A Sportsman

Over here on LI they are saying rain Thursday thru Sunday. Not burning a vaca day to sit in rain in hopes for a doe. Plus I don't like the prospect of the rain washing away a blood trail.

What about an animal at rest that decides to start walking when you release? And I never said 800 yard shot with a rifle is ethical. This conversation always winds up at the same spot. As I mentioned the other day we aren't changing each others minds.

IVe never hunted out west. But I can understand how the flat terrain and style of hunting may allow for further shots than the eastern part of the country...to a point. As stated multiple times a deer can move 2 steps in the time it takes for arrow to arrive 90 or 100 yards. To me, that means archery equipment isn't appropriate for that kind of range. Frankly I don't care how many people shoot at that range. To me it's a no no. And honestly, if you can tell the difference between two lungs or lung liver or gut liver at 100 yards, whoever did your eyes is a miracle worker.

Adkhunter, now do you understand what I was saying a few days ago? This is what comes of the effective range discussion. If you are going to claim that you make 90 yard shots with a bow on a hunting forum, right or wrong, you are going to get some "blowback" from other hunters. Most people consider 40 yards far (as shown by responses). 90 is double that! Which is why when you initially stated it, so matter of factly, on that other thread, I responded with some sarcasm On a 90 yard shot, how do you see the impact of the shot well enough to determine whether its double lung, lung liver, gut liver, gut, shoulder? Say the arrow stays in deer, how hard is it to see what kind of penetration you got? I ask these questions because you'll need to determine how long to wait until you start to track. my point is that, at that kind of yardage, the variables that go into recovering a deer become more difficult. It's not strictly about "making the shot".

In other words, What a wuss!

By glancing over this list, I see that author is routinely factoring in how "cold and snowy" a state is to figure out its deer hunting ranking. My goodness. Not a guy I would want to share camp with.

Nyantler, here is my math. I take one full week off for opening of gun season each year. Usually hunt second weekend too. So Like 8 days of hunting. And I pay for those 8 days for the other 357 days per year!!! All kidding aside, balancing fishing and hunting with marriage, with 2 young kids, has been really hard. Married about 7 years. In that time I've gained a lot of respect for couples that have been able to hold it together for many years. I've also gained respect for those that said "the hell with this". Marriage, especially for a passionate fisherman AND hunter, can be a difficult path.

20 and under as a rule for me. But I suppose I'd shoot 25 if it was a real nice deer and the shot was clear. I practice out to 35 or 40 regularly, sometimes a little further.

Sorry rob, my bad. Good luck NOrthern zone hunters! Go getem Sunday!

Adkhunter, as you said "agree to disagree". These discussions regarding hunting shooting ranges always end up at the same impass. There's the believers who state how well they can shoot and how careful they are. And I have no reason to doubt someone's ability, specially without even knowing the person. And there are people like me who state, among other things, that a deer could take 2 steps forward in the time it takes for an arrow to travel 100 yards. Not that the Deer is even jumping the string. Maybe it just decides to walk forward at that moment. We aren't going to change each others minds. but either way you can't deny that 100 yds shots are controversial. Hence the way you casually mentioned that you are tuned in to "90" is a little off-putting for those hunters on my side of it. But you've explained yourself. You seem like a decent person. We just disagree. Whatever.

Wow jjb4900, I didn't know that. I can't believe the dec would allow that kind of a waste of a resource. What a shame. And it's even more of a shame that someone who calls himself a hunter would do it. Oh well.

I agree with practicing at longer ranges than your hunting range. It does make the closer shots easier. And I do that myself. But I really don't want to argue with you as to why ridiculously long shots (like 85 yards) are a no no. I'm not gonna change your mind. Good luck.

just to be clear, if hunters hunting on a nuisance permit are tossing deer and wasting the meat, they should lose all hunting privileges. There is no excuse for it.

I am not aware of any hunters shooting deer and throwing them away. Hope that isn't happening much or at all. I am more apt to believe that it may happen with nuisance permit killed deer. In terms of public access, my take is that it seems to be improving. dec and county have made strides in recent years. Which is a blessing. And much of this land has pretty good deer hunting. The downside is that since its public you can't control what other guys do there. Like bust into all the thickets scouting and hanging stands a week before the season and all through the season. Yay! The 150 foot rule puts hunters too close to houses in my opinion. But it also has definitely helped hunters access more land. Which is nice. Personally,, I refuse to put a tree stand that close to a house. But it's nice to be able to set up say 300 feet as opposed to 500. I'm not sure I understand this business about getting all kinds of permission. As long as you stay 150 feet from any building, you are good. Of course if you shoot a deer and you need to track it within 150 of a building you need permission. But it's always been that way, regardless of set back distance.

