steve863

I didn't say it was likely to happen, but I honestly think it would work better than the system we already have. Places like the Adirondacks where they don't issue doe permits wouldn't get hit any harder than it already is. Not like the locals don't kill doe up there with bow tags and muzzleloader tags. Instead of the possibly two doe they currently may take with a bow and muzzleloader tag, they would be allowed only one with the system I suggested. I also doubt that down staters will be flocking up there to kill a doe when they will have a doe tag that they could fill closer to home. I don't think there would be too many negatives with this system. I would agree that there probably aren't too many hunters that get more than one buck per year, but there are some. One buck per year should be enough for any hunter. Make it a rule that one buck is all anyone can bag, and this can't but help keep more bucks around for another year.

I think some fawns continue feeding from their mothers until well into the fall. I have killed at least a couple of does that still had plenty of milk when I gutted them. If they had weaned their young as early as August or September, they surely would have been dried up by late November and December when I shot them. Same as human mothers. If the baby does not feed for a few days they start to dry up pretty fast.

You're right, it would be better if we had more figures for those WMU's with AR's, but the link I posted does show that fewer bucks have been taken since AR's, so this can't completely be discounted. It may be due to less deer in general or due to AR's, but it doesn't seem like more hunters are getting opportunities to shoot a buck if less bucks are being shot. What you or anyone else is seeing in your neck of the woods doesn't mean everyone else is seeing the same thing. From what I hear from you guys, that DEC graph would be off the chart since the implementation of AR's with successful buck hunters if things were as good as you guys claim.

How has it increased? The buck take is down in the AR regions according to the DEC since AR was implemented. According to their graph the number of 2.5 and older has increased slightly, but the overall buck take is down. So who do you think is happier with this scenario? The guy who cares only about bigger antlers or the guy who is happy with any buck he might have a chance to take? Plus a good many of the hunters in those regions can't even draw a doe permit, so there reasons for hunting should be what??? http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/27663.html

No, I don't think I am. There is absolutely nothing that any of you have tried to tell us here that doesn't lead to bigger "antlers" as being the center theme.

What I would do is eliminate the DMP's altogether. I would give everyone a buck permit and a doe permit that could be used anywhere in the state. No extra tags would be available for bowhunters or muzzleloader hunters to kill any more bucks or doe in their special seasons. Each hunter would have a two deer maximum no matter which weapon they choose to kill them with, just as we do with turkey for example. I think this would be the best solutions where we wouldn't have game hogs killing too many deer, and it would beat any AR restrictions in existence where no hunter would kill more than one buck per year and this would surely guarantee that we'd have more bucks grow to an older age. If the state sees a need for more does to be taken in any specific region, then they can easily issue extra permits there if they wish.

Thanks Doe for also recognizing this. Of course WE are the stupid, ignorant ones in the AR's folks minds who think we are resistant to any change. With change come other consequences which I guess the AR folks don't bother to think about. I give high marks to the DEC on this one for looking at the issue from all perspectives and NOT just taking the word of some vocal AR advocates.

And Steve863 has a fondness for young bucks. LOL You could get locked up for that. Oh, I almost missed this one. If I remember correctly, you live in California? Was it YOUR unnatural yearnings that took you there? They are more obliging to such things out there I hear.

Why don't you boys just admit it. All you guys supporting AR's care about are antlers and that's it. Everything revolving around deer and hunting boils down to antlers for you. Your deer biology is centered on how big a rack you could grow. That antler is the hunting utopia for you boys. Every other hunting tradition others might hold dear mean absolutely JACK to any of you. I often wonder what the general public, and I'm not talking about rabid anti-hunters, but those who have little opinion about hunting would think about hunting if they knew that the state is implementing rules that might potentially grow some bigger male deer for trophy hunters to shoot? I think many non-hunters can accept deer being killed to control deer populations and for people to put meat on the table, but when you start throwing out the word "trophies" and "trophy" hunters their opinions may just start getting swayed against hunting sooner than later. So keep up the good work boys! Just wait until the word gets out to the man on the street about how your deer biology is all about the antlers that you want on your walls. I will assure you that their will be even less private land available for people to hunt once all this becomes general knowledge and our already suspect reputations amongst non-hunters will not get any better either. This is probably the reason the DEC has been reluctant to implement AR's elsewhere. They know what the charade is all about and who is behind and they don't want to put themselves in a situation where private landowners and the general public think that they are now managing deer for trophies instead of population control. So you guys can keep dreaming and tooting that the majority of hunters out there want AR's, but you will not see it implemented elsewhere in the state any time soon! Don't think your WMU's where it is in effect is safe either from it being repealed. Just wait and you will see.

I tell it like it is, if you can't handle it, then don't read my posts. As others have pointed out to you, you are nothing more than a head hunter. All you care about is how big a rack you could bag and want others to sacrifice their hunting ideals just so you can have bigger bucks to shoot for yourself. You have no clue what hunting is all about and probably never will.

Just because two of you keep harping on how great AR's are, and keep posting completely biased articles from an organization devoted to QDM and AR's, that means it must be all true, right?? And when I was 6 years old I found a quarter under my pillow when I lost my tooth so I should also believe in the tooth fairy? Don't believe in the tooth fairy or anything you guys are touting I'm afraid!!

Hunter satisfaction up? Biological reasons? Proof in PA? Absolutely every one of these points can be refuted. Did you read the recent PA game commission report where they said: " An expanding research base supports the position that antler restrictions will have minimal impact on future antler development of Pennsylvania’s deer herd." You guys must live in a dreamworld!

