A Sportsman

Phade, I Don't think it's very fair for people who gun hunt in areas where you won't be allowed to shoot a doe. That asIde I don't see why "fair" needs to be such an important part of the regulations. We have always had different regs around the state. Deer Rabbit and squirrel season length varies. on Long Island we have a 5 day fall turkey season and no spring turkey season, etc. etc. I've been hunting under an AR rule that I hate for he past 5 years, While most of state hasn't. That's not fair. (Not that it has effected my hunts all that much). Phade, I almost never disagree with your opinions on deer hunting. oBR is the exception. As fsw said, not everyone will be happy. I won't be.

I'd have have to pass on every single buck regardless of size with the bow for a month and a half on long island (a place loaded with deer) just to be able to hunt deer at my camp upstate. I guess for some people that's not too big a deal. But I gotta tell you, it sounds terrible to me.

i guess that's what it will come down to. Hunter preference. IS it fair between hunters? Yes. We'd all be in same boat. But does it disregard whether or not a specific area needs it? Also yes.

WNY buck hunter, If I shoot a buck in 1C I would be done with bucks for the season. And Since there is no doe harvest allowed in 3a, and never will be, I will not be able to hunt deer there. With the low amount of hunters, let alone successful hunters in 3a, the one buck rule will do virtually nothing in that area. So basically i will be giving up opportunity, in my case in the area that I grew to love the hunting tradition in, for no reason at all. Explain how that makes sense. Maybe I am slow on the uptake? I gun hunt on tens of thousands of acres in areas where virtually no one goes, yet somehow I'm supposed to start going somewhere else in another part of the state to look for a doe? That's what my gun season is reduced to? I realize I could save my buck tag by not using it for bow. But we have a 4 month bow season on Long Island. That is something that is unreasonable to ask me to do.

It's easy to say "expand where you hunt" so that you can go to an area where you can shoot a doe. But that's not exactly wine and roses for a lot of people. My dad and uncle have been hunting the same span of mountains in the Catskills since 1968. My brother and pair of cousins still carry out that tradition with my dad and uncle (been almost 50 yrs). And we hope our kids will keep it alive when we die. With OBR, if I shoot a buck on long island with bow, I will not have a tag to hunt the Catskills. Sure I can go hunt somewhere else but it would be a darn shame. And for what? So a handful of "second" bucks do not killed over the 60,000 acres of state land that we hunt. I just can't see the one size fits all approach of OBR being the right way to go. And I see westchester county mentioned above as another place in need of OBR. Another county that perennially produces record book bucks. Is it me?

where I hunt in the Catskills, the severity of the winters controls deer numbers more than hunters do. Whether Joe Schmo shoots one buck or two, the effect on hunting the following years is essentially zero. On Long Island I could understand how forcing guys to kill only one buck would increase doe harvest a certain percentage. Which may help dec whack the population. But My gut tells me the effect wouldn't be all that great. Most guys will continue to take what they need (one or 2 deer). In some cases a guy who would have shot a second buck will take a doe. Guys who perennially whackem and stackem will continue to do that. I guess the bottom line idea that will be propagated is that even though some of the biggest racked bucks come off Long Island every year, that's not good enough. Nothing is ever good enough. Welcome to the 21st century mindset. As I've stated, if there are areas where buck doe ratios are out of wack and/or there are no big bucks, I'll at least understand the impetus for OBR. But in the 2 areas I hunt it don't make sense to me.

where I hunt in the Catskills, the severity of the winters controls deer numbers more than hunters do. Whether Joe Schmo shoots one buck or two, the effect on hunting the following years is essentially zero. On Long Island I could understand how forcing guys to kill only one buck would increase doe harvest a certain percentage. Which may help dec whack the population. But My gut tells me the effect wouldn't be all that great. Most guys will continue to take what they need (one or 2 deer). In some cases a guy who would have shot a second buck will take a doe. Guys who perennially whackem and stackem will continue to do that. I guess the bottom line idea that will be propagated is that even though some of the biggest racked bucks come off Long Island every year, that's not good enough. Nothing is ever good enough. Welcome to the 21st century mindset. As I've stated, if there are areas where buck doe ratios are out of wack and/or there are no big bucks, I'll at least understand the impetus for OBR. But in the 2 areas I hunt it don't make sense to me.

So carbonelement...meat hunters are dopey, spike buck killers are idiots and people who shoot 2.5 yr olds are a problem. Wow. this may be hard to believe but your post comes off as a little elitist. would you rather have a handful of really sharp hunters around you who take vacation all season long and shoot the Bucks you are after? And if every buck was permitted to live until it was 3 or older, wouldn't it somehow dampen the feeling of accomplishment as a hunter? After all, every deer killed by every hunter would be that old.