85 yards should cover you. If a deer walks out at 100, just hold another foot and a half high. I'm personally tuned and sighted in for 150. But I only shoot 100 in an actual hunting situation. You never know if there is a twig 140 yards out that you might not see.

You make a valid point regarding the percent of hunters on the whole from metro area. Maybe that was a lousy example. but my point was that ny game managers should take everything into account in setting regs. Not just mimic other states because it worked there. All that aside, since you had to reiterate your senseless comment it's obvious you do have a bug up your A about downstate hunters. It's ok to admit it.

Trial153, who said the world revolves around NYC and Long Island? I was pointing out one facet of ny state hunting that may make it a little different than other states. Nothing more. You seem a little sensitive about downstate hunters thinking the world revolves around them.

That said, guys who refuse to shoot any does at in these areas truly are not doing their part. And that is a shame.

I respect nyantlers opinion on it but I'm not sure i am fully on board with what he is saying. We have half as many hunters as we used to. Ok. So just because it's falling out of favor with other people means I should have to go shoot over double the amount of deer as I used to? At what point does this logic fall off? If hunter numbers drop another 20 percent, would those of us left have then shoot 4 times as many deer to "do our part". Doing our part should be more about introducing hunting to others (recruitment) and enjoying time in the woods. Not killing as many deer as we can. If that's what some hunters want to do, kudos to them. Frankly, my goal first is to enjoy myself.

That's it in a nutshell for me doc. For one, These states do not have the biggest city in the country in them. How many hunters from nyc and Long Island flock to all over upstate each year. What percentage of Catskills and adk hunters actually live there? Very very few. To not take things like this into account is shortsighted in my view.

Vinny, according to dec published statistics the ratio of doe take to buck take on Long Island is right on par if not better than many high population areas across the state. And we do this without a gun season across most of the woods here. To me that suggests that Long Island hunters are trying to do their part. In addition lots of deer (I believe about the same amount that hunters kill each year) are shot on nuisance permits. I think there are other factors at play (besides a little reluctance from some hunters to shoot a doe) as to why dec is having a hard time dropping deer numbers down to their desired levels here. That said, if every single hunter decided, or was forced, to shoot at least one doe, i bet it would help the dec's cause.

Doc/ NYantler, How much do you think the drop in hunter recruitment has to do with this inability to kill enough does? And What about other cultural changes? I tend to think, on the whole, there are less hunters who are learning how to cook. And probably destroy venison when they prepare it. There are more hunters nowadays who either don't like it themselves or are married to women who refuse to eat it. Heck I think less families actually cook their own dinner on a regular basis than in years past. There are also hunters who don't shoot many deer because of the "terrifying experience" it will be for their wife when they bring it home. As stupid as that sounds. Also what about butchering? Do fewer people butcher their own? If I didn't do my own, at 80 a pop that starts to hurt my wallet. Another thing to consider is land development and suburbs? As more land is developed in some of these over run areas, deer crowd into what woods there are left. And they exist in suburbs that are off limits to hunting. I think these factors certainly play in to the reason why hunters in some areas may not be killing enough deer to meet the the goals (as mysterious as they are) of the dec. It's a darn near impossible task to begin with.

I would think most hunters would value the opportunity to obtain that second buck tag if we started the season with one tag. Some OBR fans might forgo obtaining the second buck tag. But the vast majority would be looking for that early season doe, which is what state wants in these areas.

At the time the bonus either sex tag program ran, NY hunters already had 2 tags that could be used for a buck in their pocket. I can say that personally the opportunity to exchange a filled doe tag for a buck tag never really meant much for me. many years I shot a doe but didn't bother checking the deer in for the bonus tag. 2 buck tags is all I really wanted/needed. and I would bet many other hunters are similar. Shame that this important factor would likely be overlooked by dec in assessing whether the earn a buck bonus tag would be entertained along with OBR.

Yes doc, this type of rule is more palatable than simply having the one buck rule to me. In my mind, it puts emphasis on an attempt to manage does/deer population, by area, as opposed to having a flavor of "a way to have larger bucks". I would hope that if a rule like this would pass, that the bonus buck tag could be achieved by taking one doe, not 2.