steve863

Typically Texas is a LOT more money.

As long as you understand that the odds of getting that 8 point with 16" in reality are not too great. I hunted eastern Montana four years in a row back in the mid 90's and never came back with less than an 8 point or better. Plus they had NO issues with a hunter shooting any kind of buck they desired, even a spike. Of course a hunt like that these days will cost you a heck of a lot more than one in Alabama would and so would the license. So like I've said, you sort of get what you pay for.

I hunted in Alabama once. It was back in 2000, my last out of state hunt. I agree the prices are reasonable, and accommodations are generally good. The place I hunted at was pretty strict about shooting only 8 points or better with a good spread. Some places will fine you if you shoot something smaller. Plus they allow you to shoot a doe or two, but in most cases don't let you do it off stands in their so called "trophy" areas, so in my case I didn't even get an opportunity to take that doe. I think when you talk about southern hunting lodges, the success is not nearly as good as they claim. Yeah, SOME nice bucks get taken, but plenty of people(probably the majority of people) go home without any since most places have strict rules in place. I think in general it's a fun, comfortable hunt, but success rates are not even close to places out west or in Canada. I guess if one wants a better bet for success when it comes to outfitted hunts, they typically have to cough up more money to get it.

I don't smoke, nor do I care if people do or not while they hunt. I however am not convinced that smoking or any other human scent will without a doubt send deer into the next county. Many times a foreign odor or something they catch site of will actually bring them in. Their curiosity can get the best of them, just as with humans. So what you guys think will definitely scare them off, may in fact help bring them in. All depends on what the deer has in mind at the moment. Knowing how to look for and find deer along with shooting ability with ones weapon is way more important than getting paranoid over trying to be scent free in my opinion.

I have had an 11-87 for over 20 years and can say nothing bad about it other than it's on the heavy side compared to other semi-autos out there today. This probably helps reduce recoil even more, but it ain't a fun gun to carry for a long time. It will cost more than a Mossberg or the Rem 870 pump, but it's still a whole lot cheaper than other semi-autos out there.

LOL, they might go up thru Mass, Vermont and into Canada and then back down into NYS from there. Sort of a reverse trip that the mountain lion made. LOL

And exactly how will it do that?

LOL! If you thought I couldn't see thru some self-serving baloney called QDM/AR's you obviously don't know me too well and haven't been around this forum long enough. I have made my points many a time in other threads. I have had a hell of a lot of people PM'ing me in support of what I have said also. So you can keep getting brainwashed by these biologists all you want. I really could care less.

Yeah, DEER BIOLOGISTS who were paid by trophy hunters to come up with ideas on how to grow more horn. Just go back and learn where and how this QDM crap started and maybe you will figure it all out. And then you call us ignorant and close minded.

OK good. I have always been suspect of damage permits and think they may be given out too liberally. I can see the farmers point of view, but every deer that is shot on nuisance permits and such is one less deer that hunters have opportunities for during the season and one less deer that will potentially have offspring. Whether their offspring might die of harsh winters in the future is not a given.

I tell you, this lust for horns has got to be some sort of mental condition. You guys keep touting how AR's have nothing to do with trophy hunting, that it's geared more to help out deer biology and no sooner does the discussion turn into horn measurements. Come on boys, some of us are not all as gullible as you and can see thru all the smoke here.

Yeah, I guess Rudolph, Donner, and Blitzen were once spikes or forkhorns, too. LOL

Why are you so sure about that? I surely have nothing against shooting does, but I don't think limiting the doe take per hunter as well as buck take would hurt. I know you mentioned numerous times here about all the DMAP you've filled and such, so I guess you have to come up with some sort of justification for each hunter killing more does than he really needs.

To get them to stop bitching, I would surely go along with that. I have NO doubt most of them would not like it, though. For it's a hell of lot easier and more fun bitching and blaming someone else for their lack of hunting ability and greed for big antlers. I always get a kick of those trophy hunters who say that they are just fine with not killing a buck for 15 years if it doesn't measure up to what they want and then proceed to bitch for the next two hours on how it's so easy or not manly to kill those dumb 1.5 year olds. Yeah, they are just fine with not shooting anything! LOL

Not true. A number of regions where AR's are already in effect where doe permits are next to impossible to get. Why even hunt there where next to nothing is legal to shoot?? AR's are a charade. I would have no problem with a one buck rule. In fact, I would have no problem with a 2 deer rule either. Fill a buck tag and doe tag and your done for the season, NO matter what weapon you get them with. You want more bucks around? Wouldn't be a bad idea to leave some more does around to produce them.

It's up to him to refute what he said. I have heard him make similar statements before. He must be the "superman" of hunters I reckon, since it's so easy for him.

Man, you are ONE disillusioned person! I would dare you to come and hunt where I hunt and drop these yearling bucks as easily as you think you can. Maybe you hunt in some sort of honeyhole where you have deer crawling up your back, but I can assure you it's not that way for many hunters out there.

Actually, I think you may be on to something with this one!

Oh almost forgot. You are the son that has to drive 3 hours to give your father-in-law your DMP permit, since he took the liberty in "killing a deer for you". LOL

Man, I'm just visualizing this! Must have been funny as hell. One side serving the feta cheese, while the other side pulls out the mozzarella! LOL Both countries are a stones throw across the Mediterranean from each other, yet the old generations think of each other as being from another world.

I will let you believe whatever you want. I have argued my position on this stuff many a time before. Your post is so typical of all others who think AR's is going to bring them opportunities at huge bucks. Good luck to you then. I hope to see the pictures of you posing next to some of these huge deer, just like I am of the others here who think AR's are great. I have a hunch I may have another long wait, though. LOL

Some scopes come with covers that you can use for storage. Or you can buy the rubber bikini type covers that are good for any scope. I just think most people who have the flip open things will keep them on their guns at all times, and then sooner or later will have them in the closed position at the wrong time while afield. So for me it's better not to even own such a contraption.

Man, I really think you got that WRONG! Also posting articles from a QDM website will do mighty little to change the minds of those of us who don't buy into this AR baloney. I think 13BVET has it right. Once the general public is made to think that the DEC is managing the herd for trophy hunting, then you will have more of them turn completely against hunting and join the rabid anti side.

I don't see a need for these flip open covers. Heck, both deer I shot this year came in fast, and if I was fussing with scope covers I probably wouldn't have had a chance for a good shot. I think sooner or later one will get caught with their pants down using these flip open things. Unless it's pouring rain or snowing real hard, I see absolutely NO reason to have the scope glass covered up while afield.

Don't hold your breath. You actually may not even see the additional 7 that is proposed for the Catskills next year. It ain't a done deal yet. Below is the reply I got from Jeremy Hurst when I wrote and asked him a few questions a few weeks ago. Thanks for your note and for expressing your concerns. You are correct that we see no biological need for mandatory ARs. We have repeatedly said that ARs are principally a social issue. It was based on the level of social interest expressed to our administration, that our agency decided to continue ARs in the pilot units and to propose expanding mandatory ARs into several additional units next year. Before ARs are a reality in the seven additional units, we must propose a regulation, a process that entails an 45-day public comment period. You may continue to express your concerns to our administration, local elected officials, and during the regulatory comment period which is likely to occur next February or March. Regards, Jeremy Hurst Wildlife Biologist