I thought the ideal buck to doe ratio was 1:1. Just because a buck can breed a handful of does doesn't necessarily mean their numbers should be managed on a 1:6 ratio. my guess is that would not be ideal for the health of herd genetically because it would ruin the hierarchy amongst bucks as to who is doing the breeding. Plus as for hunting, with a little bad luck, numerically you may have to see 30 does before you get eyes on a buck. I'm not sure what the impetus for one buck rule is. My only guess is that, like AR, it's a means to create a deer herd with bigger bucks. But Instead of a mandate (like AR) it's more passive way to force hunters to hold off on shooting smaller bucks. I got a problem with our state regulators officially buying-in to managing the herd to grow larger bucks. Especially as a blanket rule across the state. As I stated earlier, if there is a legit area that has very very few big bucks, and it can be proven, than I'll listen. But, let's be honest, all it takes is 3 yrs for a buck to grow to most people's definition of "big". My feeling is that a fair number of bucks live to the ripe old age of 3 all over the state. But as tough as it is for some to swallow, they are hard to kill. I'll admit, Looking at my numbers personally, I'm pretty lousy at killing bucks 3 yrs old and older. But I know for darn sure they are there. Hunting and especially bowhunting for big bucks is a hard game. Its supposed to be hard. Wish more people would just accept it and love it for what it is. And not worry about how to change it.

I see this one buck rule as a reasonable idea for certain locations/scenarios, but not as a blanket rule for the whole state. If all I did was hunt one or two small peices of private land and my neighbors were killing small bucks left and right, to the point where I never saw big bucks ever I might support it. But for the areas that have the deer (Long Island), or don't have the hunters (big woods Adk or Catskills) I could care less who shoots a second buck, or who passes on a bucks to hold out for a big one that may or may not come. The following year Nothing will be substantially changed.

Last season my group and I saw noticeably less deer in Catskills than the year before. This despite some of the best still hunting conditions over opening week than we've had in quite some time. Presumably our lack of sightings were due to the Nasty winter we had 2 years ago. Now that we have had 2 consecutive harsh winters in a row I am expecting very difficult hunting in our area. Like circa early 2000s. We'll see...

I am not in favor of it. 1. As doc points out is a one size fits all plan without considering population and habitat and hunting pressure. 2. If it's true (as stated above) that only like 5 percent of hunters take a second buck, then what damage is that second buck really doing to the herd? Not much. 3. With basically a 3 to 4 month season depending upon where in NY you live, I really value the opportunity to tag a second buck if I choose. 4. Many ny hunters travel from downstate (nyc, Long Island)!to hunt. Ohio does not have this dynamic. If I shoot a buck on Long Island early in season, there goes my tourism dollars that I normally spend in 3a. (Can't shoot does there). 5. There are places in ny where deer numbers are low, Like ADK. Does should probably not be killed there. So if that's the only area you hunt, after you shoot one buck your season would be over. I do not know very much about Ohio, but unlike ny, isn't most if not all of the state the same type of habitat? Do they have areas that are over run with deer that need special attention?

Good point Grow. That's probably what dec believes. "How many people are actually going to go into a "forever wild" area that isn't holding very many deer, to hunt with a bow. And then, of those, who actually is going to take a doe. Few I guess.

I can only assume that the dec believes that while does should be protected in these low deer density areas, bow and muzzleloader hunters should be entitled to shoot a doe for no other reason than they probably worked their tail off for that doe. Furthermore, 3a is also an AR area. If you're gonna tell a guy hunting 3a with a bow that he can't shoot does, and can't shoot bucks unless they are 6 pointers, may as well also tell him he can only hunt with one arm tied behind his back.

Agree Doc. I really don't like the way this thing reads. It's as if they are more concerned with making numbers of people happy (including non hunters) as opposed to strictly focusing on deer numbers and habitat. It's like they are removing the science behind their decision making processes and replacing it with advice from more people who likely know very little about ecology and wildlife management. Also, is it me or did DEC eliminate the use of the word "management" and substitute it with "change". Maybe I am nitpicking it, but the phrase "deer population change" is used over and over where it should be "deer population management". Maybe it's just semantics, but to me this substition makes it feel as if the DEC is trying to distance itself from what has been primarily their job. "Change" implies there may be little they can effectually do once they take in advice from the CTF. "Management" implies an active/aggressive role with a stated purpose and puts more responsibility on DEC to succeed.

It's been mentioned a few times here and in the 30 page thread that Long Island hunters are refusing to shoot does. Looking at the published 2014 take I see that for every buck killed there was about 3 does killed. To me that does not sound like a group of hunters who don't shoot does. Going one step further, if you compare that ratio 1:3 to other areas of the state that have high deer population you'll see that it's Better than many/most other areas. This could be a function of the limitless doe tags handed out. Or not. No way to tell. Regardless, My feeling, as a hunter, is that I don't have a desire to kill does day in and day out. Sure I like taking the does that me and he family eat, but going out to kill a pile of deer just to give them away is not something I want to do. And I'm not going to feel bad or apologize for it. At the end of the day, if hunters on the island simply can not kill enough deer to make the DEC happy, it doesn't mean we failed. We never signed up to be killers, we are hunters. Just as an afterthought, a suffering hunter recruitment for the past 20 yrs is one thing that is at least partially within our control, that could have been a silver bullet.

