phade

Boom! First try! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pm sent Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's step back and look at the big picture...ignore the red mark from a prior discussion.

But but but there's science involved! Lol. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The either sex tag needs to go - and I think many people probably agree. It causes problems in areas where there are no or few DMPs. They should manage doe harvest separately altogether from the tag perspective.

Anyone can propose a bill in that role. Just because it is written means they used anything other than political posturing to do so. Slowhand nailed it. The SAFE act was probably one of the biggest acts Cuomo will ever "organize/push" through legislation and the legislators couldn't even get that right (what they see as right). Leaving out the police's ability to carry their necessary firearms...give me a break. Now we see WMUs in the overpopulation areas in and some out and we're supposed to believe that it was based on science? Please. It's as simple as Slowhand described. Poorly written. Poorly executed. Typical of where we are today here in NY.

haha - glad to have you back here!

Glad to see I shook the apple tree this morning.

I am definitely not excited about the status quo, but I also don't want to throw spaghetti on the wall. That said I can't complain too much because we (my hunting partners) tend to do pretty well year in and year out. Three hunters and a 2.5, two 3.5s, a 4.5 and a 5.5+ this year. The poor sap who shot the 2.5 y/o passed on a ridiculous 3.5, too. AR is simply not the right direction, even. Season structure, tag allocation, removing legislators from the body of science so the DEC could be proactive, etc. That is where the direction is "right."

Antler shaming - you must be a liberal. You probably worry about manspreading, too.

I've hunted plenty of places outside NY for whitetails. I still think AR is a crock myself.

Some people here cannot seem to wrap their head around it - because they met face to face, so it must be true.

Sure thing boss. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the thing - its only one spot. We have others. No spot is the same as another spot even if it produces mature bucks all the same. Sounds vague but you've written a ton on this and I think you need to simplify because all I see is paralysis by analysis. In hill country, target the military crest and 1/3 line from leeward side. Learn how thermals play in your specific hill country and find the beds and where they want to get from those beds. Take stabs at it and be aggressive. Not going to win many games sitting in the bleachers.

This is a fun conversation. People kill big bucks in a variety of ways. You only see a few core characteristics when paneling hunters who have this history and its more about the hunters' attributes than the actual steps they take to kill bucks. Outliers are money/fortunate circumstances. Everything else is theory or molded into their practice which eventually are only proven by the mounts on the wall. It becomes an "it works them" belief system. Not everything applies across the board to all mature buck hunters who are successful. Mobility is great advice. But having a spot is also great advice. Moog and I killed what likely are a 4.5 and a 5.5+ this year from a "spot." Two different stands a mere 40-50 yards away but also weeks apart. I saw another buck the day I killed the 4.5 that was probably 5+. Sometimes a spot is great advice - because it produces. There are people I know who cannot hunt themselves out of a paper bag, but who are fortunate enough to have a spot. I can't argue with them as soon as they point to their wall, however. There is something to be learned from everyone.

But that is the thing - some of those no buck zones are in this bill some are not - bet dollars that this was because the author was simply uneducated. I highly doubt the DEC has data drilled down enough to allow this bill to be factually based - especially because the whole no buck thing was dropped like a hot potato across all of those zones - if it were in some but not others, then I'd be open to believing the DEC has that level of data. It much more likely was hastily written.

If hunter numbers fall because of access - the problem becomes MUCH less about AR and more about population control. Let's face it AR is a nice to have, not a need to have tool, even for those who support it. At the end of the day, the resource as defined by the DEC can be managed simply by issuing tags and season/implement dates - and that's what the DEC will focus on if population control becomes an issue. Don't believe me, we can all remember the no buck rule. That showed they will enact what they "believe" is right when they absolutely need to when it comes to population control - regardless of hunter input. That is why we'll end up with a MZ season in Sept or Oct in these same WMUs. Let's also not forget that changing hunter dynamics are in play - archery accounts for 23-24% of overall harvest nationwide, whereas 10 years ago it was ~15%. More urbanization = more bowhunting and more crossbow hunting.

If science were included, they would not have put in some overpopulation zones, left some out, and put in zones at 4 point where 3 point is much more likely effective. You put 4 a side in some of those zones - you know what this is mimicking? It's mimicking the first time PA did it and over-prescribed the 4 pt side and had to back down on the WMUs that had that level. That caused a TON of hunter frustration right out of the gate for them. There is little science involved in this bill. It's hastily written and is clearly "written" by a legislator whose team is uneducated. Remember the SAFE Act that didn't allow police to carry/arm certain firearms and they had to push through another clarification to it? That is exactly what this bill is - the former, not the latter.

It's the same old circle. Those who can afford to or outwork, do. Those who cannot or will not, don't. ARs involved or not, that won't change. If it did, states like PA would be more different - they didn't go through a leasing boom or access issue more or less than what they were before or in-line with the "general" trend in hunting.

dbl post

By eliminating a larger population of the pool, they now have revenue generation that didn't exist prior. This is also politically motivated; not biologically motivated. If it were, this document wouldn't have holes a Mack truck could drive through - such as the WMUs in and out. Or the fact that some WMUs have as much as 30-35% of their one year old bucks with 3 points a side. AR is supposed to advance the age class at a higher rate to two. There is no getting it - if you have two spots - find a third if the first two aren't meeting your needs. It took us having an active 6 properties we hunt to get where we wanted. None are perfect, but they all add up cumulatively.

That is the unique thing about hunting - I see the opposite. When you find a mature buck, you will have a higher odds of finding another there the following year and so on and so forth until something macro-level changes that trickles down. This is even more specific when it comes to world-class bucks - I'll loosely define as 160 and up. I see them come from the same specific areas within good buck areas.

At the very least, they should exempt first time hunters. We seem to stick our head in the sand that new hunters = young hunters. But the whole thing isn't a smart move either.

If you have one spot, and your neighbor is killing every yearling buck (legally), that's really on you. Not him. We do not hunt a parcel that is larger than 70 acres, and no single parcel has more than 25 acres of timber/cover. Not every place we hunt has what we're looking for each year. Putting all of your eggs in one basket isn't your neighbor's fault.

What are you even saying in all this Mumbo jumbo? It's laughable. Even worse because this is a poorly written document - most overpopulation zones are out, but not all, they require four to a side in many units, and these units have issues with producing 4 a side one year olds, which defeats AR. The point is this is why NY is where it is - this bill get air time when it's so bad the author should have the ruler smacked on their knuckles. It'd be nice if we could remove legislators from the science based portion of our hunting or require some sort of agency signoff/assessment before these docs see the light of day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk