YoungBucksTasteBetter

Thank God for the electoral college - those who believe in the Constitution and conservative values are outnumbered here in the northeast and on the "left" coast; however come election time all those states in the middle of the country get to have an equal say. There's a great number of people who voted for this Kenyan socialist last time because they thought he was going to fix their 401ks. Let's keep our fingers crossed that after 3 years of running around the world apologizing for America, appointing socialist/communist "czars" that answer only to him and his ideology, and the failure of his trillion dollar "stimulus" boondoggle (now that it has failed they don't know what to do as they think Gub'ment programs are the answer for everything), that people's eyes have been opened and this next election will be much different.

So maybe it's time to ask the conservation council (which I believe is supposed to oversee the "dedicated" conservation fund to hire the right legal team and go after the Gov and other folks who are tapping into the license monies for the general fund. If it was supposed to be a dedicated fund and they are raiding it, the only think you really can do is take legal action to stop it.

Not a Ron Paul fan, but here is a link that shows some of the places that are now part of the UN based on all that: http://www.dailypaul.com/84439/who-owns-yellowstone-national-park-you-may-be-surprised

Actually, the Blue Helmets are here. Bill Clinton, using a presidential executive order (sound familiar), signed over the US National Park system to the United Nations in the late 90's. There are numerous posts out there showing entrance signs to various park entrances with an added block - "International Biosphere Reserve". As a result, when you visit "our" US National Parks, you are no longer on sovereign territory. Need any other reason to vote Republican?

Let's hope so..."drafted by the Justice Department"..is Eric Holder aware of this one, or was he too busy not being aware of the BATFE plan to help sell guns to the Mexican gangs?

Ok..so this brings us back to the reason for this topic. You CHOSE to start passing on smaller bucks based on what you wanted out of your hunting experience, starting in '94. Good for you. Why then are you supporting the imposition of forced, mandatory antler restrictions on those who don't want to hunt "your way" - shouldn't we all be allowed to CHOOSE the buck we want to harvest?

Good point..any shots you take would have to be at a deer that is truly close, and you have to hit them right.

Congratulations...check out the Cabela's Youth Gear section, she'll need good warm gear when you take her on stand this fall. I started taking mine with me early and as a result they view hunting/fishing/trapping with at least the same priority as the video games, etc.

One other "recipe"..take the back leg to a smokehouse, have them smoke it whole for you. There were some references to veal - in the cattle business there's a reason the older cattle are labeled "cutters and canners" - the younger ones are generally what are used for the better cuts and what you find on the supermarket shelves.

We should make it 150', but make it subject to hunting out of an elevated treestand. That way if you do happen to miss, it's sticking out of the ground below you rather than possibly sailing off to an unintended rendezvous.

Remington Core-Lokt. Always had good results.....

Doc brings up an interesting question. How many of the "pro-AR" guys on this site are able to buy up or hunt on locked up lands via their clubs, put in bait plots, and hence farm their own trophy bucks? Maybe, in addition to listing where we live and what zones we hunt in, we should all be indicating the conditions under which we hunt. I'm willing to bet that we'll find that it's the guys with all the private land, and the money to invest in bait plots that are telling the rest of us what we can/can't shoot. I'll start: I live in 3C, hunt in 3C, 3J, 3M. I hunt on public land as I don't have the money to buy land, build cabins, or plant non-indigenous bait plots that modify the deer's natural movement patterns. I have to actually hunt the deer I kill by scouting the ground ahead of the season, reading the natural sign as it exists for that year, and then adjust my hunting strategy to match those natural conditions. My hunting strategy involves actually walking into the woods instead of roaring around on an ATV.

Yep...now that we have crossbows it's time to start writing letters for the Atlatl Season...for pete's sake, boys, do you realize the hunters in Missouri are ahead of us? http://www.ammoland.com/2011/03/25/missouri-first-atlatl-weapon-deer-season/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed

I'd have to agree...I've hunted mostly on public land all my life and I've never hunted with the intent to target an individual animal - rather my Pop taught my brothers and me to find the "spine" of an area..that ridgeline or other feature where the deer all pass through (whether it be bucks wandering about in full rut or deer just generally trying to escape from other hunters in the area, etc). That tactic has served us well, and I can only remember a few times over the years where we saw the same buck more than once - when we did the sightings were normally spread out in time - as noted..it was "luck" to see them to begin with.

