nyantler

Good stuff.. hard to argue with facts... I'm sure some will argue the validity, but again, thats the human condition I guess. Although I'm not completely sold on the 3 on a side mandate as a sufficient AR... your argument is defintiely strong for it and it does seem to be something many hunters are willing to give a shot.

Actually could be higher... only 25% no.. 15% are on the fence.

Wow definitely exceptional bucks.. great video sam.

AR's weren't born out of the TV hunting mentality, but that was the tool that was used to sell the idea of managing for quality whitetails based on given habitat. AR's were not originally an idea for bigger bucks to hunt... it was a concept developed in conjunction with regulated doe harvests to help balance buck to doe ratios and develop better age structure among buck populations in given habitats. It was taken to the level you see on TV and sold as a way to increase the amount of trophy bucks opportunities to help sell the concept to hunters that had a hard time with the idea of passing on young bucks. Foods plots came on later from the original concept of better habitat development which was to plant natural browse to aid deer during the harsh winter months... that simple concept turned into the mass crop planting you see now spawned by "Biologic" type companies who saw an opening to help sell there product as a management tool. Although I am a huge proponent of deer management... I agree that it has slipped away from it's original concept to something a bit more like deer farming an less like natural managment.

The one buck rule would really get the guys battling... you can't make rules in hunting.. hunters should be able to do what ever they like, take as many of any size they like... they pay a ton of money to get their one weekend a year in so why should they care about rules, or conservation... it's all a scam anyway... nobody cares about killing a big buck... meat hunting is the right thing to do... besides they don't give enough doe permits... and all the crossbow hunters are gonna kill the deer first anyway... plus there are no proven biological reasons to maintain balanced deer herds... and all you AR lovin' deer management guys are just trophy hunters that coudn't kill a deer if your life depended on it... ONE BUCK??? OMG!!! that just crazy!! That would mean all the hunters would be through hunting at 7 am on opening day.. think of all the revenue the diners would lose out on...

Pay attention I said I'm not much for the 3 on a side rule, yet I think it's a start... it just doesn't go far enough. Don't read what you want .. read what I write.

LOL. steve.. you believe one young NY biologist over undisputed facts over 30 or more years across the country? I think I'd much prefer my experience with AR's and deer management for the last 18 years over your unfounded opinions. Find a real argument for why they don't work... I dare ya. No "biological purpose" as it purtains to hunters and hunting maybe... not as it purtains to proper herd management... I have spoken to many NY biologists and you can put their knowledge of whitetail biology on the head of a pin in my view... the proof is out there for all to see, state after state that have adopted "good" management programs. Like I said.. find one that hasn't worked... I dare ya. In your eyes they don't work just because you don't like them...

Fighting is the natural way of the whitetail... it's what they do in all the animal kingdom to establish dominance and create a pecking order where the strongest of the species survive and passes on the strongest genes... it's a built in survival mechanism... animals die, other animals live... the ones that die feed other animals.. it just mother natures way. Mans interruption in mother natures affairs is what changes nature. Before man's interruption, whitetails had balnced herds and age structures and they thrived on their own... management is simply trying to return them to something similar to the way it's suppose to be... Some guys will say there is no right or wrong answer... that is not true... there is.. they just aren't willing to except the right answer so they call out those who do. That is just the human condition.

You can go on and on about how much you don't like AR's, and thats just fine... some fellas will never get the concept. But, as much as you may not like them... they are part of any good management program and there is not a single fact that disputes it. Every program, everywhere in the country has done what it was suppose to do when implemented properly.. even here in NY... If we're not seeing the huge results like some of you would like... it would be because of the reluctancy of some hunters to properly educate themselves on the subject... forcing the conservation dept. to adopt lackluster versions of a sound program to stop all the whiners.

There is a reason that younger bucks are the highest %... and very few 4.5 or older in NY... think about it... you can have bucks that are older if you eliminate the potential to get older by killing them at a young age... for example... if there was a way to be sure of an older bucks age and the law was that you couldn't kill a buck younger than 5.5... in just a couple you'dhave a huge percentage of bucks in the 3.5 and 4.5 year old age class... on the flip side... if you could only take yearling bucks and no older bucks.... it wouldn't take long before yearling would make up 80-90% of all the bucks... because there would be few bucks left to make it to the older age classes... just simple math. The explosion of bucks that my first model shows is the reason why doe population control is also very important in any solid management program... a balanced herd should be the goal... both in ratio and in age class... the benefiit to the hunter is the byproduct of that goal.. healthier deer, bigger animals, balaced herds, better habitats... etc. The only thing standing in the way... is the selfish attitude of hunters.

Its all about age stucture balance among the bucks... a good representation of all age classes of bucks. Better age stucture produces more natural competition among bucks and help a herd with passing on stronger genetics... not just antler size, but stronger, healthier, more adapable deer. It also puts buck:doe ratios closer with good doe management and gets does bred earlier (during their first estrus) which makes for earlier born fawns that are stronger and better prepared for the NY winters. AR's alone are not the answer... they must be coupled with other sound management ideas.

