nyantler

If you lose every hunter then you have no deer management... that just will not ever happen...there will always be a percentage of hunters that will hunt no matter what... and if resident hunter numbers diminish too far... surrounding non-residents will be encouraged to pick up the slack with reduced license fees and other insentives... yes it is true that hunter satifaction is part of the equation, but hunter selfishness should not be...

My Uncle bought this "Dave Constantine" turkey call at a NWTF auction... it is the most beautiful call I've ever seen.. Constantine makes a bunch of beautiful calls... google him.. you gotta to see some of his stuff if you haven't already!

Absolutely right Steve.. we can't create management decisions around those that might try to buck the system and or do something illegal... that will always happen whether the laws are good or bad... some guys will just never go by the rules. management decisions should be made with benefit to the animal as the main priority... I do understand the need for the DEC and government to maintain a certain revenue level to be affect... and there is certainly a fine line between the right management decisions and keeping hunters happy... my bitch would be that hunters tend to care more about how management laws impact there hunting and less about how it may or may not benefit the animal. Those who complain the most about not having quanity and quality deer in their area are usually the ones that are against any type of deer management and want to continue doing the same things that made that area the bad hunting area it is.

First I do hunt more than one day. I hunt bow most of the season and a lot of gun also. And you didn't answer the question which tastes better a young deer or an older one. If you hunt for trophies the meet will not be as good. May look good on the wall but doesn't do much for the palate . I should have said taking 3-5 years of me making the decision on what type of buck to shoot. It's funny how angry you get when we think the gov't will take away our guns, but you have no problem with them taking away our hunting decisions as what to shoot or not shoot. If they restrict any more of our hunting privileges we will have no need for guns because there will be nothing to hunt. Just think how much the hunter success rate will drop.Dave Maybe it's just me Dave... but you seem to get very defensive when I make a general statement and somehow you think I am talking about you... I never said anything about you hunting only opening day... and I have.. what you call... "trophy" hunted for nearly 17 years and have never killed a big buck that didn't taste great... and I never get angry... I get passionate maybe but never angry over a forum post... what you may not understand is that owning a gun is a right.. hunting is a priviledge not a right... it is not your right to shoot whatever you want.. it is a priviledge given to you by the powers to be.. based on how and what they think needs to be done to control animal populations, ensure hunter safety, etc. If they decide that AR's are needed, wanted, or whatever then your priviledges will change... they aren't taking a right away from you.. they are altering the plan to suit the needs of conservation in their eyes... you don't get to make any decisions of what, where, when or how you can shoot anything if the DEC doesn't say you can... by the way you might have missed where i said I am not necessarily for mandated AR's... I am more for pushing voluntary AR... but yes I do like the idea of passing on young bucks (they taste gamey to me)

That is exactly what my point was. We are trying to legislate dedication to hunting. It can't be done and shouldn't be done. And if we continue to try by thinking up whole shopping lists of new restrictions and new methods of throwing new frustrations into the requirements of hunting, we should not be too surprised if we are not also adding to the problem of disappearing hunters. As we shouldn't be making rules based on what "avid" hunters want.. we also shouldn't be not creating rules to satisfy those that are giving a half hearted effort to hunting as well... the rules are made for the benefit of BOTH animal and hunter.. I just think many selfish hunters forget about the animal part of why rules are made. The opening day comment was not about how many days the hutner hunts as much as how many hunters are not satisfied with hunting if they don't get their deer at 7am on opening day. What you might consider restrictive and frustrating, I might consider challenging and exciting... you talk about losing hunters and and diminishing numbers of hunters necesssarily being a problem... I look at it as finally weeding out those that really put forth the least effort towards helping the cause of hunting... guys that hunt the least and bitch the loudest that things aren't good enough... and we're suppose to make management decisions to cater to the guy that barely hunts at all.. even if those decisions are not for the good of the animal? And as for meat Dave... younger deer are not necessarily better for eating... it all depends on who is cooking and how the venison is cooked... I have eaten both young and older deer for year and years and have had no complaints about the meat of either... but have been disappointed with how it was cooked.

