nyantler

I believe the main difference between a hunter and a photographer would be that the hunter plays an active role in conservation... not just in his contributions through the purchasing of his license, but in other things such as upkeep of habitat, population control, etc. Hunting may not be for everyone but hunting builds an awareness of wildlife that can be missed by other ways of enjoying wildlife. Not to mention... I enjoy can enjoy both hunting and photographing wildlife... double the fun. I think it's like the old adage, " If I have to explain... you wouldn't understand."

After the age of 12 your kids should already have what they need to do the right thing... if you haven't gotten the message across by then you're in for some sleepless nights. At 17 all you'll be doing by saying no is giving her all the more reason to do things behind your back. Just my take on it.

I could jump 5' in the high jump as a junior in high school... I would hope a mountain lion could clear 7 feet.

And that is it in a nutshell really... not to mention different styles of hunting along with different habitats can have varying success rates as far as seeing deer... which is usually directly related to success rates of killing deer. Then throw in the hunter that isn't exactly proficient with his weapon of choice and BINGO... there ya have it!

I guess I am one of those that pass on does early looking for a good buck... I like to save my DMPs for the late muzzleloader because I enjoy that part of the season... I have been fortunate to be able to fill my tags most every year... but can see how many others might not be so lucky if they are doing the same... which would mean that the chance of not filling a dmp is entirely possible for the trophy hunters... even with the best intentions later in the season.

Why change to a release if fingers are working for you?

You could POSSIBLY be right... but I would bet that the newbies or the weekend warriors make up the greater part of the 75% of hunters that aren't successful each year. I would also contend that the serious QDM fellas are not only hunting bigger bucks, but also taking out their fair share of does as well... with many of them actually tagging out each year. There may be some validity to what you're saying but not necessarily to the extent you portrayed... I don't know many trophy hunters that still won't fill a doe tag if possible during the year... there still are some old school hunters out there that will shoot any buck but refuse to kill a doe just because that's the way they grew up hunting. Just my take on it.

It really wouldn't matter what the DEC was doing in the way of management because there will always be a good amount of uninformed, nay saying, ignorant hunters that will be pushing back on whatever system is in place... its a human condition that runs rampant among NYS hunters. The DEC decisions are usually more about baby sitting the cry babies than anything... I'm sure they would love to do more but have to deal with the hissy fits that hunters have over the slightest changes... I am in full agreement that the DEC could stand to improve deer management techniques in NY, but I'm not sure that it would matter what they did... they would still get a hard time from a large portion of the hunting population. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't kind of thing.

Use to tent all the time when I was younger and the kids were younger... spent many a freezing temp night in a tent hunting the ADK's... older and smarter now... camp life is where it's at now... comfy bed... wood stove... and a stocked liquor cabinet and frig!

I think you're right about hunters being more cooperative about taking out does if they were confident that is what needs to be done in their area. Now that most hunters understand the importance of herd balance, they need to have proof that the balance is actually skewed in some way... AND the means to the solution has to make sense to them.

That all makes sense now...It would be nice to see a target number of what the DEC thinks herd numbers should be... I'm not sure how there can be a good plan without a clear target objective... yet somehow they keep throwing stuff out there and getting hunters all riled up... at least let us now what the conservation objective IS...

The numbers are definitely interesting as is the information you provided.. I would still contend that under normal circumstances and in most years we are putting the same number of deer back in the herd the following season as was taken out the previous season... but the 2002 incident is interesting in that.. IF population control is the objective and still trying to be achieved, and the current yearly take is around 240,000, why would the number 308,000 be that bad. Especially since 2000 and 2001 were 295,000 and 281,000 respectively. Seems to me the reason for the harvest number drop could have been due to the drastic drop in the number of tags issued after 2002 from 700,000 to 300,000... 100,000 below the current average. I'm not a statistician but seems like simple math to me and doesn't tell me that there wasn't a replenished herd size in those years, just less tags to fill.

