Doc

Ya think????

Ha-ha ..... The DEC in their haste to spring their "Gotcha" on the bowhunters, left the NYON in the dust without a chance to cover the story. Well, it looks like the DEC has taken a page from the governor and learned that it doesn't pay to drag their feet on something that is going to raise hell. Spring it on them quick .... lol.

Don't kid yourself. The DEC has declared war on bowhunting. It is not just L.I. that this is happening.

I have never considered does as beneath taking with a bow, and I will not participate in this blatant attack on bowhunters. I will not be forced to watch good bucks go by simply because the DEC has manufactured a beef with bowhunters. Honestly, I would rather see my 51 consecutive years of bow season participation come to an end than to willingly participate in the DEC's continued war on bowhunters. And perhaps now is the time.

No, it could have easily been avoided if the DEC pulled their heads out of their butt and realized that they will not bring down the population through bowhunters and muzzleloaders alone. Their attack on the bowhunters and muzzleloader hunters will only result in the loss of bowhunters and muzzleloader hunters. Way to go you ignorant jerks!

I don't think so. Those areas effected are supposedly high population areas that the DEC has now put on the backs of bowhunters and muzzleloader hunters to fix. Logic tells you that that is not going to happen, so this "doe only" will apply until ..... forever or until the DEC gets some sane management that doesn't have their heads stuck up inside that dark unsanitary place.

It is nothing that hasn't been predicted. And, it's not just the management team.

Sorry to have been a part of derailing this thread. Antler spread ARs is just one of the bigger hot-buttons for me. I think that the topic that buckstopshere brought up was a fantastic observation. Whether you believe the stats or the way they are arrived at, the fact is that it is that very same statistical method that the DEC makes policy with and wants to base further hunting restrictions on. And to consider their own stats that show a failure of ARs and then for them to continue implementing them and expanding them, shows a certain kind of arrogant ignorance that proves that they only operate on perceptions rather than fact. I think we burned this topic just a little too quickly. Sorry for my part in that.

How about I just accurately answer your question (which I did) instead of repeating the whole thread. Who the hell wants to look at all of that crap twice?

It sure is cheap enough for the number of issues.

The deer in the back ...... are those antlers outside the ears? Better yell at a deer in that position to get him to look straight at you. Or you can just shoot them all, and then just sort out the ones to take home that pass the regulation ....lol.

Oh, I am sure they have a "factor' for that. They probably went to Cornell to get one .... lol.

Ha-ha-ha .... Read up on how the DEC establishes their "Harvest reporting rates" and you will see the iron-clad, absolutely fool-proof ways (accurate to within a couple of percentage points) that they can take spot checks at deer processors and other such places and extrapolate from a relatively insignificant number of dead deer amazing gobs of information about the entire NYS deer herd harvest. No problem! This is the wonderful age of statistics. Aren't you a believer? Heck, coming up with the age of the harvests has to be a piece of cake.

Quote: "When did I ever say that an additional layer of deer management would cost less than the previous system?" When on reply #65 you commented about your concern relative to taxes ("So how high do you want your taxes to be?") I took it that you were implying that adding on this overlay of zones somehow would be beneficial to the taxation. Frankly, in answer to your question, I want the taxes to stay the same in terms of not "reinventing the wheel" through duplicate zoning. Quote: "This whole thread has been about the new buck management program and map, we arent talking population management, doe management, DMP allocation or anything like that." And no one is talking about any changes to whole herd management. Because you have selective comprehension or are not reading replies you are failing to understand that I am discussing the dilution of the buck management by using huge zones instead of the existing, fairly well thought out WMUs. I don't recall ever talking about DMPs or doe management. Quote: "What I said is that Doc has been insinuating that current WMUs are somehow going to go away, and that instead of focusing on herd management on a smaller, more precise scale, the DEC is looking to broaden its scope." If I were of a mind to waste my time going back to the specific quote, I could show you where I specifically said that WMUs were not going away and that they (DEC) are adding an overlay on top of the existing WMU system. And also, I have said that their buck management is indeed "looking to broaden its scope" (or more accurately diluting their focus) by using some generalized system that overlooks the individual requirements of the WMUs included in them. The bucks are a part of the overall herd. That seems to be a fact that you aren't catching on to. There is nothing about managing a buck that can be adequately done in a more sloppy or slipshod way than managing the rest of the herd. Considerations of habitat, land use, hunting pressure, human interaction conflicts, and all the considerations that were used in establishing WMUs are the same for bucks as they are for managing does. There are no short-cuts simply because of the gender being managed.

NYON ....... Always good for a few good threads here. This issue is no exception. Some great articles in this issue that I will be commenting on soon.

They're ALL for food (buck or doe). The challenge becomes whatever each individual hunter defines it as. That part is none of my business.

Oh yes, the good old outside the ears rule. Maybe a nice loud shout will get them to look straight at you while you check out if the antlers have the proper relation to the ears. That's always something I try to do before I shoot. It's always a bit more sporting to give them a heads-up that you are there. All these fad-rules simply make it more likely that hunters will just begin assuming that because the antlers look so big from the side that they have to meet whatever arbitrary criteria the rules demand. So what if there are a few more deer rotting in the woods because somebody made a bad gamble.

GONE! It has been gone for quite a while. It's alright though. I have been forced to dine on some nicely marbled angus steaks and roasts instead. Oh, poor me!

Yeah a lot depends on the context. If you are talking about a deer hunting big woods, it may be more food and cover related. If you are talking hiking or camping, I have seen some "big woods" locally that could give anyone a very wilderness type atmosphere and the feeling of alone-ness. And then there was the "big woods" of Northern Ontario Canada where we went moose hunting. None of the trees were big, but it was a big woods. The features there were that there was no sound at all (not even an airplane) that wasn't a naturally caused sound. And absolutely no light that came from this planet. Some might call a big woods anything that you could dangerously get lost in (as in never found). It's all about what you are going to use it for and how "big" you consider big....lol. It is more of a perception than an actual definable thing.

What? ...... No classical enthusiasts? How about some War of 1812 Beethoven stuff by any good orchestra. That would make a great concert. Opera?? ... well that might be going a bit far ..... lol.

Yeah, I'm afraid we may be operating with less than 1/2 of the story. Unfortunately by the time we get the rest and see the results and how they really intend to use these buck management zones, it will be set in stone.

Not really, just keeping a close eye on what the DEC is doing for or to us. Seems like a reasonable thing to do these day, or any days.

Rock: Everly Brothers, Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, Frankie Valley Actually, pick up any 1960's oldies collection, and I could pick out a pile of them that I would like to hear. Bee Gees, Ray Charles, Aaron Neville would be great too. Country: Merle Haggard, Hank Williams Sr., Josh Turner Instrumental: Al hirt, Dave Brubeck, Harry James, Glen Miller

I have to admit that I can't really imagine the actual details of how they are going to use these so-called "buck management units". I find it difficult to believe that you can effectively manage one unique segment of the herd by gender. But, maybe that's because I haven't seen a description that is better than just a bunch of generalities. We'll see what the actual use of these new units bring.

Yes, as you do, my first thought is the Adirondacks with undeveloped, forever wild, unused, heavy old-growth trees. Hardly great deer habitat but capable of holding some very old deer. However, from a deer hunting perspective, I also think of large unbroken tracts of mature timber that can be found in the more southern areas of the state (even western NY). Yeah there might be a house here and there, but little to no agriculture, and again with not a whole lot of deer browse. We do have a lot of that kind of habitat in NYS, and in fact the northeast part of the country, as family farms continue to disappear. It's some pretty tough deer hunting, with conditions that a lot of New Yorkers don't understand or even know about.