nyantler

That last pic is cool how that buck has his whole beam resting on his back like that when his head is facing backwards... what a buck...

That is just ridiculus...using AR's to change the focus from bucks to does?? You actually believe that???? All they need to do to get more guys killing does is to make it so they have to fill a doe tag in the park before they can kill a buck... that alone would reduce the number of bucks taken and increase the number of does taken without having to implement AR's... see thats what I mean about putting crap out that isn't true... that is something you made up or heard from someone else that had no idea what they were talking about and desided that you would use that as an arguement against AR's... sometimes we need to admit that we just don't like something because we don't quite understand it.

Yes .. NO comparison .. that skin mount is beautiful

I have 2 rules when chosing a taxidermist... never chose a taxidermist that says he'll have your head done in a couple months... or one that doesn't have the hide properly tanned and tumbled... other than that you need to see the guys work.. and not just the stuff he finished yesterday, you need to see work that is much older to see how well his work is holding up over time.

Shooting older bucks doesnt get rid of does, smartass. Actually it does. If all the guys shooting spikes and four pointers shot a older buck or a doe. The amount of older bucks will never be as great as the number of yearling bucks, so therefore shooting older bucks and does does balance out the herd. I don't see where your confused. Sorry, but just implementation of ARs does not accomplish what you are talking about. You would need to completely revamp the DMP system so that all hunters would be guaranteed a doe permit, and in some areas of the state, thats just not possible. Again, shooting older buck does not get rid of does. So you're telling me if less bucks are shot and the same amount of does are shot then the buck to doe ratio doesn't become more balanced? It's not to hard to figure out. Do the simple math. The AR isn't a cureall for everything, but it's a start. I live in Greene County. Right on the Hudson River. There are way more does then bucks. For example two years ago, opening day, I saw 14 different does and fawns. No buck. Many time you can drive around and see 10-15 does and fawns. No bucks. I don't know where the rest of you live but in my neck of the woods the truth is it's pretty close to 12:1. Believe what you want to. If x number of does are being shot currently, and you propose no additional does being shot, how is that going to lower the number of does in your area? You are talking about less bucks being taken, but are all of those additional deer still within the area's carrying capacity? What I am trying to explain is that AR will not "fix" your area's herd without other steps being taken, and it certainly does not bring a buck to doe ratio back into line. Very good point... and one that the DEC has to look at very carefully when mandating any form of AR.. there is always a decline in buck kill with any AR program in the first year or two... doe kill numbers would need to rise in order to maintain some population control in a given habitat.. AR's is not the "end all be all" it is just a piece of the puzzle when it comes to good whitetail management... probably the most important part of managing deer is knowing what needs to be done in a given area and having a game plan to meet that areas needs...that is the DEC's biggest challenge

A no buck season is also an AR...

developing 30% of a given area could be the best part of the entire acreage in terms of deer habitat.. so just because the percentage is small doesn't mean the impact isn't great

I think you hit the nail on the head... developement has been the worst enemy to hunters when it comes to available hunting land. The cul-de-sac that a lot of hunters live on today use to be good hunting land less than 30-40 yers ago in some cases.

Ohio's program works well for them.. I think it would be great here... I'm not sure NYers would really like the one buck rule or having to pay $15 for a doe permit... plus $24 for a license.. $19 for deer permit... and if you're a turkey hunter you have to by a permit for spring and fall at $24 a piece... throw in fishing and you're paying more than the super sportsman here...All that would go over like a lead balloon... As for the before season ratio.. it is theoretically possible... because of the average ratio buck to doe fawns born(51% bucks: 49%does) if you ended the season with 12:1... you would be very close to that same number come hunting season the following year.

I'm a firm believer that most hunters would rather cut their tongue out than have to tell their buddies they didn't kill a buck...

AR's need doe kill in order to balance ratios... without AR's and only dmp's the process is much slower and will never get ratios very close... in the first couple years when buck kill is usually at its lowest during AR's there will be a huge gap closing in buck:doe ratio .. after a few years buck kill begins to rise again... but by then ratios are much better balanced and adjustments can be made to the number of dmps issued... of course the challenge is that all this will play out diffently in different areas... making it tough to do on a state wide level... and most likely could not be done in most of the Adirondack Park. I agree with that. My overall point had to do with ARs not being a fix all for anything. They would need to be combined with a few other things to become even close to effective. Like GJS has said, take a good look at Ohio, very good hunting, something for everyone and all of that has been done with zero ARs. Instead of trying all of the novelty programs, why not just make the move to a proven system? Ohio hunters were and are very coperative with the program that Ohio adopted... try to implement it here in NY and see what the reactions are among hunters... Hunters here have the same reaction to any proposal made... I promise you there will be a huge uproar somewhere in the hunting community if we tried to go the way of Ohio..