Who says it was an over issue? Some might contend that 2002 harvest numbers is where we need to be... depends on who you talk to... and the number of deer taken isn't necessarily related to population.. harvest numbers are dependent on many other factors as well But, like I said ... the general population is less the problem than certain isolated areas.

For those that don't know... it takes just one fawning season to put back into the population of deer what was taken out the previous year. That is... given the current annual harvest numbers. Now that may not translate well in every habitat... every season, but more to the overall herd. So population control at present is going to be a concern, especially in areas where large habitats have been lost to development. That is where the greatest concern is for over-population in NY... the big problem with population control is that the DEC has not created ANY real plan for those areas except to issue more tags in that WMU... tags that cant be used in the areas with the worst population problems... the old hunting spots in that WMU that are now new neighborhoods teeming with deer!!

I agree.. I'm talking about giving incentives for filling tags not forcing hunters into a doe only option... FYI every DEC management decision is BAD to some hunter... like you, I am doing my part as well but there are many out there who are not... if the objective is the lower doe numbers then I'm okay with whatever it takes... again my point is that hunters always talk a good game when it comes to conservation, but most hunters could really give a rats ass if it means they cant do things the way the want... probably the best reason why things never get done... God forbid that maybe hunters might have to give up something to get something. I do however question, as Doc mentioned, why there is now a fee for doe tags if the objective is to get more hunters filling DMP's... that makes no sense.

True, I don't see any of that changing any time soon... access may be a problem and by the looks of things it is going to stay that way for some time... so the real issue is giving incentives to all hunters to do their part to reduce doe populations where needed. We all talk about being big conservation minded, ethical, moral hunters... but when it comes down to it there are many hunters not even trying to fill DMPs in their area... so it wouldn't matter how much access you gave them, they still wouldn't be filling tags.

I have a hard time with looking at hunters in categories... I'm a bow hunter, a gun hunter, like I always say, I'd hunt with a hammer if they had a hammer season. I always pass on does early saving the my doe tags for the late muzzleloader to ensure that I can get out to hunt late season.. I rarely have unfilled doe tags at the end of the season. The DEC would be right calling me a buck hunter, yet I still always do my part by filling my doe tags. I think the DEC would be smart in giving up incentives to take does... extension of the season maybe... added buck tag etc... I like the "earn a buck" idea... possibly offering guaranteed permits for the following year for each permit filled. We live in an age where many people won't give something without getting something... I say whatever gets us to the objective.

You're so right.. it like the DEC walks this tight rope all the time with their feet tied together... they are way over thinking easily solved problems. Not really sure why the answer always involves eating away opportunities of the hunter. Even opening bow season to guns as well would do the trick... oops.. I didn't just say that did I??? Just kidding Doc... But you got to wonder why they haven't offered up that idea yet with all the other ridiculous proposals.

might have to open a window to let some of the heat out!

propane

These days you are taking a big gamble relying on other peoples property to hunt... a lease is usually best if you aren't in a position to buy a piece yourself. But, the truth is that if you don't own your own and aren't willing to hunting public land... you might be out of luck some opening day when you find out the land was sold the day before and the new landowner won't give you permission to hunt... there goes your season. Just something to think about.

Again I don't think there is necessarily any correlation between entries into the Big Buck Club and deer populations, pressure, or fewer mature bucks. And although the number is down the last two years.. the numbers had been significantly higher years prior and since the trend by many hunters to pass on smaller bucks. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not really sure you're right.

The number is only 2/3 what the number was 3 years ago... but only 17 less than last year...The funny thing is that the numbers fluctuate for all kinds of reasons from year to year... everything from possibly poor weather during the season to hunters just not getting their bigger bucks scored that year. I'm not so sure there is always a correlation between buck (or deer) populations and the number of bucks entered... could be some years... hunting weather conditions can be a big factor as well I think. We haven't really seen any long term trends that might suggest problems with populations or habitat quality at this point.

Insurances rising has to do with the (stupid) actions of people not the invention of stuff. Like most things.. it only takes a few idiots to ruin a good thing... the ATV is no exception. I'm not a big fan of ATVs for getting in an out of your hunting spot.. but they are great for getting out a deer!