I live in 3C; hunt in 3C, 3J, and 3M. I've also hunted in Pa and NJ over the past several years (since my son turned as those states actually allow a hunter to bring his children into our sport before the video games take over. (As a side note, our experience in Pa involved seeing very few deer and listening to our friends in Susquehanna and Pike counties talk about how good the deer hunting was before AR and how bad it is now) Here's my data, right off the DEC website. It points to that fact that forced, mandatory AR in the pilot zone have not worked. In spite of the "3 year pilot" being allowed to run for 6 years now, the goals the program was supposed to achieve haven't been met. From June 2011 "A summary of New York's Antler Restriction Program" Pg 7: 3-8% of hunters living in AR zone have stopped hunting in AR zone Comment: That translates to 1 out of 15 hunters opting to hunt ( and spend their money ) elsewhere - if you run a business in the Catskills where the new plan is about to force AR on everyone, you should take note. Everyone knows there's a recession on, right? Pg 8: "Hunters in pilot program generally reported higher levels of buck-hunting satisfaction than hunters in the broader southeastern region of NY, though the recent difference was nominal in WMUs 3C/3J" Comment: Hunters in the AR zone don't feel any "better" about their deer hunting because of AR in the pilot zone Pg 8: "slightly increased levels of buck hunting satisfaction reported by hunters in 3H/3K between 2007 and 2010 were consistent with increased satisfaction levels also observed in the broader region" Comment: AR didn't change anything / made no difference. Pg 10: "in 2010, 56% of respondents in WMUs 3C/3J prefer that mandatory antler restrictions continue, where-as 30% prefer that they be discontinued" Comment: This is where I come up with my 40% mark - - 4 out of 10 hunters don't want this program. As I said in my earlier post, here's another case where the numbers don't add up to 100% - I work with statistics in my job, and the first year the DEC reported the "confidence intervals" for their data - the confidence intervals showed that the simple vote tally was "over-ridden" by the confidence intervals, meaning that the margin of error in the survey could actually show that the majority of hunters were against AR. One should note that they stopped publishing the confidence intervals in later surveys; if the margin of error is +/- 5% as is typical with this kind of survey, it's possible that the "majority" here is really only 51%. Also, I don't agree that one should simply assume that the 14% left out of the math in this quote, most likely "moderately against" AR, are just AR supporters waiting to be baptized in the river of trophy antler farming doctrine. Pg 11: "total buck take has generally remained >20% below pre-AR levels" Comment: I was in the Ulster Co. Federation meetings in 2004 when we were told that the buck take would return to "pre-AR" levels by the 2nd yr. Here we are 6 years later - the excuses now are about bad winters, too many doe permits, coyotes - it's like listening to Obama blame Bush for the economy. Sorry guys - after 6 years, the data says you're full of bull-dung. Pg 11: "A majority of hunters report being dis-satisfied with (1) the number of antlered bucks compared to anterless deer seen, (2) the number of older, large-antlered bucks seen, (3) the number of older bucks compared to the number of younger bucks seen" Comment: Even though the data claims that the number of 2.5 year old bucks in the harvest has increased, the hunters surveyed aren't seeing more or bigger bucks as the AR proponents claimed they would. It seems we're all sitting in the woods watching itty-bitty bucks walk around - you don't need to spend money on a hunting license if that's what you want to do. Pg 12: "Hunter expectations for the Pilot AR program were largely unmet" Comment: Again, it's been 6 years, and the claim was measurable changes by year 2. ARs don't work. From June 2011 "Management Plan for White-tailed Deer in New York State, 2011-2015: Pg 15: "Public support is strong when hunting is conducted for food, to protect humans and for population management, though support decreases sharply for hunting perceived as conducted simply for recreational purposes, for the challenge, or for a trophy" Comment: Anyone besides me notice that the arguments for AR involve the 3 elements that would be most likely to cause the non-hunting public to drop support for hunting? Pg 40: "As expected, the increased harvest of older bucks has not fully offset the drop in yearling buck harvest and the average buck take in the pilot area in 2009-2010 remained 22% below pre-AR levels of 2003-2004" Comment: Again, I was at the Ulster Co. Federation meetings before the pilot program was started, where DEC and all the trophy antler farming faithful swore that we'd be back to our pre-AR harvest level, shooting all them huge 2.5 year olds, by year 2 of the program. It would seem they were..what's the word..WRONG. Pg 41: "More non-local hunters indicate that they now hunt fewer days (19%) rather than more days (4%) in the pilot WMUs because of the restriction. Comment: Again, if you run a business in the Catskills where the new plan is supposed to impose ARs in 2012...take notice. 