enjoy portraying ourselves as.

[Jennifer]

I am thankful that this conversation is even occuring, Doc. It gives me hope and shows me that we are thoughtful on this subject, even if we don't all agree.

[The_Field_Ager]

If the DEC is attempting to implement UN Agenda 21 policy, this would explain the attack on hunting, for that is stated goal of the UN, the eradication of all hunting.

 

Costa Rica banned hunting as a direct result of UN influence. Obviously here, things would have to happen gradually.

 

Why Johnny won’t (be able to) hunt  By John C. Street

 

 

Unbeknownst to – or, perhaps, unacknowledged by - most who advocate for a partnership between “mainstream environmental groups” and the “$76 billion economic force,” there is a little known document called “Agenda 21” that spells out prescriptions and action plans for, among a long list of other frightening things, taking away your right to own firearms and curtailing your access to public land.   So what, you might ask, does Agenda 21 have to do with Johnny not being able to hunt and fish in the future?  Plenty. 

Agenda 21 is, as described on the Wikipedia web site (www.wikipedia.com), “a program run by the United Nations related to sustainable development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment.” The “major groups” referred to in this description are identified in the text of the Agenda 21 document as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or, in laymen’s terms, our “main stream environmental groups,” operating as not-for-profit, 501©(3) entities.

 

http://www.acslpa.org/John_C__Street_Articles/John_C__Street_Articles_Archiv/Why_Johnny_won-t_-be_able_to-_/why_johnny_won-t_-be_able_to-_hunt__by_john_c__street.html

 

[growalot]

I was talking to some guys not far from me in ....they have not been seeing buck or doe out that way...so I steered the . Questions..what they have been seeing is lots of bear and cubs...lots of yotes and...lots of those 30# fishers...which yes can find kill and will eat fawn. Now figure in how many such pockets are in each of these kill areas. If they are not careful there will be a problem.

Want to stop collisions focus on the suburbs..put in the correct policies and permits.

Want more collisions..take out many doe and get the buck on their feet searching and running the ones left all over the country side..Good God how many times can I roll my eyes...

Edited August 9, 2015 by growalot

[Four Season Whitetail's]

I was talking to some guys not far from me in ....they have not been seeing buck or doe out that way...so I steered the . Questions..what they have been seeing is lots of bear and cubs...lots of yotes and...lots of those 30# fishers...which yes can find kill and will eat fawn. Now figure in how many such pockets are in each of these kill areas. If they are not careful there will be a problem.

Want to stop collisions focus on the suburbs..put in the correct policies and permits.

Want more collisions..take out many doe and get the buck on their feet searching and running the ones left all over the country side..Good God how many timed can I roll my eyes...

Yup just take a look at all the states around us whom's hunters believed in and listened to their DEC/DNR about deer numbers and takes.  Now they have no tags and some are even having no season at all. Yup landowner/hunter managed land is a much better route.

 

With smart landowner/Hunters of course.   The smart hunter is getting in on a good managed piece of property with a friend that owns the property or pays a reasonable lease price on property and make their own great hunting area.  You keep listening to the white coats you wont have to worry much about deer in a few short years. 

[Five Seasons]

Yup just take a look at all the states around us whom's hunters believed in and listened to their DEC/DNR about deer numbers and takes. Now they have no tags and some are even having no season at all. Yup landowner/hunter managed land is a much better route.

With smart landowner/Hunters of course. The smart hunter is getting in on a good managed piece of property with a friend that owns the property or pays a reasonable lease price on property and make their own great hunting area. You keep listening to the white coats you wont have to worry much about deer in a few short years.

A decade or more ago Mississippi was worried they had too many doe. They opened up the season with no bag limit. Before they knew what they had done the deer numbers plunged and buck became scarce. So bad in fact that they had to implement ARs.

Take that for what it's worth.