No, the animal must be taken by fair chase and a game farm does not qualify as fair chase

First of all the taste of meat has noting to do with AR's.. secondly, that would be is 3-5 years to see the program come to fruition, there will still be plenty of bucks out there to shoot during those years... especially if it is a 3 on a side AR... You just might have to actually hunt more than just opening day to get one...Nobody is taking away 3-5 years of anyones hunting... just managing what can be taken. And yes maybe some of the immature hunters out there may take there anger out by doing something stupid like just shooting as many young bucks as possible.. but like they say.. you can't change stupid.

I have seen it time and time again. Once a hunter drops out, very seldom do any of them ever come back...... regardless of the reason. They find new recreations and ways to occupy their time. I have also heard people say "if they aren't serious hunters that want to hunt my way, who the heck needs them anyway?" I guess I see things a bit differently, and I do worry about policies that might cost further decline in hunter population. I have no crystal ball that I can use to say for sure that AR would cost any hunters, but nobody else has one that allows them to say that it won't. I do know that we have lost a lot of hunters, there are darn few new ones coming in, and that the dedication of many of our current hunters is getting weaker and weaker to the point where it would take very little for us to lose them entirely. From the level of opposition to ARs, I can probably say with some degree of certainty that we would lose some more. That may not be a reason to shoot down AR, but it certainly should be considered. I think the type of guys you are talking about are dropping because they aren't really as into hunting that much anyway... not because of something imposed by the DEC... It's just my opinion... but I really think that any decline in hunters has way more to do with the change in the times... numbers are declining because most children of hunters aren't hunting and there kids will probably not hunt either... it's so hard to get a teenage kid to want to do anything anymore that doesn't involve a computer or a cell phone... I think that guys like you and I, and other really dedicated hunters will always hunt... as long as we are physically able... regardless of how the DEC desides to do things... I mean I have spent a couple thousand dollars to go on a vacation that lasted only 10 days (not including money spent during the vacation)... I think $100 a year to hunt and fish... is an absolutely bargain... AR's or no AR's

$1980 an acre . Doesn't sound expensive . Surprised some developer hasn't grabbed it up . If they haven't grabbed it... it's because it's too expensive... not many developments going up these days

No layoffs happening in government... still growing in leaps and bounds. Anyone here have 20-30 staffers to help you do your job?? Or should I say do your job for you...

Good point... I think we have all learned that when it comes to money you can't trust politicians at all

This is pretty much my attitude on AR except that I do see one potential way that state-wide mandated AR could impact my hunting and the sport of hunting in general. That would be IF the imposition of AR had a significant negative impact on the decline in hunter numbers. I have no way of knowing if AR might be the final straw that drives on-the-fence hunters over the edge. Actually, I don't know anybody who can say for sure. However, put in combination with the fee increases, and a few other moves I have to wonder if we aren't simply accelerating this decline with every new restriction and hunter irritant. I don't know, but it certainly is something to think about. I'm not of the position that it would really have that much affect on hunter numbers long term... you might have those that are half hearted hunters now passing on a license the first coupe years, but I think once those hunters started seeing more mature bucks being taken by hunters over the years... hunter numbers would actually increase... I know there are those on here that talk down big antlers.. but I think the truth is that once they start seeing those mature bucks... they would be back hunting again... my worry is that the 3 on a side restriction won't be enough to see the benefit quick enough... places where antler restrictions are stricter and protect nearly all yearling bucks.. you will see the substantial benefits within 3-5 years... it is a little slower with just a 3 on a side restriction... either way it I will have little to do with my feeling about hunting... I have had little trouble finding a big buck over the years... I think when hunters experience the benefits of a good AR and have the ability to see bucks of all ages on a regular basis.. they will always impose their own restrictions to make sure they don't lose that experience.

