Doc

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.

Yes, as I said, trophyism is just one item in a long list of emotional items that the antis use to beat us over the head with. If you want to know the most effective tool in the Anti-hunting arsenal, I would think it is hunting imagery. It is a powerful weapon to stir emotions to their max. It is something that we should use more frequently. We argue logic, encyclopedic stats, and mind-numbing facts and figures until whoever we are talking to begins to stare off into space in a semi-conscious, coma-like condition. I wonder what would happen if somebody dragged out that video that we had here recently of the starving doe that could hardly hold it's head up and was obviously in excruciating pain. Or how about a fox that has disgusting matter crusting over its eyes. Or maybe a raccoon staggering around with rabies or diphtheria. Perhaps old pictures of that deer yard over at Honeoye where a field was littered with mounds of snow-covered dead deer, or the starving deer barely standing with that blank stare that won't even move out of the road. Or how about the good old video of the moose that is being torn to shreds by wolves piece by piece. And on and on. These are all very emotional and riveting images that show that there is no such thing as a critter simply dying of old age, peacefully in its bed, in the wild. It puts the fate of wild critters a bit more into focus and shows that the lucky ones are those harvested during hunting season. Want to shut an anti up? ..... just pack your cell-phone full of those images to show them the alternative to hunting. Never mind the facts and figures and stats and studies. They just tune out with those things. Use their own tactics against them. Work their emotions for a change.

I don't have a problem with it. It just is not my purpose for being out there as I said.

Do you really believe that one particular gender of the herd can be managed separately without interactive consideration? I'm not sure that it is even possible to manage deer according to gender. And, I don't think you ever manage one without impacts to the other. So to say that it has nothing to do with doe management is really incorrect. And I am sure that you cannot manage bucks without concepts of "population management" being involved. So that part of your statement is incorrect also.

We really do know how this is all going to turn out. We will ride all this out for as long as possible as the noose of public opinion tightens around hunting and we continue to lose participants. Some like myself will make it to the end of our natural lives, but other younger hunters will tire of the increasing limits, regulations, and complex restrictions thrown on our backs by ourselves and the growing intolerance of the public. Trophyism? That's not even a blip on the radar of public opinion. It is only one more of the many overwhelming emotional arguments that the ever growing and heavily financed anti-hunting organizations are pedaling. Eventually what we call hunting will become the activity of only the most wealthy among us as public repudiation and over-regulation strangles the rest of us. The trophy instincts will actually be the last to die as that is the only motivation that will sustain the obscene amounts of money and the tolerance of irritating over-regulation that it will take to participate. Gloomy outlook? .... you bet. But I want somebody else to explain a logical more positive outlook for us. I am looking for a more positive scenario, but I'll be damned if I can see one.

Great opportunity for a creative entrepreneur. A new product for the hunting market .....ADD-A-POINT. A deer antler point with a lag-screw point on it. In a bind? Deer down that isn't quite up to legal requirements? Buy Add-A-Point for only $19.95 and convert that deer to one you can be proud of. Never go afield without it!

That's pretty much it for me too. I run through the list of "wants" and "don't wants" when the opportunity presents itself. I would like to think that I have the ability to pick a deer, and hunt it until I get it, but that seldom really happens. Most of the bigger bucks that I have gotten was at the very first time I had ever laid eyes on them. I can't lay a lot of skill on many of them and have to chalk it up to dumb luck.

Sure, I get it. I'm not out there to watch deer walk by. Will have venison in the freezer, and whether it has some huge rack on its head or not, I will still expect to have venison. I will say that I don't have all the nice crop land that a lot of people have. It is a form of mature woods hunting and I don't have the luxury of sitting there saying to myself, "Oh gee, does that one score enough or do the other dozen deer that will be walking by today have more points ..... decisions ....decisions". It is deer killing not deer watching.

Yeah, use your crayons or use common sense if you choose, whatever. But don't try to tell me that you can add a secondary overlaid redundant system of zoned management without cost increases. Basically they will be using region sized zones instead of WMUs. One would think that if that were adequate for bucks, they could save a pile of money by managing does in those same huge areas. I want to offer an example that will clarify my point. This recent regulation that they have been tossing around about declaring the 1st 2-weeks of bow season to be doe only, based on size of doe populations in out-of-control areas. If they declare that a buck management decision, it could wind up applying to a whole lot of land areas than the target WMU. Now I'm not sure that they will declare that a buck management decision or not, but that does point up the potential kinds of problems to hunters of wildly expanding the management zone size for bucks and how it may impact WMUs that can not afford that kind of restriction. In other words, just like any kind of expansion of zones. you start working your way back to inappropriate regulations on areas that shouldn't be affected. AR regs also may impact WMUs that can't support them just because some of the included WMUs can. If these huge zones are used to determine where AR is to be applied, it very well may turn out that some of the WMUs with those huge buck zones have zero or very few available antlerless permits. The impact on hunters is obvious. I see conflicts of buck management with doe management simply because you have two conflicting systems at work on the same land. Staying with the WMU zones for buck management allows a flexibility to declare individual WMUs to be AR, depending on local situations and conditions, which makes a whole lot more sense to me. Actually the individual WMU AR locations shows very well how WMUs can be used for buck management. I'm sure that conflicts will not be limited to only these examples. Such is the nature of maintaining two systems for the same land. And all for no reason. Everyone thinks that complication involves a solution ...... It doesn't. You have a system, use it! It is not designed only for does. It can work for bucks as well as does (imagine that).