New law establishes antler restrictions in a part of WMU 3A

SO

the real issue/problem is that it was a legislative change and occurred after DEC's regs guide was published, so it's not in the guide and could lead to enforcement headaches for ECOs......

Haven't all the special AR WMU's so far come as a result of legislative action rather than DEC initiative? That was my understanding. Is this another case of game management by politicians?

No, the pilot project was set by DEC.....and yes, this IS a case of game management by politicians.....just as was the case when lawmakers included an amendment in the Cortland County rifle bill which, as a result, bans the use of crossbows this fall EVEN DURING THE FIREARMS SEASON....

No, the pilot project was set by DEC.....

I'll have to try to check back a ways now, but I believe the deal was that the DEC was pressed into the original AR WMUs by legislative initiative. Yes, the DEC had to implement it, but I believe it was under political pressure to do so. Until just recently (this new 5-year plan), the DEC had absolutely no interest in AR even to the point where they were issuing statements that were outright hostile to the idea. Even in this 5 year plan, I believe that the DEC is again capitulating to political pressure.

The funny thing about the recent legislation is that aside from adding a portion of 3A, it doesn't do anything....the other units involved already have ARs

SO

Its great news.

The funny thing about the recent legislation is that aside from adding a portion of 3A, it doesn't do anything....the other units involved already have ARs

Right thats the entire point of the addition, is just to just cover that part of 3A.

No, the pilot project was set by DEC.....and yes, this IS a case of game management by politicians.....just as was the case when lawmakers included an amendment in the Cortland County rifle bill which, as a result, bans the use of crossbows this fall EVEN DURING THE FIREARMS SEASON....

No its not, it was brought on by those who wanted AR's in their respective area.  Can't speak for the Cortland deal.

No, the pilot project was set by DEC.....and yes, this IS a case of game management by politicians.....just as was the case when lawmakers included an amendment in the Cortland County rifle bill which, as a result, bans the use of crossbows this fall EVEN DURING THE FIREARMS SEASON....

No its not, it was brought on by those who wanted AR's in their respective area.  Can't speak for the Cortland deal.

Yes, it's been quite a while, but I believe I recall that those people went through their local legislators because the DEC wasn't having any of it.

Haven't all the special AR WMU's so far come as a result of legislative action rather than DEC initiative? That was my understanding. Is this another case of game management by politicians?

are you referring to politicians like you?

are you referring to politicians like you?

Hey Squats in bushes-

Where have you been? I've really missed those pointless, random, senseless, comments that you seem to feel a need for. Is that some form of turret's syndrome? 

Doc is 100% right. Even the NYSCC recommended this bill be vetoed. Typical of the PC crowd in Albany. Here's the article: http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20110810/sports/108100389/outdoors-sportsmen-fight-antler-restriction-bill

The opposition may not, and I stress MAY NOT, have been to its contents but the procedure itself, in which lawmakers can pass resolutions which essentially supercede DEC's management authority.....DEC prefers to, obviously, maintain its management authority and approve regulations changes following a process which includes a public comment period

The article indicates that 58% of hunters statewide oppose AR's. Now, there's no question, at least in my opinion, that politicians should butt out, but the numbers speak for themselves. I practice my own "QDM", but what others do on their property, is up to them. Here's a prime example, of a situation I've got. I hunt a property in Millbrook (3G). The landowner wants the herd thinned on his property, and, quite frankly, has no interest in AR's. It is a wide open field I hunt, right above his house. He can literally see every deer that goes through the field. If he knows I have tags, he expects me to harvest deer, plain and simple. I have taken many deer off this property, and it seems to be a never ending cycle. Would he want to hear that I didn't take the big four that was wide open, because of AR's? More than likely, not. He would end up getting tags to control them in the off season, effectively ending my permission to hunt the property. Ironically, while his place is overwhelmed with deer, I can't get a doe permit for this area, than to save my life. It makes no sense to worry about what buck I take, while I can't even get a doe permit.

Statewide, the majority oppose, yes.....and I would fall into that category of being opposed to MANDATORY ARs...but the bill deals with only those units where AR support exists......I do agree, however, that DEC needs to be the regulatory power on hunting and fishing regs....

For example: we now have a 12-year-old age minimum for young bowhunters, which is great...and it occurred through legislation...but do you think that, if DEC had been the regulatory power, that these young hunters would be allowed to sit in a treestand? I think so, but they are prohibited from doing so under the legislative action....

The opposition may not, and I stress MAY NOT, have been to its contents but the procedure itself, in which lawmakers can pass resolutions which essentially supercede DEC's management authority.....DEC prefers to, obviously, maintain its management authority and approve regulations changes following a process which includes a public comment period

The problem is when the overwhelming majority wanted AR's and the DEC ignored that, those were forced into alternate methods to get things passed.  I'm sure it will happen again within WMU 4, when 65+ % voted in favor and the DEC decided to ignore that as well.    The DEC does some things right and some things wrong, it is what it is.