Which gun laws do you think are common sense????

Ok..so this brings us back to the reason for this topic. You CHOSE to start passing on smaller bucks based on what you wanted out of your hunting experience, starting in '94. Good for you. Why then are you supporting the imposition of forced, mandatory antler restrictions on those who don't want to hunt "your way" - shouldn't we all be allowed to CHOOSE the buck we want to harvest? I don't necessarily support a state mandated AR... But I also wouldn't cry if they imposed one simply because my own standard is far more restrictive than what they are proposing.. so it really doesn't affect me...I like the idea an AR but I'm not a fan of current 3 on a side AR plan proposed by the DEC.. I am more for hunters taking their own initiative and passing on younger bucks on their own...

If the laws actually did anything they were suppose to do they would be much easier to swallow even for a staunch gun advocate like me... they just simply do not do anything to reduce crime or make people safer, and they do nothing to help preserve our 2nd amendment rights.

Even worse than that Doc is that they don't even care if we know its going on anymore... they thumb their noses at the public and do whatever they want knowing damn well there is nothing that we have been able to do to stop it... Larceny is a good word for it! In your face larceny to be more blunt..

One of the reasons many hunters do not see mature bucks is because they aren't actively hunting them... sure they would love to see one and harvest one, but most guys settle for the first buck they see, which shows up around 7 am opening day... I use to be one of those guys many years ago... I had a hard time seeing anything other than yearlings... in 1994 when I first started passing on younger deer... I saw more bucks than I ever saw before and killed my first huge buck... I believe it had everything to do with learning how to pass on younger bucks and seeking out areas that would hold bigger bucks... since then I have killed 11 bucks that score over 100 and have passed on well over 100 younger bucks that I could have killed... I don't think it really says much about how good of a hunter I am, but more about how patient I have become... and I'll grant you... it may not be for everyone, but it sure has made my hunting far more challenging and extremely enjoyable...

They are attempts to get guns out of the hands of as many people as possible... unfortunately those people are law abiding gun owners not criminals.. the anti gunners know that the laws don't make people safer and they really don't care.. as long as they restrict people from owning guns... as a matter of fact I feel less safe knowing they are trying to restrict my gun ownership.

Absolutely!! Agree 100%

If that sort of voluntary compliance is having a noticeable effect in non-AR areas, then there is no reason to waste the ink on any new regs. Seeing a few more big bucks doesn't necessarily mean that the age structure of the buck herd is stabalized.. it just means that some of the young bucks are squeeking through to get a bit older... but you are right... if hunters showed restraint on their own... there would be no need to waste the ink.

LOL.. I see that you are part of the "flock" believing that gun laws are for the safety of everyone. How you sheep allow the anti-gunners to make you believe this Horse$* is beyond me... I guess weak minds are easily manipulated

I see no problem with a person being able to petition in court for his gun rights to be reinstated... if he can prove that he is well enough to own them again and the court agrees... I don't see the problem.. but one should not have them reinstated without a court evaluation of his/her competency

Don't forget that even though there is no AR mandate in your area.. there are many hunters now that practice it on there own... which could be the reason for seeing bigger bucks... fewer hunters and hunters not getting in the woods as much may be contributing as well

I agree.. the state should only mandate when there is a need to protect something... as we all can see there are many different likes and dislikes when it comes to hunting styles... none of which are wrong as long as they're legal...

Show me where I said that stand hunters are not hunters at all... I said I personally consider it waiting not hunting and choose not to do it... and I am not against other hunters doing it if thats what blows their skirt up... it is a very affective way to kill deer.. just not one I choose to do You guys got all worked up about nothing... why should something that I see differently be controversial... it's my opinion... and I can accept that others feel differently... I got a better one for ya that might be a bit more controversial... I don't think it is much of a challenge to shoot a yearling buck either... now THAT will probably ruffle some feathers..