Thats the kind of thing that I haven't seemed to be able to make some of you understand... I have never had a problem finding and killing big bucks.. the idea of any conservation effort proposed by New York that is just to produce more big bucks for hunters to kill does not interest me in the least... my concern for any AR is strictly from a management point of view...specifically buck age structure and it's benefit to herd management for future hunters... My love of bigger bucks come from the challenge that it gives me to hunt a mature deer, and there will always be at least one somewhere in NY for me to hunt. Good deer management is just smart and makes sense... but get excited about it as it pertains to my personal hunting?... Nah... there are far more important things to me personally than having more big bucks to kill or even hunting for that matter... it's just an enjoyable pastime.

Not me.. I hunt for a whole different reason and have been for the last 18 years... I haven't shot a small buck in all those years and have never gone without venison. passing on yearling bucks is way harder than getting venison. And I'm not sure why you think I care about what you hunt... I don't... I only care about what I believe to be good conservation efforts and will continue to be in favor of such... I don't worry myself about what others are doing or want to do... my opinions are only based on my thoughts of deer management concepts.

No.. I agree it has become something that it was not suppose to be in some respects... as for pushing meat hunters out of the way.. there are more antlerless permits than ever before, so that argument doesn't was with me... I did not judge you by your time to hunt.. I mearly said that conservation efforts are not and never should be dependent on how many days any individual hunter has to hunt... the fact that you hunt 1 week a year is your problem... not conservations.

The fact that new york or hunting shows chooses to make it commercial doesn't change the validity of the concept... if you don't like the commercialism then argue for the concept... a proven concept by the way, whether you like it or not.

So then because you don't have or take the time to hunt... good conservation efforts should be put aside to meet your needs? The idea of good deer management, which includes yearling buck protection.. should not take a back seat to any hunters' (yours or my) ability to get in the woods.

"Yearling Buck Protection is vital to wildlife viewers and hunters alike" This is exactly the type of statement that ticks me off... no mention of the benefit to a balanced deer herd! Unbelievable!

Another guy that just thinks its about big bucks... it's a shame what QDM has done to a lot of hunters by selling a good management idea as a trophy producing program. Although it got many of you to pay attention, it tainted a very sound management concept. I wish they would go back to promoting it as a herd benefit instead of a hunter benefit, because most of you just aren't getting it.

Yeah I was quite sure this area wouldn't be on the list. Not that it would have made a difference to me... hence, the reason I wouldn't be excited..

Although not a huge fan of the 3 on a side AR.. I do like that it finally gets guys thinking about passing on bucks which may in fact allow for greater AR's being accepted in the future.

I'd go for that!

I agree... it's a start in areas where age structure and buck:doe population are out of whack... but that isn't everywhere... so you can't just willy nilly impose AR's everywhere especially a 3 on a side AR and expect guys to get all excited about it... it seems to be working in some areas, but another form of AR might need to be used to get the proper results in other areas... I wouldn't be particularly excited about a 3 on a side AR in my area... much like Steve B's area... it would do little to protect yearlings. It would however probably do wonders for knocking down the 6-point yearling population that I have where I hunt.

Actually not true... spread measurement is the best... the "beyond the ears rule" would save nearly all yearling bucks... the problem with spread measurement for hunter is that they get all rapped up in the "what if"... like.. what if the buck is not facing you, or what if the rack is just to the ears... the answer to that is simple.. don't shoot... unfortunately most hunters are worried about hunting close to the rule instead of beyond the rule... With spread restriction... if the ears are 16" tip to tip... you make the spread restriction 14"... which makes "to the ears" no problem for the guy with itchy trigger finger.. anything outside the ears makes the grade easily... if you listen to the gentlemen here that have been voluntarily passing younger bucks, most of them don't have a problem passing on something that is too close to the minimum or a buck that they can't for sure determine spread width. They are not hunting close to the rule, but are hunting beyond the rule... and spread measurement is no problem. The problem only is with those that in reality need to take a buck at all costs and would rather hunt close to the rule to ensure that they will have an opportunity to tell their buddies that they didn't go without their buck that year..... face it.. we all know what a mature antlered buck looks like and what a small crotch, six or eight look like.. No AR will protect all 2.5 year olds that just comes with hunter experience... their protection comes from protecting yearlings and letting more bucks get to 2.5 where they will get another year of wisdom, which makes them that much harder to kill and gives them the opportunity to reach it to maturity.

Your concept is great if conservation is just to serve the hunter.. but conservation is for the benefit of the animal. The biggest obsticle of good wildlife conservation is the notion that it is to make hunting better... that is just a by-product of good conservation.

My guess is that its an injury or an infected insect bite that has gotten all pussed up... fibromas would bleed not ooze anything like that.