The article indicates that 58% of hunters statewide oppose AR's. Now, there's no question, at least in my opinion, that politicians should butt out, but the numbers speak for themselves. I practice my own "QDM", but what others do on their property, is up to them. Here's a prime example, of a situation I've got. I hunt a property in Millbrook (3G). The landowner wants the herd thinned on his property, and, quite frankly, has no interest in AR's. It is a wide open field I hunt, right above his house. He can literally see every deer that goes through the field. If he knows I have tags, he expects me to harvest deer, plain and simple. I have taken many deer off this property, and it seems to be a never ending cycle. Would he want to hear that I didn't take the big four that was wide open, because of AR's? More than likely, not. He would end up getting tags to control them in the off season, effectively ending my permission to hunt the property. Ironically, while his place is overwhelmed with deer, I can't get a doe permit for this area, than to save my life. It makes no sense to worry about what buck I take, while I can't even get a doe permit.

Sounds like he has failed to go through the normal DMAP processes as every other farmer goes through when they have a deer problem.  Letting a few 1.5's walk is not the root of his problems.

And also DMAP's allow only the shooting of does and only during open season with a liscensed hunter so that big 4 pointer would be safe...

Doc is 100% right. Even the NYSCC recommended this bill be vetoed. Typical of the PC crowd in Albany. Here's the article: http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20110810/sports/108100389/outdoors-sportsmen-fight-antler-restriction-bill

This is a case of be careful what you read especially on the internet.  That is a total misrepresentation of what the Survey found.

The article falsely states "A Cornell study by Jody Enck of the school's Department of Natural Resources shows that mandatory antler restriction is generally opposed by sportsmen."  This is incorrect. 

IN FACT the majority of NY hunters support mandatory antler restrictions according to the 2010 Cornell Survey. 

The correct numbers 57.4% of NY hunters think mandatory Antler Restrictions are a good idea see page 43 of 88 of the final 2010 survey. Table 35. 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/hdrudeer10.pdf

Also 59% of NY hunters supported yearling buck protection in the 2006 Cornell survey.

There are several areas that have even stronger support 63% to 69% for Yearling buck protection with Antler Restrictions.  The highest number is from Central NY.

looks like it was corrected by the author

http://www.pressconnects.com/article/20110824/SPORTS/108240389/Dave-Henderson-outdoors-DEC-didn-t-report-wild-cougar?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cs    Hunters favor antler restrictions  David Hartman, President of the New York State Whitetail Management Coalition noted that a recent column asserting that the majority of New York deer hunters don't support mandatory antler restrictions was wrong.

Sure enough, a check of last year's Cornell survey on deer management by Jody Enck showed 57.4 percent of the state's deer hunters think mandatory Antler Restrictions are a good idea.

Also, while the New York State Conservation Council voted down all resolutions regarding antler restrictions last fall, "At the most recent NYSCC meeting in April, both the Big Game and Archery Committees voted in favor of recommending all resolutions supporting Antler Restrictions," Hartman said via email. "There were five in the Big Game Committee and 6 in the Archery Committee.

"Also the bill sets no new legal precedent. Last session there were in the Assembly approximately 496 bill introduced to amend the Environmental Conservation Law, 65 related to wildlife, hunting and fishing. Eight became law. It is hardly a new concept. It also does not change the section of the law that grants the DEC regulatory authority which is 11-0903."

True, but, 50% also believe that they should have the freedom to take the antlered deer of their choice, according to this same survey. It would seem to me, that while they may support antler restrictions, by the same token, they feel they should not be told what deer to harvest.

There are several areas that have even stronger support 63% to 69% for Yearling buck protection with Antler Restrictions.  The highest number is from Central NY.

If there is all of this supprt for it....why are so many 1.5's getting wacked?. the 50-70% supporters don't practice it?...but support it?

There are several areas that have even stronger support 63% to 69% for Yearling buck protection with Antler Restrictions.  The highest number is from Central NY.

If there is all of this supprt for it....why are so many 1.5's getting wacked?. the 50-70% supporters don't practice it?...but support it?

Some do some don't.  When there isnt anything else....

Hey Folks,

It seems that any threads that deal with ARs, eventually deteriorate into a general discussion on who is for it and who is against it.  In the process, the details of the specific area in question (in this case, one portion of WMU 3A) seem to fade away, and everyone seems to discuss what they support for wherever it is they hunt. 

Since surveys conducted show that most hunters support ARs, I can't help but wonder how many of those hunters support it "across the board" for all areas of the state.

I have hunted this section of 3A since I was 16 (about 20 years) and for the life of me can't understand why anyone would want ARs there.  This is the central portion of the catskill mountains.  Per unit area, there are few hunters and plenty of deer that are living past 1.5.  Granted, the deer population there isn;t what it is in neighboring WMUs.  As evidence, there are hardly ever any doe permits given.

I just feel that if the majority of guys want AR here, something isn't adding up.  Do these same guys want it for the Adirondacks?  How about Westchester County? 

As I've stated in a previous thread, 14 of the last 16 deer my hunting party has shot in 3A have had 3 or more points.  A handful have been better than 160 pounds, up to 210 dressed.  Why would we want to change anything at this point?