Nyslowhand, I've shot several deer closer than 10 yds from tree stand. Good shots that catch 2 lungs or lung heart. I usually hang my stands between 13 and 16 feet off the ground. Depending on what the tree allows me to do. I think your comment indicating that a hunter doesn't have an advisable shot closer than 10 yards may be true if the hunter is way up high in the tree, like 20 plus. But is a little misleading without that caveat. Obviously the higher you go, the worse the close range shots become.

During rifle season the only hunting I do is in mountains usually covering a lot of ground. My go to gun is a ruger m77 compact in .308. It is very light (5 and 3/4 lbs) and very short stock and barrel but I'm pretty small too (5'7") so it's a nice match. I love it.

Hi Joeydee914, I hunt the gun season in the 3A forest preserve areas. Its not Adirondacks, but it is big woods. There are a few threads in the "Big Woods Hunting" forum of this sight that really provide some great tips that you can apply there. You should check them out. cover lot of ground, dont use treestands, Stay in the woods all day (no coming out for lunch), use topo maps, etc. There was a time decades ago when the forest preserve areas had more deer and more hunters. I may be generalizing a bit, but lack of logging has caused a drop in deer numbers. And over time, there has been less hunters willing to put in the effort/time it takes to have success. The areas still have deer, but its tough hunting. My advice would be to go in with the understanding it may take you some time to learn your area well. And try to appreciate this type of hunting for what it is. If seeing and shooting deer is "everything" to you, you will be pretty disappointed. Also, it would be ideal if you have a hunting partner or two that is willing to travel as far as you are. For safety, getting deer out of the woods, and planning out hunts where you may bump deer to one another. If I didnt hunt with partners, i'd probably never venture all that far, and that would cramp my style in a big way. For the past several years, I've usually been getting a buck. But I usually commit between a week to 9 days in the woods. I've had some years where I get eyes on a handful of bucks in that time. And other years where I only see 1 or 2.

Funny Larry , Phade, I guess I am not alone in my willingness to inconvenience myself more for a big buck than a doe. I shoot my share of does. I'm not going make excuses or somehow apologize for passing does at times when I'd shoot a buck early in season at inopportune times. Hard to figure there are hunters out there who wouldn't understand this. But that's fine. hunting is supposed to be fun. Follow the rules and enjoy yourself.

Steve863, Who are you kidding? "Skinned, quartered, and iced?" You forgot about giving the deer ample time to expire, tracking blood in the dark, gutting it, and dragging it. Usually all by myself. And thanks for twisting my words. You literally twisted my words to mean almost the opposite of what I meant. That takes skill. Ever run for office?

Stubby, the reason I would shoot a big buck in early October warm weather, but may pass on a doe in the same situation is because I will be more willing to deal with the inconvenience of the kill if it's a nice buck. In other words shooting a big buck gives me more sense of accomplishment than shooting a doe. Since you posed this question I take it that you do not share the same view. That's fine. We all don't have to hunt for the same reasons and with the same motives. As a bow inter and rifle hunter the season is long. If I don't want to deal with a doe in the early heat of October, it's a nice luxury to have.

For the folks here claiming bowhunters "don't shoot enough does" You still don't seem to be grasping the bottom line concept. Bowhunters are also gun hunters. Whether they take their does in bow or gun season is immaterial. A man only needs to kill what he eats. As belo and I and others have said. A dead doe is a dead doe. More deer will not be killed if bow hunters shoot more of their does during bow season. And I will Echo what he and doc are saying, seems like a few guys who gun hunt but do not bowhunt are wrongly making this a bow hunter/gun hunter thing. Bowhunters ARE gun hunters. I guess I should be arguing with myself then!"

Yes Grow, even in some high density areas a bowhunter can have a rough go of it some years. Bow hunting is hard. It's supposed to hard. Murphy's law was created for bow hunters. Which is one of the reasons we love it. I would think a bowhunter passing on some does during the first week or 2 of the season while trying to shoot a big buck that they've scouted should be rather inconsequential terms of deer take for the entire season. I usually pass on does for first 10 days or so hoping to surprise a big buck. This year I will likely hunt a little less the first couple weeks. And I'll leave potential big buck stands alone. but I'll still get out and try to take a doe. especially if convenient (cold weather, short drag, have time to butcher, etc.)

As Stubby points out, bow hunters and gun hunters are largely the same people. Few guys who hunt with a bow do not hunt with a gun. So, I'm terms of deer take, how is it that bowhunters could be pitted against themselves? The dead deer are generally winding up in the same freezer. If a bow hunter shoots more does this year during bow season, as the state wants, that same hunter should theoretically shoot less does during gun. My goal each yr is to put 2 in the freezer. I'll shoot a third sometimes. That's what my family consumes. Whether the deer are shot with a gun or bow is immaterial. So this talk of punishment or bow hunters not meeting some mysterious Quota seems silly.