19% fewer days means less customer traffic through your doors. Pg 42: Table 1 - shows 57.4% of NY hunters (this is statewide now) want mandatory antler restrictions. Comment: This is another reason I quote 40% against......4 out of 10 of us aren't drinking the trophy antler farming Cool-aid. Pg 42: "When asked to identify which aspect of buck hunting is most important, 50% of hunters indicated that 'having the freedom choose which buck I shoot' is most important, while 40% indicated that 'having the greatest prospects of shooting an older, larger antlered buck' is most important" Comment: Hmmm, maybe I should be quoting 50% against trophy antler farming - nah, some of them are in the 50%. What they should have asked is "what level of satisfaction would you derive from screwing over your fellow hunters and forcing them to hunt according to your values instead of theirs?" - now that would be an interesting statistic!!! Pg 43: "No significant change in breeding success or timing is expected from reduced harvest of yearling bucks" Comment: There is no biological benefit to using AR as a harvest scheme. This runs counter to the claims of the AR fanatics, but then their chief biologist is on the QDMA payroll, right? Pg 44: "Over the past 15 years, the proportion of yearlings in the annual buck take has dropped 15 percentage points in the absence of mandatory antler restrictions" Comment: Those who wish to practice AR can already do so voluntarily, and apparently they are. This suggests that guys like me who are happy to shoot the 1st deer seen are becoming a smaller part of the hunting population naturally, and we don't need mandatory, forced AR. By letting guys like me do my thing, you'd actually have a supporter for your AR schemes if done voluntarily..but, too late, the trophy antler farmers have decided that forcing everyone to hunt their way (can you say "gun control for deer"?) is the way to go Pg 44: "DEC recognizes that interest in mandatory antler restrictions is strong among some segments of hunters and in some regional areas. Thus, the 5-year plan calls for continuing mandatory antler restrictions in the existing pilot area, and expanding mandatory antler restrictions in 7 WMUs" Comment: If you are one of the 40% in the pilot area who are against AR, you are screwed. Even though the data shows that AR hasn't made a bit of difference in these areas, your license dollars are simply less important than the hunters in that area who want to trophy hunt. A question - can anyone else think of a gub'ment program that discriminates against 40% of the affected population? Pg 53: "This 3/2 tag system gives multi-season hunters the opportunity to harvest a total of 3 deer, of which 2 may be antlered bucks, in addition to any DMPs they may acquire." Comment: To the question I was asked above - the current 3/2 tag system allows you to take 3 bucks if the 3rd buck is an antlerless male (button) or has spike horns less than 3" long (and I've found that when you are forced to estimate whether or not a brow tine is 1" or longer, it gets easier to estimate if that little spike's headgear is under 3"). Again, all data I quote is from the DEC website, from their most current surveys. None of it is from organizations that have been overtaken by the trophy antler farming crowd, or chambers of commerce listening to how much money will be coming in from private leases on property that will be holding all these big bucks in a few years, etc. It shows, plain and simple, that after 6 years in the pilot zone, the AR's have not worked. Sure, the bucks are 1 year older, but we aren't seeing more of them, they aren't any bigger than what we saw before ARs went in, there's no biological benefit to the deer herd, and in some cases their has been negative economic impact for businesses that count on hunters for their daily bread. We need to do away with forced mandatory ARs in these areas so that the 50% of hunters who value "choice" in their decision to harvest a buck can get back their way of hunting - if you still want to voluntarily practice AR, buy your 500 acres, put up the 10ft fence, borrow the Mid-Hudson QDMA chapter's bait plot machine, and have at it. But as for me and the poor guys like me who only get a few days a year to hunt on public land - let me have back my choice to harvest whatever buck I want.