AR's need doe kill in order to balance ratios... without AR's and only dmp's the process is much slower and will never get ratios very close... in the first couple years when buck kill is usually at its lowest during AR's there will be a huge gap closing in buck:doe ratio .. after a few years buck kill begins to rise again... but by then ratios are much better balanced and adjustments can be made to the number of dmps issued... of course the challenge is that all this will play out diffently in different areas... making it tough to do on a state wide level... and most likely could not be done in most of the Adirondack Park.

Lets just say for a minute that the State knows what it's doing (I know its a long shot) and they have decided that AR's are needed to help out herd structure in certain WMU's.. you can resent the mandate all you want... conservation laws and regs should not be made based on what you want to do, but rather what is needed... and although you own your land... you don't own the animals on it and don't have the right to make your own choices for what you think might be right for the wildlife in that area... the only right you have is to an opinion... which you can voice to the folks that make the rules. That's how it works whether anyone likes it or not...

That would make too much sense.. it's easier to use the meat hunting argument to stop any sensible management ideas..

To me that is one of the few good arguments for AR. Yes definitely one of the good ones...

You're still not listening Larry.. it's not about killing bigger deer. It's about balancing the age structure in bucks... the real problem is hunters like you can't get the big deer thing out of their head and look at it from a management standpoint.

A bucks rack has virtually nothing to do with his overall genetics.. it simply determines the configuration of antlers his offspring might have... it does not guarantee size or even necessarily number of points... a healthy mature bucks rack could be damaged during development, but that won't mean that he still can't be the best genetic speciman on the block. Sometimes I think Culling bucks as it relates to so called deer management... is more to eliminate the nasty looking rack than to really get genetically deficient bucks out of the herd. Although antler traits are carried on genetically... antlers have very little to do with the part of a deers genetics as it relates to herd health.

I agree... Seeing bucks go all wonky is pretty fun.

Ain't that the truth?????

And to the game departments a dead deer is a dead deer. They need deer shot off, and they could care less what type of headgear the bucks are wearing when they get shot. Genetics and antlers only matter to hunters. Game departments only pretend to be interested in both to make trophy hunters think they are doing something to grow bigger bucks for them. Funny how genetics automatically means ANTLERS to hunters. In humans genetics can mean intelligence, looks, types of personality you might inherit, the type of diseases you might be prone to, many different things. Who is to say that a 4 1/2 year old scrawny antlered buck doesn't have some better genetic traits than one with huge perfect antlers?? Who the hell really knows? All hunters care about are the horns, which tells me this interest in deer genetics is nothing more than a self-serving one for hunters. Where do you come up with this crap? Spoken like someone who truly has no idea what he's talking about. If thats your opinion thats fine but none of it has any basis in fact. So go ahead and explain to us why ANTLERS are always the center of discussion when deer genetics are talked about? Do you know what other undesirable genetic traits that perfect 10 pointer might be passing on to the health of the herd, or does it really matter to you guys as long as the good antler traits are passed? I may know nothing but you sure as hell won't be able to answer this question with any certainty neither. LOL Antlers are the center of attention because guys like you pass that incorrect information around.and others believe the crap guys like you throw out there ... the dominant buck in the herd is not determined by the size of his rack... deer don't go around comparing each other antlers to see who has the nicest rack and then elect him the dominant buck... the dominant buck will more often than not be the biggest and strongest buck and could very well be the 8-pointer and not the 10 pointer... the only part large antlers have in the mix is that when there is a balanced buck age structure... the older and wiser bucks will be the ones competing for top breeding rights not the yearlings or smaller bucks... and for the most part they are the ones that carry the bigger thicker racks. The only part of genetics the herd cares about are the capacity for bigger and stronger... survival of the fittest so to speak.... just because hunters care about antlers doesn't mean they have anything to do with genetics... other than they might be an advantage in a buck fight. You are the perfect example of how hunter use the ignorance of others as there defense against something like AR's or the need for a balanced age structure in bucks. I totally agree that if the motivation for AR's was just to create big antlered bucks to hang on peoples walls then that is the wrong reason to have them.. but whether you like it or not a balanced age structure in the buck population in any herd is much better for the herd.. especially the younger bucks that are suppose to be spending there time and energy building body size so that they can reach their potential as mature bucks... 110 lb bucks are suppose to be breeding themselves to the point of exhaustion... it's hard enough for a mature 160-200 lb buck to make it through a tough winter after a heavy rutting season... when there is a good age structure younger bucks are more submissive and less agressive during breeding season.. allowing them time to grow stronger so that they can someday take their place in line maybe as dominant buck... ARs are the only proven method of bringing a lopsided age structure back into some kind of balance so that can occur. Now you know something you didn't... so you can stop posting crap and start at least coming up with an argument that is based on actual reality... not some guys notion of what he thinks ought to be reality.

My kinda guy

Coyotes are far more wiley than whitetails I think and harder to get a look at especially at close range... and I dont think baiting is a big issue when it comes to predators... It just always strikes me funny that guys have diferent ethics for different animals... though that shouldn't really surprise me i suppose

So we'll assume #5 will be #1 tonight

Great Story!!!

OMG that sounds like me Doc...