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/27663.html In order for a comparison to be done, you need to get the buck take numbers from these units BEFORE 2006 when AR's were implemented. Posting numbers since 2006 don't tell us much. I don't know if such figures could be found, but the link above states and shows a graph that the overall buck take since 2003 is considerably DOWN since AR's were put into effect. Yeah, a few more 2.5 year olds or older have been taken, but not many more from prior to AR's. You guys can try to spin it any way you like, but these AR's are NOT giving too many more hunters those 2.5 or older deer like you guys are trying to make everyone believe. In the meantime the guys who would be happy with any buck are getting the shaft, thanks to your hokus pokus theories. And in at least a couple of those AR regions they can hardly get a doe permit to boot! Harvest in the Pilot Antler Restriction Units (WMUs 3C, 3H, 3J and 3K)Harvest data (2003-2008) from the pilot units indicate:overall buck take is reduced; bucks 2.5 years and older make up a greater proportion of the buck take; and the number of 2.5 year old and older bucks taken with antler restrictions is slightly more than prior to antler restrictions.

Yeah, it sure is amusing! I will be the first to accept that living under ANY government we will have all sorts of restrictions. Some we may like and some we may not. The AR's however do nothing other than benefit one segment of hunters at the expense of another. In a pastime like hunting where hunter numbers have been steadily decreasing this is not a good thing.

It could probably be used as the finisher on a mortally wounded deer. Maybe we should refer the guy who didn't have the heart to slit the deer's throat to this thread. He could just stand over the deer calmly and tell him to breath deeply.

That's exactly what I was thinking here. In general vegetables can make you more gassy, so how can such a pill really be preventing body odor?? Even if it reduces odor, there still has to be some odor coming out of ones gut when flatulating. Maybe combined with scent block clothing it will work. Does anyone know if scent block clothing prevents ass gas odors from getting thru like it does sweat odor? Maybe I should call the manufacturers to find out? I would think some can still escape down the pant leg and out the cuff. I've seen at least one hunter clear away the leaves under his feet in exactly this fashion.

I have a family member who can set off the carbon monoxide detectors with his ass gas. Darned near had the fire department break down his door!

I sure don't wear scent blocker clothing or use scent killer spray while I hunt. You can waste your money if you want, I won't. I manage to kill deer without it quite nicely. I do shower and use soap however. So do most people, whether they are hunting or not.

I am no chemist, so I don't know much about this. There usually are some sort of side effects with most any pill one ingests. I just don't think taking any pill while hunting to prevent body odor is necessary. What's next? Pills that will make our urine smell like doe in estrous? I wouldn't be surprised if some rich Texan is paying some drug company to come up with it already. Just like they paid biologists to come up with QDM. Oh sorry, I forgot. I shouldn't be bringing up QDM/AR's anymore!

OK, so now hunters are now taking performance enhancing drugs like pro athletes?? And some will argue that it isn't becoming a competitive sport?? This has got to be the silliest thing I ever heard. I don't care if I stink like a skunk to deer. No way will I be taking pills just to help eliminate any scent while hunting. Taking ANY drug has some side effects to the body. I can't believe this potion doesn't either. No thanks!

I bet you know the answer! Why is it selfish to kill that spike?? How do YOUR theories help the herd and exactly what have you done for the hunting community?? The state wants deer shot and they could care less what the age of the deer is when it gets taken out of the population. The guy killing that spike is participating in the population reduction that the state needs. YOU fellas are the selfish ones where you want everyone to hunt the way YOU want to hunt and want people to pass up younger deer so YOU can hopefully have bigger ones to shoot. How could the people who simply want everyone to hunt any way they wish be more selfish then YOU boys who want to put more restrictions on what people should be allowed to shoot?? Your point makes absolutely NO sense. People buy hunting licenses in hopes of bagging a deer. In general they don't buy licenses to look at deer and wave goodbye to them for a few years until they grow bigger. You can look and wave at deer without purchasing a hunting license. If YOU want to pass up deer for 20 years until that buck of a lifetime walks in front of you, that is your choice. Don't for a minute think that everyone should be making the same choice.

It's NO different than taking a 2.5, 3.5 or any other age. The state wants deer shot and they could care less what the age of the deer is as long as a certain number of deer get taken out every year. It is only important to those who consider antlers the most important part of hunting. The AR/QDM proponents have paid biologists to come up with these schemes and theories on how they think it would all improve the herd, but none of it has been proven in any shape or form. The state of PA along with others after a number of years with AR's have come to the conclusion that AR's will not benefit the deer OR trophy potential, so then how could these AR people have any leg to stand on as to it benefitting the herd or trophy potential? It is all wishful thinking on their part. Give it enough time and it will be proven ineffective in NYS, just as it was elsewhere. The regions in NYS have now had it in effect for several years so as the monkey said when it's tail was cut off. "It won't be long now"!!

My friend who owns the land where I hunt was a bit ticked at me last year for not killing that bear. He said that he knows a number of people who would have gladly taken and eaten that meat. I told him if they want bear meat they can go out and shoot it themselves. I honestly have no interest shooting any more bears. I don't want the meat nor will I spend $1000 or more to make a rug out of it, so why should I shoot it? Let the beast live on!

Whether or not the folks in your WMU are in overwhelming support of AR's, it doesn't have anything to do with Culver's statement being wrong. He obviously knows what hunting is all about, and the rest of you still need to learn. We all know that what the majority may think is far from always being correct. AR's may just be another example of this.

I always figured eating a bear is like eating somebody's dog, just a lot bigger ..... lol. It's just a mental thing with me based on absolutely no logic, but I have a hard time eating a carnivore. : Somebody else can have my share. Doc I agree. Any meat can be edible I guess, but I surely am not desperate enough to eat bear meat at this point when I have numerous other options.