Patron Member.

I hunted PA for deer in 2008-2010 (when my son was between 8-10). We hunted on a family friend's place in Susquehanna County and on public land in Pike County. In spite of hunting (literally) every weekend that the deer season was open with both Firearm and Bow, we only saw a few deer and never any good bucks. The folks we talked to in both counties are not happy with the results of the Pa AR scheme, and would like to see it changed back (they stated things much more strongly - let's just say that Gary Alt shouldn't travel too far into the backwoods in those areas). It's a shame because they tell fantastic stories about what the deer hunting in Pa was like before the AR system came into place.

I've never been sent a survey, and in the clubs I belong to no-one has ever been surveyed (at least no one has admitted to it). I have to wonder if the surveys even matter - - looking at pg 23 of last year's Hunting and Trapping Guide, you have the head of the DEC deer team putting out a full page add with one of the leaders of the QDMA movement. Here's a hint - the part of that page that is talking about "hunter management" is talking about you if you don't happen to buy into the trophy antler farming way of thinking.

Helping my 10 year old daughter prepare for her NJ bowhunting test. She's putting 5 out of 5 in a 12 inch circle..just need to get her up to 35 lbs draw and we'll be ready for the test.

Here we go...another trophy antler farmer quoting how everyone under the sun is for AR, and we should all just accept it. Except there's a little problem....do you notice how his statistics never add up to 100%? (Ex: 63% support yearling protection, 15% against?) That's because our trophy antler farming buddies and the DEC wrote the survey to tally "strongly against" and "moderately against" as separate categories, and then didn't count the "moderately against" votes. He even talks about "home rule" after listing support from the national QDMA office (hmm..local rule?). It all still boils down to 40% of the sportsman in the current AR zones getting screwed despite the fact that after 7 years the DEC survey shows that a) hunters aren't seeing bigger bucks, they aren't seeming more, "better" deer, and c) they aren't more satisfied with their opportunity to take a bigger buck (the deer kills is still 20% below what is was in 2005). Even if I accept the idea that the average deer is now 133lbs - under the new plan (at best) we'll be allowed to take one of them. Under the old rules, we could take 3 of the 90 lbs variety...since I really am a meat hunter, the old rules - and the choice to take the buck I choose, not what some trophy antler farmer tells me I can take - sound much better. The 40% of us out here who don't want AR have to become more vocal - we don't have these national trophy hunting organizations funneling money into the politicians' campaigns and giving the CO's annual awards dinners, so we need to start writing those letters and making the calls ourselves if we're going to stop this trophy antler farming nonsense.

Well..that's the law now, and my opinion is it needs to be changed. I respect the decision of those who pass on smaller bucks, but I'd like to to go back to having the option of shooting the little guy if I decide to do so (dare I say go back to having my fellow hunters respect my choice to hunt the way I want to?). There's an economic element to this too; based on the DEC data there's a large number of "non-local" folks choosing to hunt in areas outside the AR zone; approximately 1 in 15 of the folks living in the AR zone are travelling outside the area to hunt (and spend their dollars). Anyone who runs a business that depends on hunters' dollars should be concerned with the expansion of the AR zone out to their areas...if the current data extends to the folks in the expanded AR zone, they'll be seeing less money this hunting season. Anyway, as you say, this can be argued forever. Working on my letter to the DEC, asking them to free the 40% of us who don't agree with AR to free us from the tyranny of this trophy antler farming scheme.

First of all...congrats to your 15 year old..sounds like it was a nice buck. You're kind of making my point...I'd like to see us all have the CHOICE to pass on that little buck or not. I have been shooting does, but since the DMP quota in 3C was cut the last couple of years I was using the tags that came with the Bow/ML license to get it done.....now it appears that DEC will take those away in the new plan, so we're down to "1 buck only"...if that's the case, I want the choice to shoot that tasty spike on the last day of the season.

My experience in 3C/3J has been the opposite - the deer aren't any bigger, the bucks being taken are small-racked 6 pointers with a brow tine barely over the 1 inch minimum. No matter how you slice it, the DEC's own data shows that there's no biological benefit to the deer herd from AR, and 4 out of 10 hunters in 3C/3J don't want forced, mandatory antler restrictions, yet they are slated to continue. Maybe it's because I work in the private sector, but last I checked with my marketing guy he didn't recommend that I adopt policies that will alienate 40% of the people who spend money in support of my salary. Apparently things work differently when you work for the gub'ment. Since the boys who want to force antler restrictions on the rest of us can already voluntarily choose to wait for that elusive big buck, why are we so gung-ho to put the screws to the 40% of the rest of us who are happy with any deer at all? So my thoughts on antler restrictions - if you want to do them voluntarily, go forth and have fun - but they shouldn't be part of the game management law, as the data doesn't support having them there.

Kudos to Gov. Cuomo for signing this. We've been running to Pa and NJ the last couple of years...my son has already said he's looking forward to hunting without having to commute...

Apparently the person who published the article only talked to a few select folks. We've had AR in 3C/3J for 6 years now....the data collected by DEC clearly shows that the bucks walking around in this area are no bigger (or "better" as the AR lackies like to say) than back then. There's lots of talk as to why this is (in the most recent Outdoor News one of the comments was that we had a bad winter in 2004). So back in 2005 we were shooting itty-bitty 1.5 year old bucks...now we're shooting itty-bitty 2.5 year old bucks. The constant claim that any big buck shot in this area was due to AR is false as it ignores that fact that bucks just as big were taken from this area long before ARs were put in place. If it ain't worked after 7 years, it ain't gonna work. The guys who want to protect that 1.5 year old buck because it's "their trophy" a year or 2 from now need to buy that 500 acres, put up the 10 ft fence, and have at it. Those of us stuck hunting on public land haven't seen a difference, and we'd like to have the option of choosing our own trophy given back to us.